Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President--I would like to take this opportunity to commend an outstanding student athlete from my home state of Colorado. Aleisha Cramer of Green Mountain High School has been named the 1999-2000 Gatorade National High School Girls Soccer Player of the Year. Aleisha's hard work and dedication earned her the prestige of being the number one soccer player of 246,000 high school girls across the country. Ms. Cramer's athletic accomplishments include being the Parade Player of the Year, the National Soccer Coaches of America's Player of the Year as well as being accepted on the U.S. Women's National Team. Aleisha has lead her team to the State Finals for three consecutive years, winning the championship in 1997 and 1999. Not only is Aleisha an amazing athlete, she is honor student with a 4.0 grade point average, a member of the student senate and a volunteer for church and school groups. It is an honor for me to recognize the achievements of this amazing young woman. Aleisha leads by example and her work ethic, talent and civic duties have made her a role model that any student can look up to. Aleisha Cramer has proved what hard work as a student, athlete and community member can accomplish. Again, I would like to congratulate Aleisha Cramer, the 1999-2000 Gatorade National High School Girls Soccer Player of the Year, for her accomplishments. She has made the State of Colorado and this nation proud.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I stand before you today to support S. 1134, the Affordable Education Act. I have been a long time supporter of the Education Savings Account. I believe that ESA's can be a very effective tool in helping parents have an impact on their child's education. The key to a child's education is parent involvement. As well intentioned as we may be here in Washington, no amount of money or regulation can accomplish what a child's parents can. I have worked and will continue to work to help provide parents the opportunity to have an increasing say in their child's education. I believe this bill will help to accomplish just that. The changes this bill will make to the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 will provide flexibility and choice to parents. Parents who earn less than $95,000 a year can pay up to $2,000 a year per child into a tax exempt Education Savings Account. This is an increase of 400% from the current limit. Under current law, money that is payed into ESA's is only available to pay for higher education. This bill will make money payed into an ESA available for parents during the K-12 years of education. This legislation gives parents the flexibility to use their money on anything from college tuition to books or computers if these supplies are utilized in their child's education. If parents would like to send their child to a private school this money will be available. Some will say that Education Savings Accounts will just benefit the rich. I strongly disagree. This bill would move all parents who want to send their child to a private school $2,000 closer to that goal. If parents want to keep their child in public school they have their ESA available to pay for any additional fees or supplies that would help educate their child. Education is a crucial issue. In January and February I held 63 town meetings in the state of Colorado where parents spoke with me first hand about their concerns with the education system. I receive many letters from parents sharing similar sentiments every week. They tell me they are having a difficult time paying extra fees to allow their child to participate in extra curricular activities. Education Savings Accounts can help those parents set aside money to pay for activities that help build character for students. They tell me that they are having to pay for school books that they cannot afford. Education Savings Accounts can help those parents set aside money to pay for the books that their child needs. They tell me that college is becoming too expensive. Education Savings Accounts help parents set aside money to pay for their child's college tuition so that they can graduate without worrying about having to pay off loans. This bill also addresses other needs in the area of education. Local communities that pass tax-exempt bonds must pay the government the arbitrage, or interest, that accrues on those bonds. The Affordable Education Act increases the ceiling of eligibility for retaining bond arbitrage from $10 million to $15 million. This provides more money for school construction. Relief for graduate students is also included in this bill. The sixty month limit on loan interest tax deduction for graduate students is eliminated. This helps students who are unable to pay off their loans in five years. Employers are also allowed to provide up to $5,250 a year in tax exempt income to an employee attending college or graduate school for tuition assistance. Education Savings Accounts can be extended past the age of 18 for special education students who may not start college at the age of 18 like traditional students. This bill will also provide a positive impact in other important areas. It provides tax relief which is very important to me and my constituents by reducing taxable income for families with children. I believe it can also reduce juvenile crime by allowing parents to pay for after school care for their child. This would allow children to be involved in activities during the time of day in which children are at the greatest risk of misbehaving, the time between the end of the school day and the end of the work day when many children are unsupervised. We have an opportunity today to begin to work towards important reform of our education system. We have passed provisions similar to this bill in the past only to see the President veto them. I hope we can overcome this ``one-size-fits-all'' attitude towards education and pass the Affordable Education Act. Lets put the control back in the hands of parents instead of bureaucrats. I strongly urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand the majority manager needs some more time. Pursuant to the provisions of rule XXII, I now yield the hour allotted to me postcloture to the majority manager, Senator Murkowski.