Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 15 minutes for the purpose of introducing legislation.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Allard pertaining to the introduction of S. 3213 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I have introduced S. 3213. I want to take a few moments to talk about this important piece of legislation for paying down the national debt. As the 106th Congress comes to an end, I rise to make a few comments on the evolution of an issue of great concern to myself and to many Americans. The issue is the $5,661,548,045,674 national debt we had as of October 2, 2000. In August of 1993, while serving in the House of Representatives, I introduced House Joint Resolution 251 with the support of a number of my colleagues. The intention of this resolution was to amend the Constitution of the United States to provide for budgetary reform by requiring the reduction of the deficit, a balanced Federal budget, and the repayment of the national debt. During my years in the House, I had the good fortune to work with many Republican colleagues who were committed to these fiscally sound and enormously important issues. Today, a scant 7 years later, we are enjoying unsurpassed Federal budget surpluses and the many difficulties that accompany such prosperity. I am concerned that the running dialog in Washington is far too focused on today's spending, today's enormous Federal programs, today's immediate wants and needs. I am concerned that we are talking too much about spend today and not enough about the consequences of tomorrow. As we conclude the appropriations process, it is apparent that many Members of this body are eager to transform the Federal budget surplus into new Federal spending, creating more Federal programs that will begat future obligations. I am primarily concerned that efforts to recklessly spend every nickel of the taxpayers' money will threaten the long-term fiscal health of our Nation, the Nation our children and grandchildren will inherit. The majority of my colleagues on this side of the aisle are focusing on returning the surplus to its rightful owners--the American people. In recent months, the current administration has taken a hardline against tax cuts, making it clear that the President believes the Federal budget surplus belongs to Washington and not the hard-working men and women who send far more money to the Internal Revenue Service than they often save for retirement, college, or for buying a home. I find it frustrating and the height of arrogance to assume that the Federal Government can do more with this money than the taxpayers. So many of my Republican colleagues have such a profound conviction regarding returning the money to the working man and woman that, in fact, they have been hesitant to engage in development of a comprehensive long-term debt repayment plan. I have come to the floor before, and I will come to the floor again, to make clear what is required to manage the national debt in a comprehensive repayment strategy. The sheer enormity of the national debt demands such diligence. I admit that I have no desire to increase the growth of the Federal Government instead of paying down the debt. I am, as many of my colleagues, however, personally committed to cutting taxes. I have come to the floor today for no other reason than to make one thing crystal clear: We can pay down the debt and cut taxes. It is not an either/or proposition. It takes planning, and it takes commitment. It takes a plan to repay the debt and a commitment to cut taxes and the discipline to refrain from pouring ever more money into newer or larger programs. At the end of fiscal year 1999, the gross Federal budget was $5,656,270,901,615 and at the end of fiscal year 2000, the gross Federal budget was $5,674,178,209,886. Our past fiscal irresponsibilities have created this overwhelming mess, and an unpleasant task lies before us. For the health and well- being of our national economy and the future security of our young people, we must commit to the elimination of this debt. The journey of 5\1/2\ trillion miles begins with a single step. Early in the 106th Congress, I introduced the American Debt Repayment Act. A year later, I followed that legislation with the American Social Security Protection and Debt Repayment Act. I believe each of these bills provided a sensible first step toward debt repayment and the 5 trillion steps to follow. Both pieces of legislation suggested we treat the Federal debt just as every American treats the largest purchase they will ever make. That is their home. In February of this year, I came to the floor with my friends, George Voinovich, Rod Grams and Mike Enzi, with an amortization schedule for debt repayment to be offered to the budget resolution. Just as any American home buyer would amortize the purchase of their home with a mortgage, we offered a dutiful and moderate restriction on Federal spending combined with a specific debt repayment schedule. Our amendment was defeated. I believe the chief reason for the defeat of the amendment was the fear of being locked into a long- term repayment plan that would prohibit future tax cuts. The July 2000 budget economic and outlook update by the Congressional Budget Office disputes this understandable fear. According to the CBO, assuming spending is frozen at fiscal year 2000 levels, the next 10 years will yield an on-budget surplus of $3.4 trillion. If this Congress had exercised some discipline this year and appropriated within a freeze, the on-budget surplus in fiscal year 2001, which we have just begun, is projected to be $116 billion. One criticism of the long-term debt amortization plan that I brought to the floor was that it would prevent tax cuts and tie the hands of appropriators by absorbing all of the surplus. My most recent plan simply dedicates $15 billion of on-budget surplus to debt repayment and adds $15 billion each year thereafter. The sum total after 10 years of structured debt repayment is $825 billion from on-budget surplus. This repayment schedule would have left $2.6 trillion remaining for tax cuts and new spending over the next 10 years. It is important to note that these numbers do not take into account the off-budget surplus created by Social Security. I have said on the floor many times before that paying down the national debt is one of the best ways to provide long-term fiscal stability to Social Security. In the past, I proposed restricted use of the Social Security surplus to help pay down the debt. This not only provides for the future stability of Social Security by paying down the debt but protects Social Security money from Federal discretionary spending. Social Security surplus money should be used for debt repayment only until such time as Congress can initiate sensible reform to preserve the long-term integrity of Social Security. Social Security reform has been a priority of this Congress, and we can act to reduce the debt and reform this important program in one commitment. When the new Congress convenes in 2001, I intend to continue to work with my colleagues on developing a sensible and concrete debt repayment plan. I am also interested in working with my colleagues on other innovative ways to reduce the national debt. Legislation was recently introduced in the House, and I am pleased to come to the floor today on behalf of myself and the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, to introduce the Taxpayers Choice Debt Reduction Act. Every year, millions of taxpaying Americans have the opportunity to designate on their tax form a $3 contribution to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. This checkoff on all 1040 forms would allow for the taxpayers themselves to designate that $3, or $6 for joint