Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, before making my comments on the campaign finance reform measure before us, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his splendid work on this issue. This has been an issue on which he has spent a good deal of time. An issue this complicated is very demanding. As so frequently is the custom of the Senator from Kentucky, he has put his heart and soul into this issue. Many of us appreciate his dedicated effort in trying to deal with this issue in a very responsive manner. It is characteristic of the Senator from Kentucky to do this kind of work for the Senate. We all appreciate and respect him for it. The Denver Rocky Mountain News ran an editorial on September 21st in response to the passage of the Shays/Meehan bill, expressing the paper's belief that soft money campaign contributions are a form of political expression and, as such, are protected by the First Amendment. I don't bring this up now as a part of the Senate debate on campaign finance reform just because The News is a local paper. I am bringing this editorial up now because it is from a local paper with an exceedingly sound view. In the editorial they use an example of an average citizen who might decide to distribute leaflets against a city pot hole problem. If this hypothetical citizen is stopped from doing so by a city council, it would be a clear-cut violation of freedom of speech. The editorial then goes on, correctly, to explain that the difference between this simple form of election activity control and the kinds contained in the two main campaign finance measures considered on the Hill this year--Shays/Meehan and McCain/Feingold--is merely a difference of degrees, not type. Donors who want to give to the Republican National Committee or the Democrat National Committee are expressing their political views. I ask unanimous consent that the Rocky Mountain News editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD. As the Supreme Court has ruled, political spending equals political expression. Attempting to stop this political expression, however distasteful some might find soft money, is an attempt to stifle activities protected by the Constitution. And so it is our duty as legislators to find a better--a constitutional--way. ``Don't let perfect be the enemy of good'' is an expression we hear often on this matter. It's a slogan urging baby steps: small moves toward a distant goal. The thought is that a soft money ban is one part of a move towards an ideal campaign finance system, and is part of an incremental process of improvement. But alone, it is not good. It's not even merely average. Banning soft money will only give us different and arguably worse evils. Let's take a look at just a few of them: First, in some of my colleagues' minds it is a step towards taxpayer financed elections. This would be an absolute monstrosity with the bureaucracy calling the shots on campaigns. Our democratic process is voluntary and fiercely competitive. Mandating completely taxpayer financed campaigns would force citizens to support candidates they disagree with, it would place bureaucrats in the position of legitimizing political candidates, and it unjustly allows candidates influence beyond their natural appeal to voters. Let me explain also that I feel that a soft money ban is biased. It might just be coincidental that the Republican caucus is leading the opposition to this bill instead of the Democrat caucus, but it might also have something to do with the fact that a ban on party soft money will ultimately benefit Democrat candidates over Republican ones. If political parties are curbed, the Democrats already have a cohesive constituency ready and able to step up and assume party functions. Organized labor is just that--coordinated people ready to work. They are also ready to spend. Senators Snowe and Jeffords were kind enough to provide us all with a copy of the October 12th Washington Post article covering the announcement by the AFL-CIO that they were going to spend $46 million on the upcoming elections. I don't begrudge the Democrat National Committee this labor and funding base, but it is unbalanced and blatantly partisan to attempt to shield this type of spending while attacking its counterbalancing force, the areas where the RNC instead has the advantage. The natural constituencies of each party tend to balance each other out, but they do so in different ways. If you will excuse this minor diatribe, I want to digress here for a moment and lament what seems so obvious to everyone and that is organized labor is not a Republican constituency. I support the American worker. My party supports the American worker. We are the party of the individual worker, not a worker controlled by government. In a more perfect world--of course, meaning a world that runs more according to my beliefs--the Republican agenda would be passed and would aid American workers tremendously. The tax refund bill pushed by the Republican majority would have passed and returned money to taxpayers, also known as American workers. The legislation I offered last year to pay down the debt would have benefitted all American workers in myriad ways. The Social Security lock box would have passed and guaranteed this benefit for American workers. I am therefore a little perturbed that the leaders of organized labor are so adamant against goals which I feel will greatly benefit the workers of America. The nature or our political differences has resulted in the current situation where there is no other single entity willing to be so dedicated to a single party. The Republican Party counters this absence by seeking contributions from diverse sources. Once these individuals give to the candidates they support, because they have not been coerced into