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1287, the nuclear waste disposal bill. Members should be aware that amendments to the nuclear waste bill will be offered during today's session. Further, a final agreement regarding amendments and debate time should be entered into at some time today. Therefore, Senators can expect amendments to the nuclear waste bill throughout the day. As a reminder, second-degree amendments to the committee substitute must be filed by noon today. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, it is with great reluctance that I vote for the Work Incentives Act Conference Report. A particular provision, Section 408, has been added to this important piece of legislation at a date too late to make further changes. Section 408 was introduced in the House, included in the Conference Report, but never debated in the Senate. I am a cosponsor of the Senate version of this bill. In an effort to finish the first session of the 106th Congress we have had no time to sound our concerns and make due changes. Section 408 extends the authority of state medicaid fraud units. Not only would this provision mandate more federal control over what has been historically governed by the states, it also calls for investigation and prosecution of resident abuse in non-Medicaid board and care facilities. This provision allows the federal government unprecedented control over the quality of care in private institutions. This is yet another example of government authority exceeding its' boundaries. I have always been a supporter of state's rights and less government control and I feel these regulations are best promulgated by the states. Certainly they should not be promulgated in the final days of the session. It is my opinion that we must reduce the amount of federal government regulation and not further impede the rights of care providers and state officials to monitor private industry. I make an effort to examine all pieces of legislation to ensure that the end results is objective and does not further burden individuals with undue regulation. Again it is with great reluctance that I vote for this act. The changes made in the Conference Report at this late date are onerous and threaten the sanctity of private health care providers.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I anticipate somewhere around 7 or 8 minutes for my remarks.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the section of this amendment that addresses mandatory sentencing guidelines for handling powder cocaine. I thank my colleague from Michigan, Senator Abraham, for his leadership on this particular issue. We have been working on this issue for well over 2 years. I know it is important to him. It is extremely important to me. I think he made a great statement, great argument for why we need to toughen penalties on drug dealers. One of our colleagues who spoke earlier suggested perhaps we were not spending enough money on prevention and education and treatment. I have, in the meantime, pulled out a chart that shows how much money we have spent over the last 10 years in drug treatment and prevention and research. I would like to go over that for a moment for Members of the Senate. Over the last 10 years, we have spent more than $20 billion on drug abuse treatment. We have spent more than $15 billion on drug abuse prevention. And we have spent, in addition to that, more than $1 billion in prevention research and more than $1.5 billion in treatment research. We certainly have not been ignoring the treatment and prevention of drug addiction. The fact is, it is complicated. It needs to be part of the formula, as far as I am concerned. But if we do not recognize loopholes we have in the current law that allows drug dealers to continue to carry on their business at an extreme cost to society, I think we are ignoring our responsibilities, trying to address part of the drug problem. That means we have to have tougher penalties. Currently, there is a vast discrepancy between minimum sentencing guidelines for those caught dealing cocaine in the form of crack and those dealing it in the form of powder. Under current law, a dealer can be sentenced to 5 years for peddling 5 grams of crack cocaine. If you look on the chart, we have symbolized the amount of 5 grams of crack cocaine. In order to receive a similar sentence, a dealer would have to be caught with 500 grams of powder cocaine. That creates a tremendous loophole. What happens with our drug dealers is they will bring in powder cocaine and just before they put it out on the street for consumption by individuals, it is converted over to crack cocaine. That loophole encourages drug dealers to then import more powder cocaine. That is why I think it is so important we pass this particular portion of the amendment. I have met with many different law enforcement organizations to look into this discrepancy. One effect of this discrepancy is what statistics show to be a racial bias in the sentencing guidelines. Mr. President, 90 percent of those convicted for dealing crack are African Americans. The majority of dealers caught with powder cocaine are white--58 percent of powder users are white. It is ridiculous that those who dabble with powder cocaine for all intents and purposes are protected by our sentencing parameters. Drug smugglers and drug dealers