filers, would be dedicated to a special Department of the Treasury account to pay down the national debt. Checking the box on the tax document would not increase the amount of taxes to be paid, nor would it decrease any refund. Checking ``yes'' in this box would simply provide a directive from the taxpayer that 3 of the dollars they were paying in taxes be used solely to pay down the Nation's debt. Importantly, these funds would be beyond any money set aside by Congress for debt reduction. In my annual town meetings around the State of Colorado, I often speak with my constituents over the enormous debt owed by this country. I can say with great confidence that this is an issue where the public desires action. It is my hope that with this legislation Congress will empower these concerned taxpayers to act on their impulse to eliminate the debt. Before I yield the floor, I extend my thanks to all of my Senate colleagues who have expressed an interest in debt repayment during this Congress, particularly Senators Voinovich, Enzi, Grams of Minnesota, Crapo, Reid of Nevada, and Feingold. I have enjoyed working with each of these Members over the course of the year as we have brought debt repayment amendments to the floor. I look forward to continuing to work on this important issue with my colleagues.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I have introduced S. 3213. I want to take a few moments to talk about this important piece of legislation for paying down the national debt. As the 106th Congress comes to an end, I rise to make a few comments on the evolution of an issue of great concern to myself and to many Americans. The issue is the $5,661,548,045,674 national debt we had as of October 2, 2000. In August of 1993, while serving in the House of Representatives, I introduced House Joint Resolution 251 with the support of a number of my colleagues. The intention of this resolution was to amend the Constitution of the United States to provide for budgetary reform by requiring the reduction of the deficit, a balanced Federal budget, and the repayment of the national debt. During my years in the House, I had the good fortune to work with many Republican colleagues who were committed to these fiscally sound and enormously important issues. Today, a scant 7 years later, we are enjoying unsurpassed Federal budget surpluses and the many difficulties that accompany such prosperity. I am concerned that the running dialog in Washington is far too focused on today's spending, today's enormous Federal programs, today's immediate wants and needs. I am concerned that we are talking too much about spend today and not enough about the consequences of tomorrow. As we conclude the appropriations process, it is apparent that many Members of this body are eager to transform the Federal budget surplus into new Federal spending, creating more Federal programs that will begat future obligations. I am primarily concerned that efforts to recklessly spend every nickel of the taxpayers' money will threaten the long-term fiscal health of our Nation, the Nation our children and grandchildren will inherit. The majority of my colleagues on this side of the aisle are focusing on returning the surplus to its rightful owners--the American people. In recent months, the current administration has taken a hardline against tax cuts, making it clear that the President believes the Federal budget surplus belongs to Washington and not the hard-working men and women who send far more money to the Internal Revenue Service than they often save for retirement, college, or for buying a home. I find it frustrating and the height of arrogance to assume that the Federal Government can do more with this money than the taxpayers. So many of my Republican colleagues have such a profound conviction regarding returning the money to the working man and woman that, in fact, they have been hesitant to engage in development of a comprehensive long-term debt repayment plan. I have come to the floor before, and I will come to the floor again, to make clear what is required to manage the national debt in a comprehensive repayment strategy. The sheer enormity of the national debt demands such diligence. I admit that I have no desire to increase the growth of the Federal Government instead of paying down the debt. I am, as many of my colleagues, however, personally committed to cutting taxes. I have come to the floor today for no other reason than to make one thing crystal clear: We can pay down the debt and cut taxes. It is not an either/or proposition. It takes planning, and it takes commitment. It takes a plan to repay the debt and a commitment to cut taxes and the discipline to refrain from pouring ever more money into newer or larger programs. At the end of fiscal year 1999, the gross Federal budget was $5,656,270,901,615 and at the end of fiscal year 2000, the gross Federal budget was $5,674,178,209,886. Our past fiscal irresponsibilities have created this overwhelming mess, and an unpleasant task lies before us. For the health and well- being of our national economy and the future security of our young people, we must commit to the elimination of this debt. The journey of 5\1/2\ trillion miles begins with a single step. Early in the 106th Congress, I introduced the American Debt Repayment Act. A year later, I followed that legislation with the American Social Security Protection and Debt Repayment Act. I believe each of these bills provided a sensible first step toward debt repayment and the 5 trillion steps to follow. Both pieces of legislation suggested we treat the Federal debt just as every American treats the largest purchase they will ever make. That is their home. In February of this year, I came to the floor with my friends, George Voinovich, Rod Grams and Mike Enzi, with an amortization schedule for debt repayment to be offered to the budget resolution. Just as any American home buyer would amortize the purchase of their home with a mortgage, we offered a dutiful and moderate restriction on Federal spending combined with a specific debt repayment schedule. Our amendment was defeated. I believe the chief reason for the defeat of the amendment was the fear of being locked into a long- term repayment plan that would prohibit future tax cuts. The July 2000 budget economic and outlook update by the Congressional Budget Office disputes this understandable fear. According to the CBO, assuming spending is frozen at fiscal year 2000 levels, the next 10 years will yield an on-budget surplus of $3.4 trillion. If this Congress had exercised some discipline this year and appropriated within a freeze, the on-budget surplus in fiscal year 2001, which we have just begun, is projected to be $116 billion. One criticism of the long-term debt amortization plan that I brought to the floor was that it would prevent tax cuts and tie the hands of appropriators by absorbing all of the surplus. My most recent plan simply dedicates $15 billion of on-budget surplus to debt repayment and adds $15 billion each year thereafter. The sum total after 10 years of structured debt repayment is $825 billion from on-budget surplus. This repayment schedule would have left $2.6 trillion remaining for tax cuts and new spending over the next 10 years. It is important to note that these numbers do not take into account the off-budget surplus created by Social Security. I have said on the floor many times before that paying down the national debt is one of the best ways to provide long-term fiscal stability to Social Security. In the past, I proposed restricted use of the Social Security surplus to help pay down the debt. This not only provides for the future stability of Social Security by paying down the debt but protects Social Security money from Federal discretionary