Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the Colorado Springs, Colorado metropolitan area is the home of the United States Air Force Academy, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, United States Space Command, Ft. Carson Army Base, Peterson Air Force Base, and Shriever Air Force Base. There are over 30,000 active duty and reserve military personnel in the city. There are nearly 23,000 retired personnel in the 5th Congressional District, which is based around Colorado Springs, the third largest DoD retired community in any Congressional District in the country. There is, however, no National Military Cemetery. The bill I am introducing today is a companion piece to legislation introduced in the House by my friend and colleague, Joel Hefley. At my annual town meeting in El Paso County on June 1, I discussed this matter with my constituents. There are many of them who feel strongly that a cemetery is needed and I agree. This bill will allow the thousands of eligible Colorado Springs military personnel, both active duty and retired, to have a chance to find their final resting place in the city so many of them love. I am aware that the Veterans Administration is not known for prompt and easy cemetery construction. I am aware that there are some areas of the country deemed to have cemetery needs more critical than Colorado Springs. But I do not think that should mean that the people of Colorado Springs are denied the ability to chose a cemetery for themselves and their loved ones that properly honors their contributions to the nation. I look forward to working on this bill and seeing its eventual passage.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that would temporarily suspend the duty on Fructooligosaccharides. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that would temporarily suspend the duty on Fructooligosaccharides. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation that will expand and improve Subchapter S of the Internal Revenue Code. I am joined in this effort by Senators Tim Johnson and Craig Thomas. I have introduced this legislation over the last few years and I am hopeful that this year we can get this important tax legislation enacted. The Subchapter S provision of the Internal Revenue Code reflect the desire of Congress to eliminate the double tax burden on small business corporations. Pursuant to that desire, Subchapter S has been liberalized a number of times, most recently in 1996. This legislation contains several provisions that will make the Subchapter S election more widely available to small businesses in all sectors. It also contains several provisions of particular benefit to community banks that may be contemplating a conversion to Subchapter S. Financial institutions were first made eligible for the Subchapter S election in 1996. This legislation builds on and clarifies the Subchapter S provisions applicable to financial institutions. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an explanation of the provisions of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation that will expand and improve Subchapter S of the Internal Revenue Code. I am joined in this effort by Senators Tim Johnson and Craig Thomas. I have introduced this legislation over the last few years and I am hopeful that this year we can get this important tax legislation enacted. The Subchapter S provision of the Internal Revenue Code reflect the desire of Congress to eliminate the double tax burden on small business corporations. Pursuant to that desire, Subchapter S has been liberalized a number of times, most recently in 1996. This legislation contains several provisions that will make the Subchapter S election more widely available to small businesses in all sectors. It also contains several provisions of particular benefit to community banks that may be contemplating a conversion to Subchapter S. Financial institutions were first made eligible for the Subchapter S election in 1996. This legislation builds on and clarifies the Subchapter S provisions applicable to financial institutions. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an explanation of the provisions of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Gregg, Ensign, Allen, Bunning, and other in offering this capital gains tax rate reduction. This will provide an immediate stimulus to the economy, there is no tax cut out there that can do a better job of heading off a recession. A capital gains tax rate cut will encourage saving and investment in our economy. It will help entrepreneurs to start businesses and create jobs. The capital gains tax cut will raise revenue for the federal government. After we cut the rate in 1997, the federal government received $200 billion in additional revenue. In just four years, we have $200 billion more than forecast before the rate cut. The tax cut will increase economic growth, increase revenues and reward investment in our economy. I urge my colleagues to support this reduction in the capital gains tax rate from 20 percent to 15 percent. I think this is one of the most substantial things we can do to, again, head off a recession in our economy. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, first I commend Chairman Grassley for his hard work in putting this tax bill together. He has done a great job as chairman of the Finance Committee, and we all appreciate how quickly he was able to get this tax cut out of his committee. He has provided critical leadership in the battle to provide tax relief to the American people. I reiterate, as I have time and again, the budget surplus is the people's surplus, it is not the Government's surplus, and it is time to refund a portion of this surplus to the people who pay the bills. They are being overtaxed, and they deserve a refund. This bill provides that refund in the form of lower income tax rates. It repeals the death tax. There is an increase in the child tax credit. There is relief on the marriage penalty provisions and tax relief for education expenses. That is a good start. I am one of those Senators who thinks there could be more done and should be more done as far as the size of the tax cut, but this is a good start. My hope is that we can continue to improve this bill in the Senate and in conference, and that we can work for more tax cuts in a second tax bill later this year. I have two concerns with this bill. First, the bill does not cut the income tax rates far enough. There should be no higher rate, in my view, than 33 percent. All of the tax brackets should be lowered so that we have only four rates: 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, and then the final level would be the 33 percent. In my view, no one should pay more than a third of their income in Federal income taxes. This is what the President and the House have proposed, and I am hopeful we can move to that in the conference. The second concern I have is that this bill contains no reduction in the capital gains tax rate. I will, therefore, be offering an amendment to add this tax cut to the bill. My amendment will reduce the top capital gains rate from 20 percent to 15 percent with those in the lower brackets paying only a 7-percent rate on capital gains. I have two versions of this amendment. One is a permanent rate cut. The other is a 2-year rate cut that should clearly raise revenue even under the Joint Tax Committee scoring. I cannot understand why we do not have a capital gains cut in this bill. Both parties have come together in support of immediate tax relief to stimulate the economy, and, in my view, there is no tax that could do more to stimulate the economy than a further reduction in the capital gains rate if we could cut that further. If we want to pull the economy out of its slump, if we want to revive the stock market, if we want to return to full economic growth, we should cut the capital gains tax. The greatest irony is we could cut this tax with no loss of revenue. In fact, a capital gains tax cut will actually raise revenue. This occurs for three reasons. First, a reduction in the tax on capital gains will, purely and simply, increase economic growth. Second, it will increase the value of capital assets held by taxpayers. Three, when the tax is cut, people will sell more capital assets. We open up the gates of commerce. Remember, the capital gains tax is a voluntary tax. It is only paid when the assets are sold and investors are much more willing to sell capital assets when the tax rate is lower. This is not a theory. It has been proven time and again by history. Let me reflect on a few of those historical moments. In 1997, we reduced the capital gains tax from 28 percent to 20 percent, and many of you, I think, in this Chamber will recall the debate over whether this would raise or lower revenues. We now have the answer. Revenue from capital gains increased dramatically after the tax rate cut. In fact, in just the 4 years since the rate cut, 1997 through 2000, the Government has received $200 billion more capital gains revenue than forecast before the tax rate. I repeat, $200 million in added revenue in just 4 years. I call my colleagues' attention to this chart. I have placed a copy on each Member's desk. The chart shows for the years 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 the orange-yellow bars, what would have been the projected revenue from capital gains if we had not reduced the capital gains rate. The amount of growth that has occurred during this same period is phenomenal. This reflects the increase in capital gains revenue, and this projected what it would have been if we had not cut capital gains. It is substantial. It is $200 billion in added revenue in 4 years. Each time we have cut the capital gains tax rate, revenues have gone up. This happened after the 1978 cut from 40 percent to 28 percent. It happened again in 1981 when the rate was cut from 28 percent to 20 percent. By contrast, after the 1986 tax increase, revenues actually declined. Then finally in 1997, after the most recent reduction in the tax rate, we experienced a huge capital gains revenue increase. This added revenue has been a big factor in the budget surpluses of recent years. In fact, this $200 billion of added revenue exceeds the entire non-Social Security surplus since 1997. I refer my colleagues specifically to the four years since the 1997 rate cut from 28 percent to 20 percent. In each year you can see the revenue that was forecast before the rate cut, and then next to it the revenue that we actually received. The revenues are virtually double the forecast after the rate cut--as I noted, $200 billion in new money in just 4 years. The increase in revenues should make this tax cut an easy sell, but that is not the main reason that we should cut the tax. The main reason is that this tax cut immediately increase savings, capital investment, and stock values. All of this is pointed out in Monday's Wall Street Journal op-ed by Arthur Laffer, Lawrence Kudlow, and Stephen Moore. At this time I ask unanimous consent that this Journal article be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks.