know about this caveat in sentencing and they do everything they can to take advantage of it. Cocaine is largely transported in powder form and only converted to crack at the time of sale. This loophole in the current law actually reduces the long-term risks to dealers and smugglers. Drug enforcement detectives I have met with have confirmed the going price for 5 grams of powder and 5 grams of crack are typically equal now on the street. That varies considerably, but that apparently is the price right now. Why should we continue to support this disparity when we can solve it today? I believe one way to effectively decrease crime in America is to punish criminals through more rigorous sentencing, particularly when we are providing the amount of dollars we are today for drug prevention and drug treatment and research on drug prevention and research on drug treatment. In order to receive a minimum sentence of 5 years, a criminal would only need to be caught with 50 grams of powder cocaine instead of the current 500. This amendment also stiffens the penalty for carrying a large quantity of powder cocaine. To receive a minimum sentence of 10 years, a criminal would only have to be caught with 500 grams of powder cocaine, instead of the current standard of 5 kilograms. Henry Salano, the former U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado, has endorsed this effort saying: There is a strong rationale for equalizing the powder cocaine penalties and the crack cocaine penalties. The law enforcement community learned years ago the strong sentences meted out to crack cocaine dealers has had a significant deterrent effect on the production and distribution of crack. [These] proposed penalties for powder cocaine will likewise restrict the flow of powder cocaine in this country. This comes from an individual who in the past has been on the front line, has been on the firing line, has been dealing with this from a hands-on position because of his position with law enforcement. We must show criminals that any activity involving illegal drugs will not be tolerated. There is a direct correlation between drug use and crime. Cocaine plays a major role in this connection. A Department of Justice study in 1998 discovered the drug most commonly detected among all arrestees, from 1990 to 1998, was cocaine. Cocaine use poses a direct threat to the safety of our society. Let's stop treating those who use and deal powder cocaine as if they were special criminals. I ask all my colleagues to join me and end this inequality in cocaine spending. I ask my colleagues to consider the issues in this particular amendment. I think we are taking generally the right steps in addressing our drug problem. Obviously, we are not doing it just on penalties, but we are doing it in all areas--treatment and prevention. This is an important loophole we must close. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment and supporting this effort. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and congratulate Bob Greenlee on the occasion of his retirement from the Boulder City Council. Bob and his wife Diane came to Colorado from Iowa in 1975 and used their savings to buy a small AM radio station in Boulder. Through their hard work and determination, they turned that small AM radio station into KBCO, one of the top radio stations in the State. In addition to their work in radio, they have also helped bring several successful businesses to their community, expanding nationwide and employing thousands of people across the country through their enterprises. As part of their overall business philosophy, Bob and Diane have helped many others achieve their entrepreneurial dreams by assisting them in business ventures and startup companies. The Greenlee's have also been an integral part of the Boulder community through their philanthropic work. Together, they founded the Boulder County chapter of the ``I Have a Dream Foundation'' which assists underprivileged youth achieve their goal of a college education. Bob and Diane have also endowed their own family foundation to carry on their tradition of philanthropy in Colorado. Their work has helped thousands of people across Colorado in their desire to achieve the ``American dream.'' As the cornerstone of his community involvement, Bob served on the Boulder City Council for 16 years as the voice of common sense and reason. In 1997, Bob was selected on a unanimous vote by his fellow council members to serve as Boulder's mayor. As part of the city council, Bob's lasting legacy will be his thoughtful, reasoned voice in how a city should be operated. He views on frugality in the city budget and a common sense approach to city regulation will serve as an enduring reminder of his years of service to the community. While he is retiring from City Council, Bob's interest in government has not ended. He currently serves as the chairman of the Republican Leadership Program. The program is aimed at teaching the fundamentals of our democracy and is used as a forum to discuss current issues that impact our everyday lives. His leadership has created one of the strongest programs of its kind in the country, and will serve to educate Coloradans on the need to be involved in the issues which face our state and our country. Bob Greenlee has shown us all that the American dream can still be attained. He and Diane started by knowing that they could make a difference, and through their hard work and diligence, they were able to build their lives in order to serve others. People like Bob and Diane Greenlee were the cornerstone of our democracy and must be recognized for their contributions to our society. Mr. President, it is an honor and a privilege to recognize Bob Greenlee on his outstanding career and community involvement. I would like to thank Bob and Diane for their service, and wish them both much success in the future.