spending. Social Security surplus money should be used for debt repayment only until such time as Congress can initiate sensible reform to preserve the long-term integrity of Social Security. Social Security reform has been a priority of this Congress, and we can act to reduce the debt and reform this important program in one commitment. When the new Congress convenes in 2001, I intend to continue to work with my colleagues on developing a sensible and concrete debt repayment plan. I am also interested in working with my colleagues on other innovative ways to reduce the national debt. Legislation was recently introduced in the House, and I am pleased to come to the floor today on behalf of myself and the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, to introduce the Taxpayers Choice Debt Reduction Act. Every year, millions of taxpaying Americans have the opportunity to designate on their tax form a $3 contribution to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. This checkoff on all 1040 forms would allow for the taxpayers themselves to designate that $3, or $6 for joint filers, would be dedicated to a special Department of the Treasury account to pay down the national debt. Checking the box on the tax document would not increase the amount of taxes to be paid, nor would it decrease any refund. Checking ``yes'' in this box would simply provide a directive from the taxpayer that 3 of the dollars they were paying in taxes be used solely to pay down the Nation's debt. Importantly, these funds would be beyond any money set aside by Congress for debt reduction. In my annual town meetings around the State of Colorado, I often speak with my constituents over the enormous debt owed by this country. I can say with great confidence that this is an issue where the public desires action. It is my hope that with this legislation Congress will empower these concerned taxpayers to act on their impulse to eliminate the debt. Before I yield the floor, I extend my thanks to all of my Senate colleagues who have expressed an interest in debt repayment during this Congress, particularly Senators Voinovich, Enzi, Grams of Minnesota, Crapo, Reid of Nevada, and Feingold. I have enjoyed working with each of these Members over the course of the year as we have brought debt repayment amendments to the floor. I look forward to continuing to work on this important issue with my colleagues.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, before I begin my statement regarding the conference report, I want to say that my heart goes out to the families of the crewman of the U.S.S. Cole in the Aden Gulf who were killed, injured, or are missing. Let it be said, that if this was a terrorist attack, the United States shall not allow this to stand without a strong response by the United States and no matter where these terrorists go, they will be found and they will be held accountable. Now to the conference report, I want to thank Chairman Warner for allowing me the opportunity to speak in strong support of this essential Defense authorization conference report which provides the needed resources for our men and women in the armed services. I believe this bill is a fitting tribute for those who served, are serving, and will serve in armed services in the future. The Fiscal Year 2001 Defense Authorization Act conference report has been a bipartisan effort and for the second year in a row we have reversed the downward trend in defense spending by increasing this year's funding by $4.6 billion over the President's request, for a funding level of $309.9 billion. As the Strategic Subcommittee chairman, I would like to point out a few key provisions in the subcommittee's jurisdiction, plus a few of keen interest to myself. As has been the pattern over the last several years, we had to increase the funding for our ballistic missile and space programs. This bill increases the ballistic missile defense programs by $391.8 million, a very important increase of $78 million for military space research and development programs, an increase of $91.2 million for strategic nuclear delivery vehicle modernization, and $80.5 million increase for military intelligence programs. Regarding a few specific items--an increase of $85.0 million the Airborne Laser Program which requires the Air Force to stay on the budgetary path for a 2003 lethal demonstration and a 2008 deployment; an increase of $10 million for the Space Based Laser Program; a $129 million increase for National Missile Defense risk reduction; an increase of $80 million for Navy Theater Wide; an extra $8 million for the Arrow System Improvement Program; and for the Tactical High Energy Program an increase of $15 million. Beyond the budget items, there four very important legislative provisions I would like to point out. First, the Secretary of Defense is required to conduct comprehensive review of our nuclear posture--the first major review since 1994. Second, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, must develop a long range plan for the sustainment and modernization of the U.S. strategic nuclear forces. We are concerned that the Department does not have a long term vision beyond their current modernization efforts. Third, in 2002, the Space-Based Infrared System Low or the SBIRS Low program will be transferred from the Air Force to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. And fourth, in order to assess an emerging threat, a commission has been established to assess the threats to the United States from an electromagnetic pulse attack. This conference report also authorizes the activities at the Department of Energy in regards to their defense activities. In order to ensure that America's nuclear weapon stockpile is safe and reliable and that our nuclear waste is managed responsibly, we have authorized $13 billion for Atomic Energy Defense activities at the Department of Energy. However, unfortunately, DOE has had a few problem areas in keeping and protecting our nation's most valued nuclear secrets. That is why we established in the fiscal year 2000 authorization bill the National Nuclear Security Administration or the NNSA and this year's bill provides a total of $6.4 billion for the NNSA. This total includes $4.8 billion for weapons activities, $877.5 million for defense nonproliferation activities, and $695 million for naval reactors activities. A priority for me is the timely and efficient cleanup and closure of formerly used DOE weapons facilities, such as Rocky Flats in my State of Colorado. This bill moves the cleanup and closure of these forward with strong funding lines and some key legislative provisions. For example, DOE believed it would be best if they moved all the security and safeguards funding into one line and into one office at the DOE Washington, DC, headquarters. The problem is that this would have taken the responsibility away from the people who are responsible for the safeguards and security at each individual site, plus would have removed the needed flexibility to manage the sites effectively. For instance, once the material requiring security are removed from Rocky Flats, the savings from the reduction of these security needs would then be used to accelerate the cleanup and closure at the site. That is one of the reasons why we have a provision which would keep the funding and responsibility at each Environmental Management site. In regards to the workers at Department of Energy sites, we provide employee incentives for retention and separation of federal employees at closure project facilities. These incentives are needed in order to mitigate the anticipated high attrition rate of certain federal employees with critical skills. Another key provision which is very important not just for the workers I know