Mr. ALLARD. If I may have 15 minutes.

Mr. ALLARD. Let me just quote from the final paragraph of this article: The last capital-gains cut in Washington led to higher productivity and capital investment, a spectacular surge in stock values, and a new age of federal surpluses. Isn't that exactly what is meant by a fiscal stimulus? That is what is meant by fiscal stimulus. We should add this provision to our tax bill for the simple reason that it will get this economy moving again. The American people are overtaxed. Tax Freedom Day was May 3, this year. This is the latest it has ever been. This means that average American families will work the first 123 days of the year to pay the combined tax bill from all levels of government--Federal, State, and local. It is time for a tax cut. We frequently discuss the budget surplus, but I believe that it is more accurate to refer to it as the tax surplus. The tax surplus represents an overpayment by taxpayers and should be refunded to those who overpaid. Tax cuts will benefit all Americans by making the economy stronger. Low taxes reward work, saving, and investment. Low taxes provide the fuel for our economy to create new jobs and raise our standard of living. Allowing people to keep their own money simply makes the most sense. People are in a better position than the government to know what they need. I believe in the people's priorities, not Washington's priorities. This tax cut is real money that can be used for the downpayment on a home, college tuition, or a family vacation. While I want to add a capital gains tax cut, I know that this tax bill contains many important provisions. All taxpayers will get immediate relief when the 15 percent rate is lowered to 10 percent on a significant portion of income. The tax bill also increases the child tax credit, provides tax relief for education expenses, and eliminates the death tax. I am particularly pleased to support repeal of the death tax. It is the one tax cut issue that comes up consistently. The United States retains among the highest estate taxes in the world, and top estate tax rates can reach over 55 percent. This is money that was already taxed when it was earned. The estate tax can destroy a family business. This is the most disturbing aspect of the tax. No American family should lose its business because of the estate tax or death tax. Similarly, more and more large ranches and farms are facing the prospect of break-up and sale to developers in order to pay the estate tax. Americans are spending more than ever on taxes. In fact, we now pay more in taxes than we do for food, shelter, and clothing combined. Since when did the Federal Government become more important than life's essentials? It is time to reverse this trend by cutting taxes across the board. Low taxes will help our economy and will also help America's families. I ask my colleagues to support my amendment to reduce the capital gains rate to 15 percent. This addition will make the bill even stronger than it is now. Adding this will stimulate the economy, increase saving and investment, and boost Federal revenues. We should not let this opportunity pass without adding the tax cut that will do the most to restore the prosperous 4 percent to 5 percent economic growth that we experienced in the late 1990's. There is no reason why our economy cannot sustain high levels of economic growth. This is in fact the best way to ensure that we can continue tax relief, pay off the national debt, improve education opportunities, and finance the Social Security and Medicare commitments that have been made to the baby boom generation. We need a strong and vibrant economy to fully achieve our goals and realize our dreams for all Americans. A capital gains tax cut will help us to quickly restore that strong economy. I ask for the support of my colleagues as we move to cut the capital gains tax rate. Exhibit 1 [From The Wall Street Journal, May 14, 2001] Real Relief: A Capital-Gains Tax Cut (By Arthur Laffer, Lawrence Kudlow, and Stephen Moore) The budget deal reached last week between the White House and Congress calls for a $100 billion tax-cut stimulus in 2001-02. Yet to be decided is the nature of those cuts. Congress, increasingly jittery about the sagging economy, will likely seek rate cuts that offer growth-enhancing tax relief quickly. That makes a lot of sense. What doesn't is the tax-rebate plan that many in Congress wish to enact. The tax rebate is intended to send checks out to American workers to stimulate consumer spending. But more spending is not what the economy needs most now. personal savings This has always been an investment-led downturn, not a consumer slump. The huge federal tax overpayments have badly drained personal savings and undermined capital investment and risk-taking. The one tax cut that would immediately boost savings, capital investment and stock values is a reduction in the capital-gains tax. Consider what has happened to Americans' wealth over the past several months. The Federal Reserve Board reported that Americans lost nearly $2 trillion in wealth in just the last quarter of 2000 as a result of the stock-market decline. This is the equivalent of a $20,000 evisceration in wealth and capital for each household in America. It is the lack of capital formation that poses such a tall barrier to resuming the prosperous 4% to 5% growth of the late 1990s. Oddly enough, a capital-gains cut is not now part of the Bush tax plan or the congressional agenda. It should be. The capital-gains cut has the added political attraction that it is self-financing and, properly scored, would actually increase revenues. The best course would be a permanent reduction in the capital-gains tax from 20% to about 15%. But if the rules of the budget agreement only allow a stimulus tax cut through 2002, Congress should still cut the capital-gains tax for the next two years. (We doubt any Congress would be foolhardy enough to raise the rate again, mortally wounding the economy just before the next elections.) Any capital-gains cut would instantly be capitalized into the value of stocks. Stock values are determined by the discounted present value of the after-tax rate of return on the asset. So, capital-gains tax relief would immediately raise investment return and lower capital costs. This isn't just speculation. The past two capital- gains tax rate cuts--in 1981 and in 1987--were both followed by riptide gains in the stock market and the economy. Reducing this tax will encourage investors to unlock cumulative gains of the past, liberating capital and freeing these funds to be reinvested in more future-oriented, entrepreneurial, growth-generating enterprises. In particular, it would spur venture-capital investment, which rocketed upward after the 1997 rate cut but has recently sagged badly. This pool of high-risk investment capital is essential to finance technological innovation, itself vital to productivity advances that will increase real wages and expand the economy's growth potential. Moreover, this growth effect would be multiplied if the arbitrary one-year holding period for the long-term capital- gains tax rate were eliminated entirely. Skeptics will accuse us of ``voodoo economics'' when we say that a capital-gains tax cut will raise revenue. But those skeptics--Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle, in particular--are just as wrong now as they were back in 1997 when the capital-gains rate was chopped to 20% from 28%. Congressional Budget Office data confirms a stunning gain in tax revenues from the lower capital-gains tax rate. Receipts more than doubled to $118 billion in 2000 from $54 billion in 1996. In fact, revenues generated after the 1997 cut, compared with revenues predicted at the time, tell an amazing story. Before the tax rate was cut to 20% from 28%, the Joint Committee on Taxation predicted that we would collect $209 billion from 1997 to 2000 from capital-gains payments. Instead, the capital-gains tax raised $372 billion over this period. In other words, the lower tax rate yielded 80% more revenue over the four-year period than was projected if the rate had remained at 28%--a $166 billion windfall. In fact, the capital-gains tax cut was a contributor to the big and unexpected budget surpluses that emerged in the late 1990s. We aren't suggesting this capital-gains cut as a substitute for the George W. Bush's tax-cut plan. It's imperative that the White House stick to its guns on its planned reduction of the top tax rate to 33%, down from 39.6% today. The income- tax rate cuts are desirable because they will increase individual and small-business incentives that will raise the long-term growth potential and investment attractiveness of the U.S. economy. Rate Cuts But the income-tax rate cuts in the president's plan are far too backloaded (the top rate would only fall to 38% in 2002) to provide much juice for the economy right now. In fact, if the capital-gains cut raises more revenues, as expected, then it will help finance the Bush income-tax rate reduction plan. The last capital-gains cut in Washington led to higher productivity and capital investment, a spectacular surge in stock values, and a new age of federal surpluses. Isn't that exactly what is meant by a fiscal stimulus?