giving and are without the option of labor unions to further spread their general message, they give to the Republican National Committee. To try and ``un-level'' the whole playing field by denying one side an outlet for political expression and clout, even if the objection is based an abhorrence of fund raising, is flagrant factionalism. It is also, as I have said, unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, in the case we are hearing about a lot this week, Buckley v. Valeo, said just that. The Supreme Court struck down spending levels, because, and I quote, ``So long as persons and groups eschew expenditures that in express term advocate the election or defeat of clearly identified candidate, they are free to spend as much as they want to promote the candidate and his views.'' They allowed campaign donation limits, not because they did not interfere with First Amendment rights, but because the interference they impose can be grudgingly tolerated in light of the overriding interest in ensuring clean and fair elections. To further limit soft money donations, or to attempt a different way to cut campaign spending, both of which a ban on party soft money would do, there must first be shown the corresponding overwhelming corruption it brings. I feel compelled to respond to earlier discussion on this floor by pointing out that the mere lack of authorization for appropriations, while certainly unfortunate and unsound practice, is not by itself proof positive of corruption. We have not authorized the State Department in years. It is hardly pork barrel spending to fund the Drug Enforcement Agency, another unauthorized agency. Just because large amounts of money flow around elections does not mean that the elections automatically become corrupt. The Supreme Court has said that large gifts directly to a candidate could be corrupting. That is why the hard money limits are in place. I agree with these. If a candidate were to receive a huge--say, in the millions--donation from one donor and could run an entire campaign from it, it would be awfully hard to tell it apart from what is commonly called ``being bought.'' But one donor making even a huge donation to a political party is not buying the party philosophy, they are supporting it. And we cannot tell people how and what to support politically. Many of the proponents of other campaign finance bills try to reduce the influence of ``special interests'' by suppressing their donations and thus their speech. First, I am not even sure suppressing special interests is an admirable goal, since ``special interests'' are citizens expressing a particular viewpoint, such as the Sierra Club, Chambers of Commerce, Common Cause and countless others. That's the point of politics: advocating your goal during the march towards a collective good. There needs to be more interests in politics, not less! I believe the absolute best way to ensure there are no undue special interest influence is to suppress and reduce the size of government. If the government rids itself of special interest funding and corporate subsidies, then there would be less of a perception of any attempts to buy influence through donations. A simplified tax code, state regulation flexibility, local education control--these are less government approaches to problems that would also lower the desperate need for access. Meddlesome outside influences--another horror of campaigning--are a function of the hard money limits, not soft money availability. Candidates lose control of their message when they lose the right to accept money people want to spend and will end up spending on their behalf. The simple fact that large sums of money are spent on elections does not mean those elections are corrupt. In my campaign for Senate, I was outspent by three-quarters of a million dollars. That money obviously did not buy the election. That money did not corrupt the election. Supporters say that the election system is drowning in soft money. They say that soft money has consumed the entire political process. Let me say this. Or, rather, allow me to share what the Supreme Court has to say: The First Amendment denies government the power to determine that spending to promote one's political views is wasteful, excessive, or unwise. In the free society ordained by our Constitution it is not the government but the people-- individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political committees--who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign. The Supreme Court has been very clear in its rulings concerning campaign finance and the First Amendment. Since the post-Watergate changes to the campaign finance system began, twenty-four Congressional actions have been declared unconstitutional, with nine rejections based on the First Amendment. Out of those nine, four dealt directly with campaign finance reform laws. In each case, the Supreme Court has ruled that political spending--even if obviously excessive--is equal to political speech. Even today, the Supreme Court is addressing a case regarding Missouri contribution limits, showing their continued dedication to protecting the freedom of speech expressed through political support. Besides the constitutional question, there is the simple matter of plain reality. People with money and political views will not give up their desires to express themselves. Like water flowing downhill, politically active Americans who find themselves blocked will just find different outlets to reach their goal. Hard money was regulated, so soft money was invented. If soft money is banned, something else will take its place. The problem is that the regulations and laws that go further and further towards cutting money also go further and further towards unconstitutionality. Some in Congress have stated that