at Rocky Flats, but for workers throughout the DOE sites in the United States is the establishment of an employee compensation initiative for DOE employees who were injured, due to exposure to radiation, beryllium, or silica, as a result of their employment at DOE sites. These workers performed a unique, important, but sometimes thankless task, of producing and testing our nuclear weapons arsenal. Finally, I would like to mention a few important highlights of the conference report outside of the Strategic Subcommittee. In last year's authorization bill, we enacted a much needed and deserved pay raise for our military personnel. This year's bill continues that progress with a 3.7-percent pay raise beginning January 1, 2001. Along with the last year's pay raise, we also made major retirement reforms, including a Thrift Savings Plan for our service personnel. After many delays at the Pentagon, this year's bill directs the Department to implement the Thrift Savings Plan, in order to allow our military to prepare for life after their military service is complete. Let me finish with a provision that by no small measure is the most expensive but couldn't be more deserving for those who have served. Beyond the many changes we have made in the pharmacy benefit and extension of benefits for active duty family members, we provide a permanent comprehensive health care benefit for Medicare eligible military retirees. This has been a priority for this committee and Congress and I believe we are doing the right thing for our military retirees who have served and protected this Nation. I want to thank Chairman Warner for the opportunity to point out some of the highlights in the bill which the Strategic Subcommittee has oversight and to congratulate him and Senator Levin in the bipartisan way this bill was developed and ask that all Senators strongly support the Defense Authorization Conference Report. I also want to congratulate the chairman in the way he shepherded this conference report down the long arduous road this bill saw. One of Congress' main responsibilities is to provide for the common defense of the United States and I am proud of what this bill provides for men and women in uniform. I see this bill as a tribute to the dedication and hard work of these young men and women. I ask for a strong vote on this bill in order to get that much needed and well deserved resources to our military personnel.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I join with my colleague from Virginia in his expression of concern about the crew and members of the U.S.S. Cole. It still shows that we do live in a dangerous world, and our fighting men and women are exposed to danger every day they do their job.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to share with my colleagues a pair of statements I recently received from an exceptional young man in Colorado, Mr. Evan Todd of Littleton. Evan was one of the many unfortunate victims of the horrific shooting that took place at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999. Evan was the first student shot in the library at Columbine High School, and despite his injuries he assisted other students and administered first aid to a seriously wounded peer until emergency services could arrive. Evan, an active Boy Scout, was awarded the prestigious Boy Scouts of America Honor Medal for his inspiring actions. Still a Columbine student, Evan has dedicated a tremendous amount of time to speaking to other students and adults around the nation concerning the problems of youth violence and the cultural influences on American youth. I am honored that Evan took the time to write to me and I ask that a copy of Evan Todd's letter to his fellow Scouts and a copy of a speech he delivered at ``The Gathering,'' a meeting of victims of school violence, be printed in the Record. Littleton, CO. Dear Fellow Scouts: I have been told that into each life some rain must fall. Some get rained on more than others. The rain that came down on us at Columbine High School was a cloudburst of epic proportions. This act was senseless, tragic and without justification, whatsoever. 13 murdered 25 wounded and 1,951 students youth destroyed. As a student who was shot and wounded in the library, it has changed my life, forever. I believe that the children of a society are nothing more than the reflection of the society that they are brought into. The event here at Columbine in Littleton Colorado, and the events at Moses Lake Washington, Pearl Mississippi, Jonesboro Arkansas, Edinboro Pennsylvania, Fayetteville Tennessee, Springfield Oregon, Richmond Virginia, Conyers Georgia, Los Angeles California and elsewhere indicate to me that our nation has a serious character flaw. Since the Columbine tragedy, I have tried to stay abreast of the ``adult society'' debate as to the ``why'' and ``how'' of these terrible incidents. The adults debate and argue over what constitutes good and what constitutes evil; what is right and what is wrong. At the time of the Columbine tragedy, our national leader, the President, stated the youth of this nation need to learn to resolve our differences with words, not weapons. At the time this statement was made, we as a nation, were bombing Yugoslavia. They tell us that the youth of this nation need to be more tolerant, kinder, gentler, more understanding. Yet our entertainment, music, TV, movies, games (and actions of) the adult world provides for our consumption are all too often filled with violence, sex, death and destruction. If we were to take into our lives what is provided to us by our society, our actions would also violate the Scout Oath & Law. Other solutions to school violence have been nametags to be carried around our neck as millstones, metal detectors, increased video surveillance, etc. Our nation has always had guns. Our nation has always had children. What our nation hasn't always had is children murdering children and their parents, and parents murdering their children. The ingregient that has made America different is the last couple of `adult generations', and their changes towards what is right & wrong, good & evil. It appears to me that our society is confused. The adult world seems as a ship with no rudder being cast around by the wind and storms of our times, with no control or understanding as to why. Many of these storms appear to have been caused by their own accord. It's as if our adult society has no compass, no bearing, no standards for our society. I have found them confused. Even at our age, we can discern the difference between what you say and what you do . . . In regard to the solution of watching what comes out of us by monitoring closely our world with surveillance cameras, what we say, how we look, etc., our society needs to watch carefully what goes into us. In my room is a picture of the Grand Teton mountain range in Wyoming. Below the picture is the following: The Essence Of Destiny ``Watch your thoughts, for they become words. Choose your words, for they become actions. Understand your actions, for they become habits. Study your habits, for they will become your character. Develop your character, for it becomes your destiny.'' The good news for those of us that are Scouts is that we are privileged to be a part of an organization that provides us the tools and instructions to put into us that which builds a better person, a better nation. Those tools are called the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Robert Gates, former Director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and our current President of the National Eagle Scout Association (NESA) recently stated that there is a war going on for the souls of our boys and young men in this nation. He sees clearly. If you are to be a scout, don't be a scout in word only. Learn and practice the Oath & Law in everything you think, say and do. I understand well how hard that can be, but ``Do Your Best.'' To the Boy Scouts of America, thank you for defending our 90-year record and not allowing the Oath & Law to be redefined. As you say, it has stood the test of time. The generation that wants to change the Oath & Law has not stood the test of time. To all the scouts across America that sent me & my troop cards, letters, posters, your thoughts and prayers, thank you from the bottom of my heart. To you here tonight, I bid you vaya con Dios mi amigos, God Bless you and God Bless the work you do. Thank You. Evan Todd, Eagle Scout Troop 989.