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his very gracious remarks. It has been a pleasure to work with him on this particular issue. He is extremely knowledgeable, and it is because of his knowledge and persistence on this particular issue that I think we will pass such a good bill. I compliment the chairman in a public manner for the yeoman's work he has done and the great leadership he has shown on this particular issue. It has been a particular pleasure for me to be able to serve with him on the conference committee. In regard to the conference report that is before the Senate, I think its provisions will be good for consumers and good for businesses. In regard to the consumers, it provides increased competition in financial services. That is good. It will increase choice for consumers. There is more convenience for consumers, and it will lower prices. Specific provisions in the bill also give consumers more information to better enable them to make educated choices. The conference report, as I mentioned, is also good for business. It rewrites the outdated laws that have governed the financial services industry since the Depression. Gramm-Leach-Bliley eliminates the barriers between banks, insurance companies, security firms, and other financial institutions. This will increase efficiency, reduce costs, and increase innovation. American financial institutions will be better able to compete internationally under the new structures contained in the conference report. Through the passage of this bill, Congress will rightly reclaim the authority to govern the structure of the financial services industry. For a number of years, various regulators have been easing the statutory restrictions between banking and commerce through regulation. By passing a comprehensive bill addressing the appropriate relationship among banking, insurance, and securities, Congress will ensure that the entire financial services industry is updated in a safe--and I would add that safe is very important to me and other members of the committee --and a consistent manner as compared to a patchwork of regulations. Congress has struggled for many years with the best way in which to update the laws governing the financial services industry. One reason we are finally poised to modernize the financial services laws is the spirit of compromise and inclusiveness embodied in the conference report. Chairman Gramm, and others, made a particular effort to listen to the concerns of the many industries involved and worked closely with the administration. The conference report does a good job of balancing the many interests involved. I will now talk briefly about the structure within the bill. The structure of the new financial services regime is based on a compromise between the Federal Reserve and Treasury. Bank holding companies will be able to engage in activities that are financial in nature, including insurance and securities underwriting and merchant banking. Well capitalized and well maintained national banks and insured State banks will be able to engage in certain financial activities. Provisions will be enacted to ensure that the new activities are undertaken in a prudent manner. The Federal Reserve is established as the umbrella regulator with strong functional regulation in all areas. This will allow consistent oversight by the Fed, while also allowing the individual regulators to exercise their expertise in the day-to-day operations of the affiliates that they traditionally regulate. The bill respects the rights of States through strong functional regulation and maintenance of non- discriminatory State laws. Unitary thrifts prior to May 4, 1999, are grandfathered in under this bill. Existing unitary thrift companies may only be sold to financial companies. Privacy is important to many consumers, and the conference report takes important steps to protect the privacy of Americans. Financial institutions must disclose to the consumer their privacy policy regarding the sharing of non-public personal information with both affiliates and third parties. The disclosure will take place when a consumer initially opens an account and annually thereafter. This is an important tool for consumers to make an informed decision as to which financial institutions they wish to patronize. Just as some consumers choose a bank based on the hours they are open or the branch locations, those consumers for whom privacy is a key issue can make an informed decision based on a bank's privacy policy. Financial institutions cannot share account numbers or access numbers, except as required for consumer reporting agencies, for example, credit bureaus. Consumers will receive an opportunity to opt- out of information sharing programs. This means that generally consumers can prohibit a bank from sharing their non-public personal information with non-affiliated third parties. If any State law or regulation provides greater consumer privacy protections, then it shall remain in effect for that state. This is an important provision. Changes to the Federal Home Loan Bank system will update their capital structure and expand access for small banks. This will be particularly beneficial to the many small banks in Colorado and other States. One of the most controversial aspects of the bill has been the Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA. The bill clearly does not repeal any part of the existing CRA law, in fact it explicitly states that fact in the conference report. The sunshine provision will finally bring some oversight to CRA agreements. For the first time ever, CRA agreements will be made public. The parties to the CRA agreement will also have to disclose annually what happened to the cash and other resources that were part of the CRA agreement. Congress decided that community reinvestment was a priority when it passed the initial CRA laws. This provision takes the next logical step and ensures that the cash and resources received by a nongovernmental person or entity are in fact used for community reinvestment. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill makes several modifications to the CRA examination schedule in order to provide regulatory relief for small banks. It is important to note, though, that the banks must still meet the same CRA standards--this only changes the examination schedule. A small bank that received an outstanding rating in its last CRA exam will not receive another CRA exam for five years. A small bank that received a satisfactory rating will not receive another CRA exam for four years. This relief is important for small banks, as the cost of regulatory compliance is disproportionately high for them. The relatively high cost to small banks for CRA compliance actually leaves them with fewer resources to invest in their communities. The examination schedule also makes sense because it will allow CRA compliance officers to focus time and resources on those banks with compliance problems, rather than the banks that are already doing a good job. The conference report also contains a provision important for small banks--a GAO study on changes to the S Corporation rules for small banks. Subchapter S corporations do not pay corporate income taxes-- earnings are passed through to the shareholders where income taxes are paid, eliminating the double taxation of corporations. Congress previously made small banks eligible for S Corporation status, however, many of the current rules make it difficult for them to qualify. I strongly support efforts to change the laws so that small banks are better able to qualify for S Corporation status. I am hopeful that this GAO study will highlight the need for such changes. I will continue to push for those changes in future Congresses. I have introduced legislation in that regard. This is not under the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee, but the Finance Committee. I think it will be a key part in allowing small banks to move forward with their modernization efforts, in addition to this particular bill. I stand in strong support of this conference report. I stand in support of the bill. I think it is going to be a key piece of legislation passed in this particular Congress. I thank the chairman for allowing me to participate in the process as much as he did. I congratulate him on a job well done and encourage Members of the Senate to vote for this conference report.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, in the Summer of 1998, I met with a group of concerned citizens from the Overland Park neighborhood, which is located in southwest Denver. The dozen or so residents had requested a meeting with me to discuss an issue that had taken up more than six years of their lives and had driven them to distrust anything the Environmental Protection Agency had told them about a Superfund site located in their neighborhood called Shattuck. The story surrounding the Shattuck Superfund site 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 everyone of us who look for the EPA to be the guardian of our nation's environmental health and safety. For those who have not followed the Shattuck case, these are the facts that have been uncovered thus far. In 1991, the local Region 8 EPA office and the Colorado Department of Health began to look at possible remedies for the cleanup of the old S.W. Shattuck Chemical Company located on South Bannock Street in Denver. Initially, it was determined that the safest and most effective cleanup was removal of the radioactive waste to a registered storage facility in Utah. But following a secret meeting between Shattuck's attorneys, EPA and the Colorado Department of Health the decision was made to store the waste on-site. Residents in the area were never told that the remedy chosen by the EPA had never been used before anywhere in the United States, and more importantly documents calling into question the reliability of the remedy were kept from the public. In 1993, the EPA signed the Record of Decision (ROD) and the radioactive waste at the Shattuck Superfund site was entombed on-site. Over the next five years the citizens of Overland Park fought to get their neighborhood back. They petitioned the EPA for a review of the decision and were denied. They attempted to submit new information about the safety of the remedy selected and were told by the EPA the remedy was safe. Finally, last summer the residents concerns were brought to my attention. After meeting with area residents and business owners, I determined their questions deserved answers and together we began a journey to find the truth about Shattuck. Last October, I asked the EPA to meet with the community to answer their questions and was informed they would not conduct such a public meeting. Outraged by their answer, I exercised my right as a U.S. Senator to hold up Senate confirmation of a key EPA official. The move resulted in the EPA agreeing to my request for an independent investigation of Shattuck by the National Ombudsman. Earlier this year he began his investigation and quickly determined the claims made by residents were not only meritorious, but that EPA officials had engaged in an effort to keep documents hidden from the public. In fact, the Ombudsman was so successful at uncovering the facts surrounding Shattuck, his investigation has resulted in EPA officials now looking at eliminating his office. A meeting was recently held among all ten EPA regional administrators and staff from EPA Administrator Carol Browner's office to discuss eliminating the Ombudsman position. This can not be allowed to happen! Nor will I allow it to happen. Without the Ombudsman's investigation on Shattuck the residents of Overland Park would have never learned the truth. The Ombudsman's investigation brought integrity back into the process. The EPA's efforts to curtail the Ombudsman's independence is an attempt to seek revenge for the on-going Shattuck investigation and to intimidate citizens who dare question the answers they are given by the EPA. I have recently introduced Senate Bill 1763, the ``Ombudsman Reauthorization Act of 1999,'' which will preserve the office of the National Ombudsman. The battle to enact this legislation could be tougher than getting the EPA to admit they made a mistake at Shattuck.