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Cache La Poudre River Corridor Technical Amendments Act of 2001. When former Senator Hank Brown and I decided to sponsor the Cache La Poudre River Corridor Act, Public Law 104-323, it was only after we held numerous meetings with the affected individuals, groups and governmental entities to determine how best to protect the area. The result was a delicate compromise bill to which all parties agreed. The purpose of the Act was to designate the Cache La Poudre Corridor within the Cache La Poudre River Basin for special use. It is to provide for an educational and inspirational benefit to both present and future generations, as well as provide unique and significant contributions to our national heritage of cultural and historical lands, waterways, and structures within the Corridor. The Act also established the Cache La Poudre Corridor Commission to consult with public officials and conduct public hearings on how to administer the corridor consistent with the purpose of the Act. The make-up of the Commission was to represent the affected counties and interested parties. However, due to drafting errors and conflicting interpretations of the appointment process for the Commission, local communities and the Department of the Interior have been unable to proceed with implementing the Act. To correct these errors, my colleague Congressman Bob Schaffer and I are introducing the Cache La Poudre River Corridor Technical Amendments Act of 2001. These changes will allow the Cache La Poudre River Corridor Act to be fully implemented. These corrections will address several non-controversial provisions of the original law, which include correcting references to affected counties and clarifying duties of the commission. I hope that Congress will move quicky and act on the Cache La Poudre River Technical Corrections Amendments Act. I thank my colleagues for their consideration of this matter.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Cache La Poudre River Corridor Technical Amendments Act of 2001. When former Senator Hank Brown and I decided to sponsor the Cache La Poudre River Corridor Act, Public Law 104-323, it was only after we held numerous meetings with the affected individuals, groups and governmental entities to determine how best to protect the area. The result was a delicate compromise bill to which all parties agreed. The purpose of the Act was to designate the Cache La Poudre Corridor within the Cache La Poudre River Basin for special use. It is to provide for an educational and inspirational benefit to both present and future generations, as well as provide unique and significant contributions to our national heritage of cultural and historical lands, waterways, and structures within the Corridor. The Act also established the Cache La Poudre Corridor Commission to consult with public officials and conduct public hearings on how to administer the corridor consistent with the purpose of the Act. The make-up of the Commission was to represent the affected counties and interested parties. However, due to drafting errors and conflicting interpretations of the appointment process for the Commission, local communities and the Department of the Interior have been unable to proceed with implementing the Act. To correct these errors, my colleague Congressman Bob Schaffer and I are introducing the Cache La Poudre River Corridor Technical Amendments Act of 2001. These changes will allow the Cache La Poudre River Corridor Act to be fully implemented. These corrections will address several non-controversial provisions of the original law, which include correcting references to affected counties and clarifying duties of the commission. I hope that Congress will move quicky and act on the Cache La Poudre River Technical Corrections Amendments Act. I thank my colleagues for their consideration of this matter.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I join my colleagues to talk a little about taxes this week since we are expected to bring up some tax relief legislation here the latter part of this week. I think it is time for us to remember that tax freedom day was May 3 of this year. This is the latest it has ever been. What does that mean? It means the average American family will work the first 123 days of the year to pay the combined tax bill from all levels of government. That is Federal, State, and local. Obviously, the Federal bite out of the family's budget is the largest of all three of those. I hope I have time to get into a little more detail on that. But certainly it is time for a tax cut. We frequently discussed the budget surplus, but I think it is more accurate to refer to it as a tax surplus. The tax surplus represents an overpayment by taxpayers and should be refunded to those who overpaid. Tax cuts will benefit all Americans by making the economy stronger. Low taxes help reward work, savings, and investment. Low taxes provide the fuel for our economy to create new jobs and raise our standard of living. I think it is reasonable to conclude if we raise taxes, just the opposite is going to happen. In today's economy, it would be ill advised if we did not make a sincere effort to cut taxes. This allows people to keep their own money and helps our economy. It makes sense. People are in a better position than the Government to know what they believe. I believe in the people's priorities instead of Washington's priorities. This tax cut we are going to be talking about is real money that can be used for things such as helping to buy a home, helping to pay for a college education, or help in purchasing a computer to help the kids through school so they can learn math and become more proficient in English. Some have attempted to shift the focus on tax cuts by claiming we cannot afford tax cuts. In fact, tax cuts do not jeopardize debt repayment or the Government's other obligations. I would like to take a moment to look at that. The budget that has been proposed now allows the Government to return a major portion of the surplus to its rightful owners, the taxpayers. It continues to pay down our national debt, and it continues to protect Social Security and Medicare surpluses. The Congressional Budget Office forecasts the 10- year surplus is large enough to allow the Federal Government to retire all available debt held by the public. I would like to refer my colleagues to my efforts over the past 4 years. Four years ago, I introduced legislation to pay down the debt in 30 years. Then I looked at the amount of revenue that was coming into the Federal Government, part of this tax surplus, and I determined 2 years ago we ought to be able to pay down this debt within a 20-year period. So I introduced legislation to pay down the debt within 20 years. This year, we are looking at paying down the debt in 10 years and still being able to provide for a $1.6 trillion tax cut. The Congress has backed off on what was originally proposed by the President and finally agreed on somewhere between $1.35 and $1.4 trillion in tax cuts. Certainly we have allowed ourselves plenty of margin. The tax bill that is supposed to be coming to the Chamber contain many important provisions. Many of them have been referred to by the President. First, the tax rates are lowered across the board. This will benefit Americans in all categories who pay taxes. This year, taxpayers will get immediate relief when the 15-percent rate is lowered to 10 percent on a significant portion of that income. The tax bill also lowers the top rate significantly, increases the child tax credit, provides tax relief for education expenses, and eliminates the death tax. I am particularly pleased to support repeal of the death tax. The United States retains among the highest estate taxes in the world, and top estate tax rates can reach over 55 percent. This is money that was already taxed when it was earned. The estate tax can destroy a family business. This is the most disturbing aspect of the tax. No American family should lose its business because of the estate tax. Similarly, more and more large ranches and farms are facing the prospect of breakup and sale to developers in order to pay the estate tax. We feel it acutely in Colorado, especially because of the rapid growth and demand for real estate in Colorado. One change which is not included is a reduction in the capital gains tax. I hope that this can be added to this tax bill or one later in the year. This change would actually increase revenue to the Treasury. I support a reduction in the top rate from 20 to 14 or 15 percent. I also believe that we should include indexing so that taxes are paid only on real capital gains, not those which result only from inflation. In 1997 we reduced the capital gains tax from 28 to 20 percent. Many of you will recall the debate over whether this would raise or lower revenues. We now have the answer--revenues from capital gains increased dramatically after the rate cut. In fact, in just the 4 years since the rate cut, 1997 through 2000, the Government has received $200 billion more capital gains revenue than forecast before the rate cut. That is $200 billion of added revenue in just 4 years. I think the Tax Foundation does some very good work. I have been looking at a chart that was put out by the Tax Foundation. From 1992 until the year 2001, we actually see a large spike in rates of increases for taxes and the total tax revenues that are being paid to the Federal Government. We see the tax burden days go from April 18 to May 3--within a period of a little less than a decade. I think this is a phenomenal amount of revenue increase that has come from working Americans. Of the 123 days that America spends laboring for Federal, State, and local taxes, it is interesting how this breaks out. Fifty days of that goes toward individual income taxes, 42 days goes to Federal and State, and for local it is 8 days. For social insurance taxes, 29 days goes to that category. And all of that is Federal. There is no State or local part in that aspect of the tax. Of the 123 days, 16 days go toward sales and excise taxes. Three days of that is allocated towards Federal and 13 days is allocated towards State and local. Property taxes--the Federal Government has no property taxes, but State and local governments do. Ten days out of that 123 days goes for property taxes for State and local governments. Let's look at the corporate box that has been analyzed by the Tax Foundation. Corporate income taxes make up 12 days of the total of 123 days. The Federal part of it is 10 days and the State and local part of it is 2 days. If we look at other business taxes, there is a total of 3 days put in that category. The Federal Government doesn't have any, but State and local has a total amount of 3 days. For all other taxes is that general category. There are 2 days allocated to that box. One of them is Federal and one is State and local. I think those are some interesting factors coming out. Then there are those who say the tax cut is way too much. We know what happens. If we go with the President's tax cut that he proposed--I remind the Senate that it hasn't gone as much as the President proposed--then basically what you are doing over the next 9 or 10 years is holding the tax burden day on May 3, 2001. What happens if we don't have any tax cuts? Suppose we didn't go with any tax cut at all? We would see the tax freedom day move out to May 9. This is not a particularly remarkable tax cut, but it is something that certainly is badly needed. I am looking forward to the debate because I think it is very important that we move forward with the tax cut right now. If my memory serves me correctly, we have raised taxes retroactively. I don't see what the problem is with trying to cut taxes retroactively, particularly in light of the fact that we have the surpluses we are facing today. In summary, Americans are spending more than ever on taxes. In fact, we now pay more taxes than we do for food, shelter, and clothing combined. Since when did the Federal Government become more important than life's essentials? It is time to reverse this trend by cutting taxes across the board. Lower taxes would help our economy and would also help America's families. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I often rise on the floor of the Senate and put on my ``veterinarian hat'' when talking about food safety, animal science or even small business issues. Today, I rise to recognize this week as National Pet Week and say a brief word about the role of pets in our lives. Events taking place all over the Nation this week are designed to remind us of the value of pets. Sponsored by several leading veterinary organizations, principally the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), National Pet Week gives those of us in the animal health field an opportunity to celebrate the bond between pets and their owners and address the importance of responsible pet ownership. Pets are important members of over half the households in America. They can be many different things to many different people. A pet can be a hunting companion, someone to play catch with, something warm to curl up on your lap, an additional ranch hand, a guide, a guardian, or a child's best friend. Indeed, companionship is often the most important aspect in the relationship between pet and owner. In the past 25 years, we have come to accept the human-animal bond as an important force. We understand that the bond exists, but it is hard to define. The AVMA gives us this definition: The human-animal bond is a mutually beneficial and dynamic relationship between people and animals that is influenced by behaviors that are essential to the health and well-being of both. This includes but is not limited to, emotional, psychological and physical interaction of people, animals and the environment. The fact is, the addition of a pet to someone's life can do amazing things. Studies have shown that the recovery time and survival rate of people with serious illness can be improved when a pet is part of the equation. The benefits of pets to the blind and disabled are also well known. All over the world, dogs are trained to complete a variety of tasks to assist the disabled in living their lives. Programs to train dogs and place them with disabled owners thrive in every State. The work that they do and the good that results should not go unnoticed. These organizations build new bridges using the human-animal bond formula and enrich lives in so many ways. Connections between pets and children are well known. Pets can help teach children responsibility, respect and compassion. They can add to a child's growth and development in so many ways. Most of us can certainly remember our first family pet with fond memories. The other part of National Pet Week is pet health. It is certainly true that a healthy pet is a happy pet. Regular veterinarian visits are indeed important and are part of the responsibility as an owner and as a family member. Nutritional care, adequate exercise and proper attention to general health concerns are all necessary in the ownership of a pet and can go a long way in increasing the quality of an animal's life. So I would like to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing National Pet Week, and if you have a pet at home, give it an extra hug, a pat on the head or a good scratch in that favorite spot when you get home.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I listened to your comments with enormous interest because I think you made some very good points. I wanted to bring some comments to the floor from a neighbor's perspective, a neighbor of the great State of Utah, what I have been hearing about education in Colorado. Colorado has taken a very progressive approach to education with the new Governor of Colorado, Governor Owens, and the Colorado Legislature. They have decided to try to do something about education. In that regard, they are probably somewhat ahead of what we see happening in other States. What they are attempting to do is very much the same type of program that the President is proposing to the Congress. As a Congress, we need to help the President give the States more control over the educational system--with accountability. I do think accountability is the key. I share the observations of my colleague from Utah that test scores are not getting better. I am looking at the test score trend, not recently but over several decades, as to how we compare with other countries in math scores, how we have been doing over time in math and English scores, and I am disturbed by the trend. We need to do things that will improve the math skills of our students. We need to do things that will improve the English- proficiency skills of our students. Not only am I responding to what I am observing as to the scores, but when I go out and visit the employers of the State of Colorado, I hear the same message that I have observed as far as test scores; that is, students are not as well prepared for math or not as well prepared to deal with the English language in the workplace. I think that goes right down to the Senator's bottom line, that education is to prepare people to carry on with their daily activities in a democracy such as we have in the United States. I do think education is key to that. I am here to praise President Bush for his commitment to education, making it his top legislative priority. I like his commitment to making sure that no child is left behind. Over the last 35 years, the Federal Government has spent $120 billion on poor kids. They have shown no improvement in basic math and reading skills. The President's education blueprint demands accountability. He is asking the States to set higher standards. I think that is great. Then he holds the States and school districts and individual schools to those standards and allows some flexibility because not all States are the same, not all school districts' problems are the same, certainly not all community problems are the same. School districts and local agencies should have more flexibility to spend the Federal money. In addition to that, he has suggested we need to come close to tripling the amount of money we provide for education, an increase as compared to the rest of the budget. In other words, the rest of the budget he proposed had a 4-percent increase. Education was somewhere around an 11-percent or 12-percent increase. With added flexibility must come more accountability. So he is saying to the States: OK, States, go ahead and design a test so you can measure performance, which is very important, grades 3-8. Then you measure the progress within the State. That allows the students as well as the parents to measure what is happening as far as their educational effort in the various school districts. It allows the parents to take a greater role in the progress of the child's education. I think that is entirely appropriate. I have talked with educators in the State of Colorado. I have members in my family who are educators. I have a great uncle who is president of the Teachers College. Obviously, education is important to our family. It is important to me. We have to develop a ``can do'' attitude in education. We need to encourage the fact that we can do better than what we have been doing. We need to look at ways in which we can give local school districts the flexibility they need to do a better job in educating students and allowing parents to have a greater role in educating students. It is going to require a team effort with parents working within the school system to make sure that things get better. I admit that in some cases we need to look at the disciplinary situation in classes. When I talked about education and improving education, I mentioned the fact that we needed to do something to improve discipline in the classroom. One of the problems I see with discipline in the classroom is the type of liability the school district and the teacher may incur trying to impose discipline on the classroom. I think that is a Federal problem as well as a State problem, and it is certainly something that perhaps as a Congress we ought to investigate at a later date. I think the State legislators themselves ought to look at the liability of the teacher and school districts in trying to apply discipline in the school districts or within the classrooms. This is a good first step that the President is suggesting. I think what is coming to the floor of the Senate and that was reported out of the education committee is a good first step. It is moving us in the right direction. I hope we can quickly get this piece of legislation moved out of the Senate without any further delay. It disturbs me when I see the delay in one piece of legislation after another. And the education bill we now have before the Senate went through some of that delay process. Then when we vote to move it on, we get a very substantial margin in moving forward with a particular piece of legislation. It is important to the history of this country that we do something about education. It is important to the employer. It is important to the future of the child. We want to make sure that no child gets left behind. The solution in the past was that we would have more money for education from Washington but with more mandates. We are seeing some of those issues that will probably come up as amendments on the floor as we debate the education bill. Some of these amendments are going to say we will take the flexibility from the school districts and put it in the buildings, or they will say we will have to put it in teachers. I think the proper and sensible approach is to give maximum flexibility for those dollars to the school district to decide where their needs are. It may be that they just built a new school