freedom of speech and the desire for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy are in direct conflict, and that we can't have both. The only effective dam, they say, would be to change the First Amendment so as to allow the abridging of political speech. I don't support that belief. Fortunately for those of us who believe in the First Amendment rights of all American citizens, the founding fathers and the Supreme Court do not either. They believe, and I believe, that we can have free political speech and fair campaigns. Also, supporters of some of the campaign finance reform bills believe that if we stop the growth of campaign spending and force give-aways of public and private resources then we will be improving the campaign finance system. The Supreme Court again disagrees and is again very clear in its intent on campaign spending. The Buckley decision says, . . . the mere growth in the cost of federal election campaigns in and of itself provides no basis for governmental restrictions on the quantity of campaign spending. . . . Campaigns are about ideas and expressing those ideas, no matter how great or small the means. The ``distribution of the humblest handbill'' to the most ``expensive modes of communication'' are both indispensable instruments of effective political speech. We should not force one sector to freely distribute our political ideas just because it is more expensive than all the other sectors. So no matter how objectionable the cost of campaigns, the Supreme Court has stated that this is not reason enough to restrict the speech of candidates or any other groups involved in political speech. Despite my objections to this current legislation, I think I can agree with this bill's cosponsors that improvements can be made to today's system. I have some ideas on that. To that end I have introduced S. 1671, the Campaign Finance Integrity Act of 1999. My bill would: Require candidates to raise at least 50 percent of their contributions from individuals in the state or district in which they are running; equalize contributions from individuals and political action committees (PACs) by raising the individual limit from $1,000 to $2,500 and reducing the PAC limit from $5,000 to $2,500; index individual and PAC contribution limits for inflation; reduce the influence of a candidate's personal wealth by allowing political party committees to match dollar for dollar the personal contribution of a candidate above $5,000; require corporations and labor organizations to seek separate, voluntary authorization of the use of any dues, initiative fees or payment as a condition of employment for political activity, and requires annual full disclosure of those activities to members and shareholders; prohibit depositing an individual contribution by a campaign unless the individual's profession and employer are reported; encourage the Federal Election Commission to allow filing of reports by computers and other emerging technologies and to make that information accessible to the public on the Internet less than 24 hours of receipt; ban the use of taxpayer financed mass mailings; enhance cuts on the use of federal property for fund raising, restrict use of White House and Air Force One for fund raising, and require non-office holders who use government vehicles for campaigns to reimburse for that usage. This is common sense campaign finance reform. It drives the candidate back into his district or state to raise money from individual contributions. It has some of the most open, full and timely disclosure requirements of any other campaign finance bill in either the Senate or the House of Representatives. I strongly believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant. The right of political parties, groups and individuals to say what they want in a political campaign is preserved but the right of the public to know how much they are spending and what they are saying is also recognized. I have great faith that the public can make its own decisions about campaign discourse if it is given full and timely information. Objecting to the popular quest of the moment is very difficult for any politician, but turning your back on the First Amendment is more difficult for me. I want campaign finance reform but not at the expense of the First Amendment. My legislation does this. As we deal with this issue, I will continue to listen and continue to fine-tune my belief on this matter. But I will not stray from a firm belief in the first amendment, a firm belief in fair campaign laws, and a firm belief that whatever we do here in this body must justly serve the democratic process. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, may I inquire as to how our time is being controlled? Do we have time limits?

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I think that, right now, we have the desire within this Congress to continue to fund the stockpile program. I think many of us believe it is an option. It needs to be scientifically developed. We don't have the science there. I personally have that commitment. I also believe we are developing the technology where we can take our own defense systems--we can take our own rocket and meet it with another rocket that has a nuclear warhead on it, intercept it. Lately, we have begun to demonstrate our ability to do that. I think ultimately we will be able to stop nuclear proliferation when we eliminate the threat of the nuclear warhead going over any other country other than the country from which it was shot. So if we shoot it off over the country from which the missile was launched, then the only hazard is to the country that has the warhead. When we develop that technical capability, then I think we will have a real deterrence. And I don't believe that is far away, by the way.