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. The second item relates to an amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, ``FCRA'' in 506(b) of title V, subtitle A. Mr. President, it is my understanding that striking the FCRA's outright prohibition on various agencies drafting trade regulation rules or other regulations is intended to allow for these agencies to fulfill their mandate under this title to issue regulations. The deletion leaves the law silent on the issue of agencies issuing regulations outside of this title, and it should not be construed to mean that an agency now has a mandate to issue any such regulations. Mr. President, does the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee, Mr. Gramm, share this view of the provision?

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I wish to engage my esteemed colleague, Senator Gramm, in a brief colloquy to clarify two items pertaining to title V, subtitle A. First Mr. President, is it Chairman Gramm's understanding that the term ``nonpublic personal information'' as that term is defined in section 509(4) of title V, subtitle A, applies to information that describes an individual's financial condition obtained from one of the three sources as set forth in the definition, and by example would include experiences with the account established in the initial transaction or other private financial information?

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume consideration of the CBI/African trade bill. Amendments to the bill are expected to be offered during the postcloture debate, and therefore Senators can expect votes throughout the day. The Senate may also begin consideration of the conference report to accompany the financial services modernization bill during today's session of the Senate. It is hoped the Senate can complete action on the African trade bill and the financial services conference report by tomorrow's session. It is also still possible an agreement can be reached regarding the bankruptcy reform bill so the Senate can consider that legislation prior to the impending adjournment. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on this bill at this time.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk due for its second reading.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am not going to ask for a recorded vote against S. 688, the re-authorization of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. But I want to make it clear that I am not stepping back from my philosophies on this issue. During my campaign for the United States Senate, I stressed the themes of balancing the budget, congressional reform, making government smaller, and moving the power out of Washington and into the states and localities. That is why I introduced the ``Overseas Private Investment Corporation Termination Act.'' I still fee it is time to end this form of subsidies for large companies. I have never believed in giveaway programs. Whether you are a farmer or a large corporation you should play by the rules of the free market system. Less government should be in the motto of this and every Congress. OPIC may seem to have a good end goal but the problem is not the end but the means. Basically this is an insurance program run by the Federal Government for corporations who want to invest in risky political situations. This leads to the question, ``Is this the appropriate role for government?'' I don't believe so. But I also understand that the time is not yet ripe for ending this program. I have met with the President of OPIC, George Munoz. He and I have agreed that our problem is not a conflict of interest, not different goals, and not a lack of proper communication. We merely have a fundamental philosophical difference. I believe free trade means free trade, not ``more free than others.'' I am a free trader. I am a supporter of the GATT and NAFTA. I believe that free trade is the best way to raise the living standards for all Americans. We need to support policies that reduce trade barriers. OPIC does not reduce trade barriers for all companies to compete in the marketplace. It is an income transfer program from U.S. taxpayers to a selected group of businesses. These subsidies may increase exports for a few selected companies that have the political influence to secure these loans, but it does little to expand the overall economic growth of this country. OPIC's re-authorization will soon pass this Senate, but I wish it to be known that I still recommend its termination. I continue to worry that the majority of my colleagues will not fully understand the detrimental potentialities of this organization until the American taxpayer is stuck with a tremendous bill.