building and they don't need more money for a school building. So they can't participate in the dollars that go towards a new school building. Their need is for teachers. So the school district, in that case, needs to have the flexibility to move that money into teaching. It may be that they have plenty of teachers and the school building is not in good shape. So they need to have the flexibility to take those dollars and put it in a building program so they can have a better environment for learning. That is just one example. There are a number of other examples that most of us could point to as to what could be done in the way of adding more flexibility to the school districts so they can meet their various needs. I travel throughout the State of Colorado, and I don't think we are any different than any other State. But there are a lot of differences in Colorado between the various school districts depending on where you are in the State. We have a lot of different problems throughout the country because there are different types of school districts. I think to try to put forth a solution in Washington where you have a one-size-fits-all program is a mistake. When the President says he wants to have more flexibility, I believe this is what he is talking about. That is why I think it is important that we give school districts the flexibility they need. A teacher in Weld County recently told me that his school is using a janitor's closet as a classroom because of the lack of space available. If we can give him more dollars for flexibility, then that would give him an opportunity to change that classroom situation. If we pass amendments that say our extra dollars will go to hiring more teachers, it is not going to do that school any service in trying to create a good education for its students. I am here to support the bill that we have on the floor. I think it is moving us in the right direction. I am here to support President Bush because I think he is moving in the right direction. I like his theme that we don't leave any child behind because it provides flexibility to States and school districts. It promotes accountability and it increases parental involvement. My hope is that as we move forward with this debate, we don't linger, and that we get the bill passed quickly and be supportive of what the President is trying to do. He is bringing some new ideas to education. I know there are individuals in this body that get real apprehensive when you start talking about new ideas for education. But we need to take some of those inherent risks. I think that the risk is minimal when you put the confidence in local school districts and you measure results. We do that with a flexible testing program that is established with the States. I am one who is saying we ought to change education, and we need to move forward. We need to take a positive attitude in education. We can do better with math and we can do better with English. We need to measure those results. I yield the time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the 2000 Air Force Academy football team and their outstanding head football coach Fisher DeBerry. On May 4th, President Bush will present the Commander-in-Chief's Trophy to the members of last year's football team at the White House. The Commander-in-Chief's Trophy is the most prized possession of the three service academies. It is given annually by the President of the United States to the service academy with the best record in the three-team competition between Army, Navy and Air Force. I am proud to say this is the fourth year in a row the Air Force Academy has captured the trophy and they have won 10 of the last 12 seasons. The most important aspect of the 2000 Air Force Academy Football Team is each athlete on this team is a student first, and an athlete second. They play the game of football not to become an NFL star one day, but because they love the game of football. Their leader is a modest southern gentleman named Fisher DeBerry whose life is driven not by football, but by his Christian faith and his family. In his 17 seasons as head football coach at the Air Force Academy he has guided his teams to an overall record of 135-72-1. He has won more football games than any other coach in service academy history and has taken the ``fighting falcons'' to an amazing 11 bowl games. In 1996, he served as president of the prestigious American Football Coaches Association. The 2000 Air Force Academy football team demonstrated that hard work can overcome any obstacle. Despite being picked to finish in the lower half of their conference, they finished with an overall record of 9-3 and won a thrilling victory over Fresno State in the 2000 Silicon Bowl. Their perseverance is an inspiration to all us. I commend the Superintendent of the Air Force Academy, General John Dallager and the Director of Athletics, Colonel Randy Spetman, along with all the coaches and players of the 2000 Air Force Academy football team for a job well done. You have set a standard of excellence that all of us should strive to achieve.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President I rise today to join my colleagues in the important dialogue surrounding the budget resolution. As has been well documented this week, the Bush-Domenici Resolution before this body is a close approximation of the President's Budget Blueprint for New Beginnings. As member of the Senate Budget Committee I have been studying this document for a number of weeks. I am convinced that this Budget represents a commitment to tax cuts, the repayment of the Debt Owed to the Public, and sensible reform. Many of our priorities in Colorado are not radically different from those of Americans all over this vast country. We are concerned with education, the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, the strengthening of our national defense, and the protection of our wonderful natural resources and environment. The President has also addressed one of the most pressing needs for our soldiers, providing funding to improve the quality of life for our troops and their families. I am pleased to say that I believe President Bush has addressed these national priorities in a direct and sensible way while also speaking to the unique needs of Colorado. The budget blueprint proposed by President bush makes an historic attack on the debt owed to the American people. If we have the courage to pass this budget we will begin the fastest and largest debt reduction in history. Lower government debt means greater fiscal security for large government programs such as Social Security and lower interest rates on Coloradans who purchase homes, automobiles, and use credit cards. Most importantly, future generations will not beard the burden of our past fiscal irresponsibility. My grandchildren are seventh generation Coloradans, and I am dedicated to leaving them a brighter fiscal outlook than we have before us today. Fair tax relief for all taxpayers is a clear priority in the Budget Resolution. In recent weeks there have been numerous assaults against the tax cuts provided for in this legislation. In January, addressing the Senate Budget Committee, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan described this tax cut as moderate. In the scope of a $5.6 trillion federal surplus over the next ten years I find it laughable that there are members of this body who claim this tax cut is unaffordable. In Colorado the tax cut results in $1,600 of tax relief for a typical tax paying family of four. A Colorado family of four making thirty-five thousand dollars a year will receive a one-hundred percent federal income tax cut. Families making fifty thousand dollars will receive a fifty percent tax cut. More than one-and-a-half million Colorado taxpayers will benefit from the new, lowered rate structure, as will 329,000 Colorado small businesses and entrepreneurs. The President's Budget also locks away every penny of the $2.6 trillion Social Security surplus, an important step in preparing to address the much needed reform of Social Security in the coming years. The budget likewise directs every dollar of Medicare receipts be spent solely for Medicare expenditures, including a modern and fiscally responsible prescription drug program for the senior citizens of Colorado and the nation. The proposal before us dedicates the largest percentage spending increase of any federal department to the Department of Education, an increase of 11.5 percent. Further, the resolution before us will triple funding for children's reading programs. Colorado's education funding will increase over current levels to more than $461 million to give local schools more options and opportunities. Colorado's Head Start funding will increase over current levels to more than $63.9 million. This is truly an enormous fiscal commitment to the children of Colorado. I would be remiss not to note, I am encouraged to see increased funding over current levels to more than $21 million to help more Colorado children awaiting adoption find homes faster. The Budget Resolution also fully funds the Land and Water Conservation Fund and gives the Environmental Protection Agency its second highest operating budget ever. In Colorado the budget provides more than $6.6 million in funding for water resource projects, $32.8 million to fund Colorado environmental protection efforts, and over $8 million to help conserve Colorado's natural resources. As anyone who has visited my home state in recent months knows, transportation capacity is also an issue, and one this budget addresses. An estimated $334.8 million will go to Colorado highway funding. Recognizing the long-term social benefits of accessible health services and medical research the Bush-Domenici Resolution continues our pledge to double funding for the National Institutes of Health and creates more than 1,200 new community health centers nationwide. The budget further provides $391 million for programs and grants to help local fire departments and emergency services all across America with training, equipment and life-saving efforts. I am pleased to support the Bush-Domenici Resolution and I look forward to working with my colleagues this year as we appropriate the funds as outlined in this budget.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my time be marked against the general resolution and that I have 15 minutes.