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to share with my colleagues a pair of statements I recently received from an exceptional young man in Colorado, Mr. Evan Todd of Littleton. Evan was one of the many unfortunate victims of the horrific shooting that took place at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999. Evan was the first student shot in the library at Columbine High School, and despite his injuries he assisted other students and administered first aid to a seriously wounded peer until emergency services could arrive. Evan, an active Boy Scout, was awarded the prestigious Boy Scouts of America Honor Medal for his inspiring actions. Still a Columbine student, Evan has dedicated a tremendous amount of time to speaking to other students and adults around the nation concerning the problems of youth violence and the cultural influences on American youth. I am honored that Evan took the time to write to me and I ask that a copy of Evan Todd's letter to his fellow Scouts and a copy of a speech he delivered at ``The Gathering,'' a meeting of victims of school violence, be included in the Congressional Record. The material follows: Dear Fellow Scouts, I have been told that into each life some rain must fall. Some get rained on more than others. The rain that came down on us at Columbine High School was a cloudburst of epic proportions. This act was senseless, tragic and without justification, whatsoever. 13 murdered 25 wounded and 1,951 students youth destroyed. As a student who was shot and wounded in the library, it has changed my life, forever. I believe that the children of a society are nothing more than the reflection of the society that they are brought into. The event here at Columbine in Littleton Colorado, and the events at Moses Lake Washington, Pearl Mississippi, Jonesboro Arkansas, Edinboro Pennsylvania, Fayetteville Tennessee, Springfield Oregon, Richmond Virginia, Conyers Georgia, Los Angeles California and elsewhere indicate to me that our nation has a serious character flaw. Since the Columbine tragedy, I have tried to stay abreast of the ``adult society'' debate as to the ``why'' and ``how'' of these terrible incidents. The adults debate and argue over what constitutes good and what constitutes evil; what is right and what is wrong. At the time of the Columbine tragedy, our national leader, the President, stated the youth of this nation need to learn to resolve our differences with words, not weapons. At the time this statement was made, we as a nation, were bombing Yugoslavia. They tell us that the youth of this nation need to be more tolerant, kinder, gentler, more understanding. Yet our entertainment, music, TV, movies, games (and actions of) the adult world provides for our consumption are all too often filled with violence, sex, death and destruction. If we were to take into our lives what is provided to us by our society, our actions would also violate the Scout Oath & Law. Other solutions to school violence have been nametags to be carried around our neck as millstones, metal detectors, increased video surveillance, etc. Our nation has always had guns. Our nation has always had children. What our nation hasn't always had is children murdering children and their parents, and parents murdering their children. The ingredient that has made America different is the last couple of `adult generations', and their changes towards what is right & wrong, good & evil. It appears to me that our society is confused. The adult world seems as a ship with no rudder being cast around by the wind and storms of our times, with no control or understanding as to why. Many of these storms appear to have been caused by their own accord. It's as if our adult society has no compass, no bearing, no standards for our society. I have found them confused. Even at our age, we can discern the difference between what you say and what you do. . . . In regard to the solution of watching what comes out of us by monitoring closely our world with surveillance cameras, what we say, how we look, etc., our society needs to watch carefully what goes into us. In my room is a picture of the Grand Teton mountain range in Wyoming. Below the picture is the following: ``the essence of destiny ``Watch your thoughts, for they become words. Choose your words, for they become actions. Understand your actions, for they become habits. Study your habits, for they will become your character. Develop your character, for it becomes your destiny.''

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today, with Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, to introduce a very important piece of legislation for my state of Colorado and this nation--The Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act. My colleague, Representative Mark Udall, is introducing companion legislation in the House cosponsored by the entire Colorado delegation. Today we begin a new chapter in the history of Rocky Flats. This legislation will permanently designate the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site as a National Wildlife Refuge following the cleanup and closure of the site. It ensures that the Federal Government will retain full liability and ownership of this former nuclear weapons facility. This legislation will transform Rocky Flats from producing weapons to protecting wildlife. It will ensure that our children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy the wildlife and open space that currently exists at Rocky Flats. This is a tremendous achievement. Once the bill is enacted, we will see Rocky Flats move from being an active nuclear weapons site into an active refuge for wildlife and wild flowers in less than two decades. An accomplishment which no one thought was possible. My vested interest in Rocky Flats began during the 1980's when I was the Chairman of the State Senate Committee on Health, Environment, Welfare and Institutions. Although I supported the national security mission of the Rocky Flats site prior to closure, I believe that the Department of Energy must also ensure the safety and health of all Coloradans and the environment. When the Rocky Flats site was shut down in 1990, cleaning up and closing down the site became one of my top legislative priorities and will remain so until this project is complete. So where did the idea come from to turn Rocky Flats, a former nuclear weapons production facility, into a National Wildlife Refuge? My experience with wildlife refuge designations began with Congresswoman Schroeder at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in 1992. We worked on a bill very similar to the one we are here to discuss today, which designated the Arsenal as a National Wildlife Refuge. Given the success we experienced at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, I am confident this is an appropriate designation for Rocky Flats. Last year, I became the Strategic Subcommittee Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which has direct oversight of former DoE weapons facilities including Rocky Flats. This is the first site in