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today, I would like to recognize an individual that has been a tremendous asset to my office--Maj. Tim Coy. For the past year, Major Coy has been an Air Force Legislative Fellow in my office. He has proven to be a professional officer, who handles any task he is given with enthusiasm and tenacity. A year ago I requested a sharp military officer be assigned to my staff because of my new position on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Once we interviewed Tim, we knew that his extensive space and missile expertise would benefit my committee assignments, and his knowledge of Colorado would also be invaluable. From Tim's first day in the office, he blended in with my talented staff and went to work. He assisted in all areas of the office. He played a major role with our defense team on committee work, floor speeches, and became a point person for missile defense issues. Just as important, he became more than a one year staffer, but a friend to us all. In closing, Tim is an exceptionally capable and professional military officer. He is the very first fellow I have hired, and one of the reasons I look forward to bringing in another fellow for next year. He has a bright future in the Air Force and I know I will be hearing great things about him in the future. Not only was I proud to have Maj. Tim Coy as a ``member'' of my staff, but he also did the Air Force proud.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. By previous consent, the Senate will then begin consideration of H.R. 434, the African trade bill. It is the hope of the majority leader that the Senate can complete action on the bill prior to the close of business on Friday. Therefore, Senators are encouraged to work with the bill managers if they intend to offer amendments. The Senate may also consider any legislative or executive items cleared for action during today's session of the Senate. I thank my colleagues for their attention. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate today to recognize the passing of a colleague and a very dear friend, Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island, and to express my condolences to his lovely wife Virginia and their family. I was just elected to the Senate in 1996 and found I had the opportunity to serve on two committees with Senator Chafee. He continued to serve as chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and I also served with him on the Intelligence Committee. I will take a moment here to recognize my good friend's accomplishments in life and how much I appreciated serving with him in the Senate. He was truly a remarkable individual. He graduated from Yale and then got a law degree from Harvard in 1950. He served in the Marine Corps as well as being Secretary of the Navy. He was a patriot, a hero, serving this country's interests in World War II and Korea. My wife and I had an opportunity to join him and Virginia at a dinner when I was just elected to the Senate and had just joined his committee. I think it was Senator Inhofe who said he traditionally held dinners for new members of his committee. I got an opportunity to visit with him about some of his experiences, and he was a delight to visit with, as was his wife Virginia. We had a great time that evening. Senator Chafee worked hard on Social Security issues. He was a leader on health care. In fact, he worked in the subcommittees on both of those issues in Finance, and then as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I found he was extremely fair and encouraging, somebody who could work with Republicans and Democrats. Even though I disagreed with him, as I found myself at times disagreeing with him because I did represent a Western State with some different views, particularly in regard to water, in committee he always gave me a fair chance. He gave me an opportunity to express my views and to represent the citizens of Colorado. I really did appreciate him for his fairness. He did a lot to help me be effective in that committee. He made sure, wherever possible, if he could work with me on environmental issues that were important to Colorado, he did that. I had an opportunity, which I took, to move from that committee to Armed Services. Even though I did not continue to serve on the Environment and Public Works Committee with him, he continued to be helpful and whenever I had environmental concerns I brought them to his committee. I appreciated his commitment to being a team player and helping everybody in the Senate. John was a great person; he was a nice person; he was a helpful person. I will continue to remember his dedication. Just to show how he grew on you, I like to look at his achievements in elected office. He ran for Governor in 1962 and was elected by a mere 398 votes. Then in 1964 and 1966, 2 years and 4 years after he originally ran for Governor, he won both times by the largest margins in that State's history. Not only did he grow on those who knew him personally, but in his public service he grew on those whom he represented. In fact, when he was elected, he became the only Republican to be elected to the Senate from Rhode Island in the past 68 years, and he served 4 terms in that capacity. He was, indeed, a public servant, somebody who worked hard on environmental issues. At times I found I could agree with him, and I recognized his efforts on conservation and open space preservation. I also recognized his dedication and work on the Intelligence Committee. The Intelligence Committee is one of those committees where much of what we do is not shared with the public. I want the public to know today, Senator John Chafee was a valuable resource on that committee, considering his experience in World War II, his experience in Korea, and having been Secretary of Navy. I will always remember Senator Chafee as a friend. I want his family to know my wife Joan and I will miss him. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a hearing entitled ``Internet Cramming: The Latest High-Tech Fraud on Small Businesses.'' The hearing will be held on Monday, October 25, 1999, beginning at 1 p.m. in room 652 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I thank my friend from Kentucky.