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I want to recognize the exemplary comments we just heard from the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley. That is one of the most complete discussions I have heard on the President's tax policy and how it impacts our total debt goals, actually what we call paying down the public debt and what we are going to do to save Medicare. Anybody who listened closely fully understands the balance of the President's plan before us. I thought it was an extremely good speech, and I enjoyed listening to what he had to say. I want to bring a little more discussion to some of the points he made. For example, he talked about the advantage of small business. As a small businessman, I want to talk about some of my thoughts about how cutting taxes really does help the economy. Senator Grassley talked about paying down the debt. I also want to take some time to talk about my experience in the Congress in efforts to pay down the debt and add my two bits' worth as to why I think the President is on the right track. Just as the Presiding Officer of the Senate, I started my business from scratch. I know what it is to have to start a small business from scratch. I remember the frustration the first several years I was in business. I began to build up some revenue. I wanted to do a good job of serving my clients as many small businesspeople do. They have a great idea and want to move forward. At the end of the year, I found the capital I began to accumulate in my business all of a sudden was taken away because of taxes. That has a dramatic impact on the growth of a small business, particularly at the early stage of growth and when they are starting. Small businesspeople, such as myself and the Presiding Officer suffer a disproportionate impact from rules, regulations, and taxes on our small business. I point out to the Members of the Senate, most of the innovative ideas in America and in democracy really start at the small business level. If we can put incentives out there that allow individual businesspeople to retain more of their income, to capitalize their businesses for growth, that means we create more jobs. The end result is that we begin to strengthen our economy. I do believe these tax cuts will help the economy, and if we make the tax cuts even retroactive starting at the first of the year when they begin to have an impact even on the paycheck that goes home, it will help us. I encourage Members of the Senate to work hard to put in place the $1.6 trillion tax cut that is proposed by the President. Let me talk a little bit about my experiences in trying to pay down the debt. I probably have worked harder than any Member of the House or the Senate to try to put in place a plan to pay down the debt. When I first brought a plan forward, I was a Member of the House of Representatives, and as a Member of the Senate I introduced several plans. When I was first elected to the Senate, I introduced a bill to pay down the debt within 30 years. I had a plan somewhat similar to an amortization schedule. I had a schedule of how we would pay down more money each year so that, over a 30-year period, the Federal Government would have paid down the debt. That was 4 years ago. Two years ago, I looked at the amount of revenue coming in to the Federal Government, and I was amazed. So I introduced a bill that had a plan to pay down the debt within 20 years. What I see now is that we are going to be able to pay down the public debt within 10 years and still be able to have the $1.6 trillion tax cut the President is proposing. That is a reasonable plan he has put together. He is taking a quarter of the surpluses for tax cuts. It is reasonable and certainly a much better proposal than what I hear coming from the Democratic side where they want to take $60 billion and redistribute it to everybody. The President's proposal is that those people who pay taxes are the ones who will get a tax cut. With the $60 billion plan on the other side, they are talking about a redistribution of income, so everybody gets a rebate, whether you pay taxes or not. It ends up being a massive redistribution income plan basically. What we need to pass in the Senate is a real tax cut plan that gives a tax cut to the American taxpayer. I remind Members of the Senate and Americans who might be watching right now that a record amount of their dollars is being sent to Washington. We saw some figures presented on the other side which indicated that as a percentage of gross domestic product, GDP, our tax burden is as low as it ever has been, but the growth in our gross domestic product has been so phenomenal for the last 5, 7, 8 years that any figure one compares to the gross domestic product is going to look low in comparison. I prefer to look at actual figures. Looking at the actual figures-- the amount of money being sent to Washington--the American taxpayer is sending a record amount of money to Washington, DC. When we look at the plan that is being proposed by the President, it is a very modest tax cut. As was pointed out in testimony before the Budget Committee and other speeches made on the Senate floor, President Kennedy had a greater tax cut than this tax cut. President Reagan's tax cut was greater. In fact, as was pointed out by my colleague from Iowa, the largest tax increase in the history of this country, which was in 1993, with a Democrat Congress and Democrat President, was more than the tax cut that is being proposed by President George W. Bush. We have to keep in mind that when taxpayers send money to Washington and then we have some sort of scheme where it is sent back to the taxpayers, one might want to call it a grant or maybe call it a rebate or revenuesharing or earned-income tax credits or just a gift. The fact is, when you send your money to Washington and we send it back, there is a passenger charge. The subtle message is somehow or another it is the Government's money. In reality, it is the taxpayers' dollars. That is where it starts. They are the ones who originally send the money to Washington. We need to institute a policy that recognizes hard work and productivity of the American taxpayers. I also point out that some of the phenomenal growth we are getting in revenues to the Federal Government is a consequence of having reduced the capital gains tax a couple years back. When you reduce the capital gains tax, historically the revenues to the Federal Government have always increased. We have reduced capital gains rates from 28 percent to 20 percent. What happened? We opened the floodgates of commerce. With these new dollars coming into the Federal Government from more commerce, you end up having more revenue. I think that is a tax cut. It has been taxpayers who got that advantage. The result is more revenue is coming to the Federal Government. I don't think we have recognized that phenomenon enough on the Senate floor, and I want to take a moment to point that out. The proposal being suggested by the President is a very balanced proposal. I think it has the right amount of tax cuts. I think it addresses debt reduction. Now, on debt reduction, as I have looked at the issue of how much you can pay down the debt when you get down to the bottom trillion dollars--that is a lot of money still--there are some fundamental issues at which this Congress needs to look. For example, in some of the testimony we had before the Budget Committee, the Fed, in managing the money supply of this country, uses debt. There is about $500 billion they use to manage that debt. If we are to completely pay down the debt, there has to be a fundamental discussion as to what you want the role of the Federal Government to be. Do you want the Fed to still have that ability to manage the supply of the dollar? If you want that, we will have to keep some debt in there so they can manage it. If you want to turn the dollar completely free on the market without any opportunity for the Fed to regulate supply, then perhaps the proper solution is to go ahead and pay the debt even further. That is a basic fundamental public policy that I think needs to be discussed in the Congress. I think we need to have some discussion among ourselves about how important that is. For some people who don't want to turn in their war bonds or their Treasury notes--they have become a collector's item--we find it is costing more today to pay down, in some cases, perhaps as much as 43 percent more than the value of the bond to retire. The President, again, I think has a right balance on tax relief, on debt reduction. He takes care of basic needs, which I think can be supported. He has overall spending for the 10 years at 4.7 percent. He has very significant increases in education in 2002, an 11.5-percent increase, a significant increase in defense, 4.5. We passed an amendment here that provides another $8.5 billion for that. He has increases for health. I supported doubling NIH research dollars. There is money in there for transportation and veterans health. I think this is a good budget. It is a good starting place. I am disappointed today we chipped away at some of that tax cut. I think that means there will be less opportunity for economic growth for people, particularly in the small business sector, who look for a reduction in the burden of taxes in order to be able to grow their business and to create jobs. I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, for allowing me to speak. This is an important issue.