the DoE complex to receive funding for cleanup and closure, and will therefore be a role model for other sites in the complex. As Chairman of the Subcommittee, I will continue to work closely with my colleagues to educate them on the importance of cleaning up and closing down Rocky Flats so it can be utilized as a National Wildlife Refuge. This education extends beyond the cleanup and closure of Rocky Flats to the importance of cleaning up and closing of all the former DoE weapons sites. To this end, Congressman Udall and I have worked in a bipartisan manner, with the Department of Energy, the EPA, the State of Colorado, the local governments and the Rocky Flats stakeholders to produce the proposed Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act. It has been hard work and with many discussion drafts, but in the end I believe we have produced a bill that the communities surrounding Rocky Flats can and will be proud of. It is important to understand that this legislation maintains that the Rocky Flats site will remain in permanent Federal ownership, and that the administrative transfer of this site from DoE to the Fish and Wildlife Service will take place after the cleanup and closure of the site is complete. While cleanup is still our top priority, determination of official closure is determined by the Environmental Protection Agency's signing of the final on-site record of decision. There are many components of this bill which I will summarize as follows: The sponsors of the legislation recognize the historic importance of the Lindsay Ranch homestead facilities and this legislation guarantees the ranch's preservation. Additionally, this bill ensures that the site will remain a unified site, therefore disallowing the annexation of land to any local government, or for the construction of through roads. The only roads that may be constructed on the site would be by the Fish and Wildlife Service for the management of the refuge. Currently, there is a provision in this legislation to allow the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of the Interior to authorize a transportation right of-way on the eastern boundary of the site for transportation improvements along Indiana Street. We are aware of the continued evaluation of this issue and want this section of the bill to be consistent with the needs of the State of Colorado and the local governments. With respect to the transfer of management responsibilities and jurisdiction over Rocky Flats, this bill requires the Department of Energy and the Fish and Wildlife Service to publish in the Federal Register a Memorandum of Understanding one year after the enactment of this Act. This Memorandum of Understanding will address administrative matters such as the division of responsibilities between the two agencies until the official transfer of the site occurs. This legislation clearly states that no funding designated for cleanup and closure of the site will be used for these activities. It is important that the transfer of the site from the Department of Energy to the Fish and Wildlife Service exclude any property that must be retained by DoE for future onsite monitoring, as well as property which must be retained for protection of human health and safety. The improvements necessary for the site to be managed as a wildlife refuge will be completed at no cost to the Secretary of the Interior. Therefore, the Secretary of Interior will need to identify appropriate improvement needs and submit this request to the Secretary of Energy in writing. This legislation also clarifies that in the event of future cleanup activities, this action will take priority over wildlife management. These two agencies must continue to work with each other towards their missions. One of the most important directives in this Act states that ``nothing in this Act affects the level of cleanup and closure at the Rocky Flats site required under the Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement or any Federal or State law.'' Through the ongoing discussions that Congressman Udall and I have had with the Rocky Flats stakeholders we believe it is important to reiterate that this bill should not be used as a mechanism to drive the level of cleanup. We are confident that this language clarifies this issue. Our primary goal remains and will continue to remain the on-going cleanup and closure of Rocky Flats. And, nothing in this bill affects the on-going cleanup and closure activities at the Rocky Flats. Once the site is transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service, the refuge will be managed in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Act to preserve wildlife, enhance wildlife habitat, conserve threatened and endangered species, provide education opportunities and scientific research, as well as recreation. We recognize the importance of the locally elected officials and stakeholders in the effectiveness and success of this bill. Therefore, we want to ensure their continued contribution at Rocky Flats. Through this bill we direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to convene a public process to include input on the management of the site. The public process will provide a forum for recommendations to be given to the Fish and Wildlife Service on issues including the site operations, transportation improvements, leasing land to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, perimeter fences, the development of a Rocky Flats museum and visitors center. Upon the completion of this report by the Fish and Wildlife Service, a report will be submitted to Congress to identify the recommendations resulting from the public process. We have received a lot of input with respect to private property rights. This legislation recognizes and preserves these property and access rights, which include mineral rights, water and easement rights, and utility rights-of-ways. This legislation does direct the Secretary of Energy to seek to purchase mineral rights from willing sellers. For management purposes, this Act provides the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Interior the authority to impose reasonable conditions on the access to private property rights for cleanup and refuge management purposes. Additionally, this bill provides the Secretary of Energy with the authority to allow Public Service Company of Colorado to construct an extension from an existing extension line on the site. As a tribute to the Cold War and those who worked at Rocky Flats both prior to and after the site closure, Congressman Udall and I, through this legislation, authorize the establishment of a Rocky Flats museum to commemorate the site. This bill requires that the creation of the museum shall be studied, and a report shall be submitted to Congress within three years following the enactment of this act. Lastly, this bill directs the Department of Energy and the Fish and Wildlife Service to inform Congress on the costs associated with the implementation of this Act. This process has moved forward successfully thanks to the hard work of the local governments and the Rocky Flats stakeholders. I also want to thank Representative Udall for the bi-partisan manner in which he and his staff worked with me and my office. Rocky Flats, like all other cleanup sites, is bigger than partisan politics and this effort proves it. Once clean up and closure is accomplished in 2006, I look forward to returning to Rocky Flats for the dedication of new Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 19, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on U.S. policy toward Iraq.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 19, 2000 to mark up H.R. 4986, the FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000 and H.R. 2868, the Tariff Suspension and Trade Act of 2000.