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I should offer an amendment that says: on page 3, between line 27 and line 28, insert the following: 30 days after enactment of this Act, the starboard deck chairs of the R.M.S. Titanic shall be moved to the port side, and vice versa. Because if we step back and examine the campaign finance issue, I believe that in the end all this legislation affecting details of the campaign finance system is doing just that rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. If I can just stretch this metaphor a bit farther, the iceberg looming out there in front of us is not soft money, or disclosure requirement, or compulsory union dues, but rather the simple fact that our federal government is so bloated and intrusive that Americans are desperate to find ways to affect it's actions. I believe the absolute best ways to ensure there are no undue special interest influence is to suppress and reduce the size of government. If the government rids itself of special interest funding and corporate subsidies, then there would be less of a perception of any attempts to buy influence through donations. A simplified tax code, state regulation flexibility, free markets, local education control--these are less government approaches to problems that would also lower the desperate need for influence. I am not alone in that belief. The Colorado Springs Gazette ran an editorial on Thursday, March 22 saying that ``The best way, and the constitutional way, to limit campaign contributions is to reduce government itself, and thus the need interests have to manipulate government to their advantage.'' That editorial is proof that perhaps those outside the beltway see the forest instead of all the individual trees we keep getting caught up by here on the Senate floor. They know that all we are doing is addressing symptomatic, not causal, problems. There are two reasons why McCain-Feingold is ineffective. One of those reasons is the United States Supreme Court, and I will address that later. The other reason speaks to the futility of these alleged reforms--these various deck chair amendments. That reason is human nature. Even if we could constitutionally ban soft money, human nature dictates that people whose interest, both financial and otherwise, are constantly and severely being abused or threatened by our 1.9 trillion in federal spending will continue to seek to influence the government, some out of just basic self defense. In the Eighties the complaint was against the PACs. In the Nineties and now, the complaint is against soft money. Even if there was a constitutional soft money ban, there will be something else later. What needs to be done is to address the problem, not try and hide the effect of the problem. But, since we are here, moving our chairs around, I must say that I favor certain chair arrangements. And so do my constituents. Then Denver Rocky Mountain News, for instance, ran an editorial during the last Congress in response to the passage of the Shays/Meehan bill, expressing the paper's belief that soft money campaign contributions are a form of political expression and, as such, are protected by the First Amendment. In the editorial they use an example of an average citizen who might decide to distribute leaflets against a city pot hole problem. If this hypothetical citizen is stopped from doing so by a city council, it would be a clear-cut violation of freedom of speech. The editorial then goes on, correctly, to explain that the difference between this simple form of election activity control and the kinds contained in McCain- Feingold is merely a difference of degrees, not type. Donors who want to give to the Republican National Committee or the Democrat National Committee are expressing their political views. As the Supreme Court has ruled, political spending equals political expression. Attempting to completely ban this political expression, however distasteful some might find soft money, is an attempt to stifle activities protected by the constitution. And so it is our duty as legislators to find a better way. Let me explain also that I feel that a soft money ban is biased. It might just be coincidental that the McCain-Feingold has 34 Democrat co- sponsors and 6 Republican ones, but it might also have something to do with the fact that a ban on party soft money will ultimately benefit Democrat candidates over Republican ones. If political parties are curbed, the Democrats already have a cohesive constituency ready and able to step up and assume party functions. Organized labor is just that--coordinated people ready to work. They are also ready to spend. I don't begrudge the Democrat National Committee this labor and funding base, but it is unbalanced and blatantly partisan to attempt to shield this type of spending--which has been done in amendment after amendment on this floor--while attacking its counterbalancing force, the areas where the Republican National Committee instead has the advantage. I have cosponsored Senator Hagel and Landrieu's legislation because it shared some aspects of what I have previously proposed for campaign finance reform. The bill calls for increased disclosure, aspects of which we have embraced here already. Sunshine is a strong disinfectant. The bill calls for an increase to campaign donor limits. Hard money is called for a reason, and so we should encourage as much campaign spending as feasible to move into that category, where the rules are tighter and more defined. The Hagel-Landrieu legislation is one of the best deck chair arrangements before us. I urge its passage.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to announce that I was unable to cast a vote on rollcall vote No. 47, due to unavoidable airline delays. If I was present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about an issue of government accountability and public safety. Today, my colleague from Idaho, Senator Crapo and I are introducing the Ombudsman Reauthorization Act of 2001. The bill's goal is to reauthorize the Ombudsman's Office within the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, (OSWER). I'd like to keep my remarks brief, but I want to share my reasoning and interest in this issue. Last year, I introduced similar legislation because of an ongoing battle between the citizens of a Denver neighborhood and the EPA concerning the Shattuck Superfund site. Only through the work of the Ombudsman's office, did the truth finally become known. The story surrounding the Shattuck site in the Overland Park neighborhood in southwest Denver and what the EPA did to this community will have a lasting impact not only on the residents of the Overland Park neighborhood, but on each and every one of us who looks to the EPA to be the guardian of our nation's environmental health and safety. In 1997, after several years of EPA stonewalling, the residents of Overland Park in Denver brought their concerns about a Superfund site in their neighborhood and their frustrations with the EPA to my attention. I learned that the neighborhood had run into a wall of bureaucracy that was unresponsive to the very public it is charged with protecting and I requested the Ombudsman's intervention. In early 1999, the Ombudsman's office began an investigation and quickly determined that the claims made by residents were not only meritorious, but the EPA officials had engaged in an effort to keep documents and decisions hidden from the public thereby placing their health in danger. The Shattuck saga has been a frustrating and often disheartening experience for all involved. It is an example of what can happen when a government entity goes unchecked. For the residents of Denver, the Office of Ombudsman afforded the only opportunity to reveal the truth, and for the health and safety of the public to be given proper priority. In fact, the Ombudsman was so successful at uncovering the facts surrounding Shattuck, his investigation has resulted in EPA officials restructuring the office so that its actions may be restricted, and its independence compromised. Without the Ombudsman's investigation on Shattuck, the residents of Overland Park would have never learned the truth about the decisions made which had direct impact on their personal health. The Ombudsman's investigation brought integrity back into the process. Without the Ombudsman's work, a trusted federal agency would have been able to successfully hide the truth from the very people it is charged to protect. The Shattuck issue is a decade long example of why citizens' trust in their government has waned. Our bill will preserve the only mechanism within the EPA that the public can trust to protect their health and safety. I am not alone in my concerns and the Shattuck case is not unique. Many of my fellow Senators and Representatives have experienced similar battles with the EPA over the years in their states. After I introduced legislation last year, Senator Crapo joined me in my legislative endeavors and has been a great asset. In experiencing a similar superfund problem in his home state of Idaho, Senator Crapo knows firsthand the need for this independent and trustworthy office. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, his assistance is greatly appreciated by me, and by all those who believe that their government should be there to serve the needs of the people. With Senator Crapo's assistance, the committee held a hearing on my bill last year which helped to bring many of these concerns to light and push the issue forward. We have worked together in the first months of this Congress to craft this new bill, which I believe takes great strides in properly defining the role, powers, duties and responsibilities of a federal ombudsman. The bill guarantees the much needed independence of the office without creating another unaccountable government entity. Let me make it clear that my main priority in introducing this bill, is to keep the EPA OSWER Ombudsman Office independent and open for business. I believe that in the future, my colleagues may find themselves in a similar situation and I want to make sure that they have every assurance that the public's safety is protected, that its voice is heard, that its questions are answered and that its concerns are addressed. I look forward to working with new EPA Administrator Whitman to address these concerns and I'm sure she will agree with me on the need for government accountability and public confidence. I would ask all my colleagues to take a close look at this bill and join Senator Crapo and me in passing it.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about an issue of government accountability and public safety. Today, my colleague from Idaho, Senator Crapo and I are introducing the Ombudsman Reauthorization Act of 2001. The bill's goal is to reauthorize the Ombudsman's Office within the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, (OSWER). I'd like to keep my remarks brief, but I want to share my reasoning and interest in this issue. Last year, I introduced similar legislation because of an ongoing battle between the citizens of a Denver neighborhood and the EPA concerning the Shattuck Superfund site. Only through the work of the Ombudsman's office, did the truth finally become known. The story surrounding the Shattuck site in the Overland Park neighborhood in southwest Denver and what the EPA did to this community will have a lasting impact not only on the residents of the Overland Park neighborhood, but on each and every one of us who looks to the EPA to be the guardian of our nation's environmental health and safety. In 1997, after several years of EPA stonewalling, the residents of Overland Park in Denver brought their concerns about a Superfund site in their neighborhood and their frustrations with the EPA to my attention. I learned that the neighborhood had run into a wall of bureaucracy that was unresponsive to the very public it is charged with protecting and I requested the Ombudsman's intervention. In early 1999, the Ombudsman's office began an investigation and quickly determined that the claims made by residents were not only meritorious, but the EPA officials had engaged in an effort to keep documents and decisions hidden from the public thereby placing their health in danger. The Shattuck saga has been a frustrating and often disheartening experience for all involved. It is an example of what can happen when a government entity goes unchecked. For the residents of Denver, the Office of Ombudsman afforded the only opportunity to reveal the truth, and for the health and safety of the public to be given proper priority. In fact, the Ombudsman was so successful at uncovering the facts surrounding Shattuck, his investigation has resulted in EPA officials restructuring the office so that its actions may be restricted, and its independence compromised. Without the Ombudsman's investigation on Shattuck, the residents of Overland Park would have never learned the truth about the decisions made which had direct impact on their personal health. The Ombudsman's investigation brought integrity back into the process. Without the Ombudsman's work, a trusted federal agency would have been able to successfully hide the truth from the very people it is charged to protect. The Shattuck issue is a decade long example of why citizens' trust in their government has waned. Our bill will preserve the only mechanism within the EPA that the public can trust to protect their health and safety. I am not alone in my concerns and the Shattuck case is not unique. Many of my fellow Senators and Representatives have experienced similar battles with the EPA over the years in their states. After I introduced legislation last year, Senator Crapo joined me in my legislative endeavors and has been a great asset. In experiencing a similar superfund problem in his home state of Idaho, Senator Crapo knows firsthand the need for this independent and trustworthy office. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, his assistance is greatly appreciated by me, and by all those who believe that their government should be there to serve the needs of the people. With Senator Crapo's assistance, the committee held a hearing on my bill last year which helped to bring many of these concerns to light and push the issue forward. We have worked together in the first months of this Congress to craft this new bill, which I believe takes great strides in properly defining the role, powers, duties and responsibilities of a federal ombudsman. The bill guarantees the much needed independence of the office without creating another unaccountable government entity. Let me make it clear that my main priority in introducing this bill, is to keep the EPA OSWER Ombudsman Office independent and open for business. I believe that in the future, my colleagues may find themselves in a similar situation and I want to make sure that they have every assurance that the public's safety is protected, that its voice is heard, that its questions are answered and that its concerns are addressed. I look forward to working with new EPA Administrator Whitman to address these concerns and I'm sure she will agree with me on the need for government accountability and public confidence. I would ask all my colleagues to take a close look at this bill and join Senator Crapo and me in passing it.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to direct the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to reinstate distributive shares for excess amounts in the Federal Housing Administration, FHA, insurance fund. FHA provides an important program for first time, low- and moderate- income, and minority homeowners. These families should not be overcharged on FHA premiums. Premiums in excess of an amount necessary to maintain an actuarially sound reserve ratio in the FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance, MMI, Fund can only be characterized as a tax on homeownership. On the other hand, Congress, in conjunction with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, must ensure that FHA stays healthy, so that it can continue to function as an important source of homeownership. The Congress has previously determined that a capital reserve ratio of 2 percent of the MMI fund's amortized insurance-in- force is necessary to ensure the safety and soundness of the MMI fund. However, it has never been clear how the Congress arrived at that number. Last year, the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche found that the capital adequacy ratio of the fund was 3.66 percent, far in excess of the Congressionally mandated goal of 2 percent. While it is important for Congress to know the capital adequacy ratio, it is just as important to understand the implications of the ratio and whether a 2 percent reserve is sufficient. In order to get a better handle on this issue I requested that the General Accounting Office look into the matter, and earlier this week I held a hearing of the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation to examine their findings. GAO's report finds that the current reserve is adequate to withstand all but the most serious economic scenarios. However, GAO also sounds a note of caution. Economic conditions can quickly change, thus changing the value of the fund and the level of reserve. I believe that the most prudent court of action is for the Congress to increase the reserve requirement to either 2.5 percent or 3 percent of the insurance in force, and then direct the Department to reinstate distributive shares whenever the reserve fund becomes excessive. Therefore, I am reintroducing legislation that would require partial rebates of FHA mortgage insurance premiums to certain mortgagors upon repayment of their FHA insured mortgages. My legislation takes the cautious approach of providing rebates only when the reserve ratio is in excess of 3 percent, or 150 percent of the reserve level currently mandated by Congress. If the reserve ratio drops below 3 percent, distributive shares would be suspended. Of course this rebate would be based on sound actuarial and accounting practice since a major reason for the strength in the fund is that fact that we have experienced a near perfect economy in recent years. The FHA single family mortgage program was designed to operate as a mutual insurance program where homeowners were granted rebates in excess of premiums required to maintain actuarial soundness. This rebate program was suspended at the direction of Congress in 1990 when the MMI fund was in the red--with the intent that the payment of distributive shares or rebates would resume when the Fund was again financially sound. With a sufficient capital reserve ratio, it is time to resume rebates and return the MMI program to its prior status as a mutual insurance fund. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to direct the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to reinstate distributive shares for excess amounts in the Federal Housing Administration, FHA, insurance fund. FHA provides an important program for first time, low- and moderate- income, and minority homeowners. These families should not be overcharged on FHA premiums. Premiums in excess of an amount necessary to maintain an actuarially sound reserve ratio in the FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance, MMI, Fund can only be characterized as a tax on homeownership. On the other hand, Congress, in conjunction with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, must ensure that FHA stays healthy, so that it can continue to function as an important source of homeownership. The Congress has previously determined that a capital reserve ratio of 2 percent of the MMI fund's amortized insurance-in- force is necessary to ensure the safety and soundness of the MMI fund. However, it has never been clear how the Congress arrived at that number. Last year, the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche found that the capital adequacy ratio of the fund was 3.66 percent, far in excess of the Congressionally mandated goal of 2 percent. While it is important for Congress to know the capital adequacy ratio, it is just as important to understand the implications of the ratio and whether a 2 percent reserve is sufficient. In order to get a better handle on this issue I requested that the General Accounting Office look into the matter, and earlier this week I held a hearing of the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation to examine their findings. GAO's report finds that the current reserve is adequate to withstand all but the most serious economic scenarios. However, GAO also sounds a note of caution. Economic conditions can quickly change, thus changing the value of the fund and the level of reserve. I believe that the most prudent court of action is for the Congress to increase the reserve requirement to either 2.5 percent or 3 percent of the insurance in force, and then direct the Department to reinstate distributive shares whenever the reserve fund becomes excessive. Therefore, I am reintroducing legislation that would require partial rebates of FHA mortgage insurance premiums to certain mortgagors upon repayment of their FHA insured mortgages. My legislation takes the cautious approach of providing rebates only when the reserve ratio is in excess of 3 percent, or 150 percent of the reserve level currently mandated by Congress. If the reserve ratio drops below 3 percent, distributive shares would be suspended. Of course this rebate would be based on sound actuarial and accounting practice since a major reason for the strength in the fund is that fact that we have experienced a near perfect economy in recent years. The FHA single family mortgage program was designed to operate as a mutual insurance program where homeowners were granted rebates in excess of premiums required to maintain actuarial soundness. This rebate program was suspended at the direction of Congress in 1990 when the MMI fund was in the red--with the intent that the payment of distributive shares or rebates would resume when the Fund was again financially sound. With a sufficient capital reserve ratio, it is time to resume rebates and return the MMI program to its prior status as a mutual insurance fund. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.