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, September 19, 2000, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing to consider the nomination of George Omas to be a Commissioner of the Postal Rate Commission.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 19, 2000, at 10:00 a.m. for a hearing on ``The State of Foreign Language Capabilities in the Federal Government--Part II''.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 19 at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing. The subcommittee will receive testimony on H.R. 3577, a bill to increase the amount authorized to be appropriated for the north side pumping division of the Minidoka reclamation project, Idaho; S. 2906, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into contracts the city of Loveland, Colorado, to use Colorado-Big Thompson Project facilities for the impounding, storage, and carriage of nonproject water for domestic, municipal, industrial, and other beneficial purposes; S. 2942, a bill to extend the deadline for commencement of construction of certain hydroelectric project in the State of West Virginia; S. 2951, a bill to authorize the Commissioner of Reclamation to conduct a study to investigate opportunities to better manage the water resources in the Salmon Creek watershed of the Upper Columbia River; and S. 3022, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain irrigation facilities to the Mampa and Meridian Irrigation District.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I ask the Senator to let me reclaim my time. I appreciate his comments. We have a Senator from North Carolina who would like to have an opportunity to speak. I think we are working under some time guidelines.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I sat here and listened to my good friend from West Virginia on trade. I believe I should speak from a position of representing a State that has benefited immensely from the trade agreements that we have passed recently--the North American Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. Exports from the State of Colorado, which I represent, have increased dramatically. In fact, we have experienced the greatest growth in exports of any State in the Nation on a percentage basis. The economy of the State of Colorado is based greatly on agriculture. My friend from West Virginia talked about agriculture to a certain degree. We grow a lot of wheat. We raise a lot of livestock, and we do make an attempt to expand our markets to the Pacific rim countries, which includes China. We have a very modern economic base in the State. We work a lot on exporting high tech. Many high-tech companies do business in the State of Colorado. On a concentration basis, we have the highest concentration of high-tech employees of any State in the country. So we benefit from exporting goods, and the North American Free Trade Agreement has helped the State of Colorado, and GATT has also. I happen to think that an agreement with China for normal trade relations will help agriculture, and it will help States such as Colorado because these are markets where we can compete and have been competing. My colleague from West Virginia talked a considerable amount about the trade deficits we are experiencing in this country. I come at the trade deficit issue from a different perspective than my colleague from West Virginia. I have looked at what happened historically with trade deficits. If we look at the time of the Great Depression in this country, the trade deficits were low. If we look at the time when we were suffering, when we had the misery index--and this is at the latter part of the 1970s, during the Carter administration--the trade deficit was low. We had high double-digit unemployment. We had high double- digit inflation, and we had high double-digit unemployment. But our trade deficit was low. I happen to believe when we look at the trade deficit, it is more of a reflection of what is happening economically in this country. Our country has experienced high trade deficits when our economy has been doing well, just like during the period of time we are in today. So the figures he presents to you on trade deficits, in reality, they do happen. What is the significance to the economy? I happen to believe it has the opposite impact. Many times, when people are evaluating the impact of the trade deficit, they look at it only from the perspective of one industry. If you look at the total economy, the total growth of jobs within this country, we benefit, in many cases, by importing products. How does that work? Let's take an automobile, for example. Some State may have a company--maybe in Michigan, for example--that could be impacted by trade policies. But does that have a net impact on jobs in the United States? Many times, when you take it into total consideration, there is a net gain because there are jobs--union jobs-- created when you have to unload those cars at our ports. There are jobs created when you have to clean up the cars when they come into the country. There are jobs created when you have to transport those cars across the country to get them to a point of sale. Somebody has to sell the cars. Jobs are created there. Somebody has to buy the cars. There is insurance sold in relation to the purchase of the car. Goods and services relating to that go into the marketplace. Those cars have to be maintained and operated and fixed. Many times, they go into a resale market at some point in their lifetime. These are all jobs that are created as a result of having imported that product. So I am convinced that our best policy is to work in a free market environment, and the problem we have right now is not that we don't place a lot of the tariffs and restrictions on Chinese goods coming into this country, but China is the one that is placing restrictions on our goods going into their country--particularly agricultural products and goods related to the high-tech industry. That is why I think this particular effort to create normal trade relations is beneficial. Isolationism doesn't work. Isolating a country and saying that is going to help human rights--I don't think that works. That is one reason why Taiwan, for example, supports our efforts to try to establish permanent normal trade relations with China. So I think that in order to prevent human abuse, to protect human rights, we need to open up China. When our business people go into China, they expect a certain standard. They just won't do business with Chinese companies without those standards. They will have to abide by their contracts. If somebody doesn't honor the contract, there has to be a court system of some type that will help enforce those contracts. And these all carry with them democratic principles. When Chinese businessmen interact with American businessmen, they will understand how the free enterprise system works, how democracy works. I think we export democracy when we enter into a free market agreement where we take down trade barriers and increase the interaction between countries--particularly when we are talking about a democratic county as opposed to a Communist one. They see there is a different way of doing things and prospering that yields benefits far and above what they have been told in a country where the leaders restrict information and restrict freedoms. I think it is important we pass this piece of legislation that says we will have permanent normal trade relations with China. I see my colleague from North Carolina.

Mr. ALLARD. I would be glad to yield to the Senator from West Virginia. But I also know that I have a colleague from North Carolina who would like to be recognized for some comments. I yield to my colleague from West Virginia.

Mr. ALLARD. I would like to briefly respond. I am speaking from the experience of a Senator who represents a State that has benefited from free trade policy. It is not State Department talk, it is what we have seen economically. I wanted to respond, and I would like to yield my time to the Senator from North Carolina to be recognized.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend, Thurman ``Fum'' McGraw, a man whose legend at Colorado State University, my alma mater, is among the greatest in the University's history. ``Fum,'' the school's first All-American, died Wednesday at age 73 of complications from a stroke this summer. ``Fum,'' who was large in stature at nearly 6-foot-5 and more than 200 pounds, was considered Colorado State University's greatest athlete, and as a ``gentle giant'' by his wife, Brownie. McGraw became synonymous with the school's athletic department. In addition to his superior college football career, a two time All-American defensive lineman in 1948 and 1949 who led the Rams to their first Bowl game, he was also an All-American in wrestling and competed in the national track and field championships. As a senior in 1949-1950 he was the university's student body president. He graduated with a degree in forest management in 1950 and spent five years in the National Football League. After an amazing college career he starred with the National Football League's Detroit Lions, helping them to win two championships and earning All-Pro honors three times as a defensive lineman. ``Fum'' returned to CSU in 1955 as the wrestling coach, also assisting with the football and track teams. He was an assistant coach with the Pittsburgh Steelers from 1958-62, returned to CSU as an administrator in 1962, then returned to the NFL as a scout in 1970. Finally in 1976 he was back to stay at CSU as the athletic director until 1986. Throughout his career at Colorado State University McGraw tirelessly raised money for the CSU athletic department. He spearheaded the resumption of the football series with the University of Colorado and helped initiate the construction of Moby Arena in 1966 and Hughes Stadium in 1968. His work ultimately led to the school's acceptance into the Western Athletic Conference in 1968. But it wasn't just what he did in athletics that made him so special. Thurman McGraw was the recipient of numerous honors, including induction into the National Football Foundation Hall of Fame and the Colorado Sports Hall of Fame. In 1997 he and his wife received the Citizen of the West Award given annually by the National Western Stock Show. ``Fum'' also led the effort to name the university track for his former teammate and friend Jack Christiansen. Last year to honor McGraw, CSU officials commemorated his lifetime of support by dedicating the Thurman ``Fum'' McGraw Center. The Thurman ``Fum'' McGraw Center which includes the school's locker rooms, weight training and injury rehabilitation facilities, and coaches and staff offices for the athletic department. Two weeks ago, while ``Fum'' was laid up in the hospital, the football team dedicated its game against in state rival University of Colorado to McGraw. The Rams upset Colorado 28 to 24. McGraw would do anything to help the school he adored, the friends he cared so much for, and the family he loved so dearly. Thurman ``Fum'' McGraw was and always will remain the essence of Colorado State University. He was a hero on and off the field, and a genuine role model for today's athletes. He will be missed throughout the community, but he will not be forgotten. I offer my thoughts and prayers to those close to Mr. McGraw in this difficult time.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, recently, President Clinton vetoed legislation that would have repealed the estate tax, legislation that I strongly supported. I fundamentally oppose the estate tax. I call it the ``death tax.'' This has been a concern of mine for some time now. In fact, I have previously introduced legislation that would do away with this unfair tax. Congress has clearly demonstrated its support for easing this burden. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 gradually increases the exemption. Last year, Congress decided that further action was needed and passed a bill that would have eliminated the federal estate tax. Unfortunately, the President chose to veto that bill. The United States has one of the highest estate taxes in the world. While income tax rates have declined in recent decades, estate taxes have remained high. Today, the death tax is imposed on estates with assets of more than $675,000. The rates begin at 37% and very rapidly rise to 55%. Some estates even pay a marginal rate of 60%! This issue really hits home for me. Family farms and small businesses are two of the groups most affected by the estate tax. I grew up on my family's farm in Colorado, and I owned a small business before I came to Washington. So, I truly understand the concerns of those who live in fear of the impact that this tax will have on their legacy to their children. The estate tax has resulted in the loss of family farms and family businesses across the nation. Many people work their entire lives to build a business that they can pass on to their children. When these hard-working businessmen and farmers pass away, their families are often forced to sell off the business to pay the estate tax. I see this as an affront to those who try to pass on the fruits of their lives' work to their children. The people affected by this tax are not necessarily wealthy. Many small businesspeople are cash poor, but asset rich. For example, the owner of a small restaurant might have $800,000 of assets, but not much cash on hand. Her children will still have to pay an excessive tax on the assets. The beer wholesaler, who has invested all of his revenue in trucks and storage, might have more than $675,000 in assets. That does not make him a cash-wealthy man. Yet, he is still subject to this so- called ``tax on the wealthy.'' The death tax also impacts employment and the economy. When a family- owned farm or a small business closes, the workers lose their jobs. Conversely, leaving resources in the economy can create jobs. A recent George Mason study found that if the estate tax were phased out over five years, the economy would create 198,895 more jobs, and grow by an additional $509 billion over a ten-year period. Additionally, the estate tax is a disincentive for Americans to save their earnings. The government has created a number of tax breaks and other incentives for those who save their money: 401(k)s and IRA's--to name a few. Yet, the estate tax sends a contradictory message. Basically, it says, ``If you don't spend all your savings by the time you die, the government will penalize you.'' This tax is no small penalty, either. We are talking about some very high tax rates. The death tax also represents an unjust double taxation. The savings were taxed initially when they were earned. Then, when the saver passes away, the government comes along and takes a second cut. There is no good reason for the current system--other than the government's desire to make a profit at the already trying time of the death of a dear one. The current death tax law has a greater effect on the lower end of the scale than the higher. Wealthy people can afford lawyers and planners to help them plan their estate. Those at the lower end of the estate tax scale are often unable to afford sophisticated estate planning. So the current law also makes the tax somewhat regressive, which is not fair. Planning and compliance with the estate tax can consume substantial resources. In 1995, the Gallup organization surveyed family firms. Twenty-three percent of owners of companies valued over $10 million said that they pay more than $50,000 per year in insurance premiums on policies to help them pay the eventual bill. To plan for the estate tax, the firms also spent an average of $33,000 on lawyers, accountants and financial planners, over a period of several years. This is money that could have been better spent to expand the business and create new jobs--rather than dealing with the death tax. The estate tax only raises one percent of federal revenue, yet it costs farms, businesses and jobs. No American family should lose their farm or business because of the federal government. I support full repeal of the federal estate tax.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I want to make sure the floor manager is comfortable yielding back on our side; if so, I yield back the remainder of time.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield my time on the floor and I reserve the time we have in opposition.

Mr. ALLARD. Yes, 2 minutes for closing remarks prior to each vote. So I assume that is 1 minute to each side. I understand this has been agreed to by the leadership on both sides.