Mr. ALLARD. I would not want to lose my time. I have an appointment I need to attend, so I hope I can get out of here by 1:30.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, there are three areas I will respond to, contained in previous comments made on the floor. One has to do with the number of hearings we have had in relation to this issue. Another is what previous Presidents have accepted. Another is our ability to monitor what has happened as far as nuclear testing is concerned. We have had hearings in the Armed Services Committee. I have served on that committee. I have been there personally. I know they have been there. We have had hearings in the Intelligence Committee. To make a statement that this has been brought to the floor without a hearing and discussion in committee is false. We have had those hearings. I believe I have been adequately briefed, as a Member of the Senate, on the pros and cons of moving ahead with the ratification of this particular treaty. As far as previous Presidents pushing for a nuclear test ban, none of the Presidents, except for this President, has worked for zero tolerance. That is unprecedented. Because of that zero tolerance, it creates special problems for this country when it comes to monitoring. We have shown, through our own scientific testing, that it is possible, with low-level nuclear testing, it can be camouflaged. One can let off a low-level test without any kind of detection. When we get to a zero- tolerance level, this all becomes a problem, as far as monitoring. We do have real problems with monitoring. This week we have begun the very important debate regarding the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, better known as the CTBT, and whether its ratification is in the best interest of the United States. I believe this debate is timely. I have been studying the issue during the course of the last year; attended as many of the hearings as possible; carefully reviewed much of the record; and I listened closely to all my colleagues and the experts with their many varied opinions. After all this, I have come to the conclusion that the CTBT is not in the best interest of this country at this time. As we move into the 21st century, America is confronting new and improved threats. More countries have acquired and are attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This despite all the treaties in place today. Unfortunately, the reality of this threat means that the United States needs not a weakened nuclear deterrent but a stronger and more reliable nuclear deterrent. During the cold war, we were in a bi-polar strategic stance. It was the U.S. versus the Soviet Union. When we signed up to treaties, we were really only negotiating with the USSR. However, with the fall of the USSR, we are in a completely different strategic situation. Our main threats are rogue states whose goals are completely different than the former Soviet Union. I do not believe that these rogue states-- Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and the like--really care if we ratify the CTBT. They will do what they believe is in their best interest. For example, what do we do if we ratify the treaty and Iraq conducts a nuclear test? Some would say that we can punish them or shame them. How? Are we going to bomb them? Are we going to place heavy economic sanctions on them? To me, this treaty will do nothing to stop the people we want to stop from testing. While we do not need to go ``mano y mano'' anymore with another state in numbers of warheads, we do need to have a strong nuclear deterrent and to do this we need the technology and industrial base capable of assuring that our weapons stay strong. I believe we use the deterrent approach until we have the technology available to destroy a nuclear threat over the country of origin at which time it becomes a liability to the rogue country. These requirements cannot be confidently met if the United States is obliged to adhere to a zero-yield and permanent CTBT. Despite what we have heard, no other administration has called for this treaty. President Eisenhower proposed a test ban but only for a limited duration. Neither President Kennedy nor President Johnson supported a zero yield test ban. President Nixon agreed to limit test above 150 kilotons and President Carter sought only a ten year ban with tests up to two kilotons. Presidents Reagan and Bush did not pursue a test ban at all. The permanent zero-yield treaty has only been sought by President Clinton. And from my understanding, this has not been the position for the entirety of his administration. As recently as 1995, the Department of Defense position was that it could support a CTBT only if tests of up to 500 tons were permitted. However, the military chiefs were overruled by the civilian leadership after President Clinton agreed to a zero yield test ban. This treaty prohibits all underground nuclear tests, even those so low that they cannot be confidently detected. If this treaty is ratified, we would be permanently prohibited from conducting the sorts of tests we have relied upon in the past to assure the safety, reliability, and effectiveness of our nuclear people. Some of the CTBT proponents believe that the Stockpile Stewardship Program is the antidote to nuclear testing. This program supposes to be able to simulate nuclear explosions through the use of computer modeling. The estimate is that the program will cost at least $4.5 billion a year over 10 years. While Stockpile Stewardship may be the answer in the future, the problem is that with any scientific experiment you must have a comparable element, and in this case a nuclear test. The best way to ensure that the Stockpile Stewardship program is working is to ensure that the results of the model match the results of a test. We must be able to caliberate the model before we should end all testing. I believe this is the height of irresponsibility. With this being said, let me stress one major concern I have about the treaty, and regarding the 6 safeguards proposed by the President. First, as a member of the Intelligence Committee and the Armed Services Committee, I believe the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty submitted to this Senate by President Clinton is not verifiable. This means that, despite the vast array of expensive sensors and detection technology being established under the treaty, it will be possible for other nations to conduct militarily significant nuclear testing with little or no risk of detection. What is militarily significant nuclear testing? The definitions of the term might vary, but I think we'd all agree that any nuclear test that gives a nation information to develop newer, more effective weaponry is military significant. In the case of the United States, nuclear tests will yields between between 1,000 tons and 10,000 tons are generally large enough to provide ``proof'' data on new weapons designs. Other nations might have weaponry that could be assessed at even lower yields. For the sake of argument, however, lets be conservative and assume that other nations would also need to conduct tests at a level above 1,000 tons to develop a new nuclear weapon design. The verification system of the CTBT is supposed to detect nuclear blasts above 1,000 tons, so it would seem at first glance that it will be likely that most cheaters would be caught. We need to look at the fine print, however. In reality, the CTBT system will be able to detect tests of 1,000 tons or more if they were nonevasive and take place at known test sites. This means that the cheater will be caught only if he does not try to hide his nuclear test. But, what if he does want to hide it? What if he conducts his test evasively? From the hearings I have attended, it seems that evasive testing may be a very simple task for Russia, China, or others. One of the best known means of evasion is detonating the nuclear device in a cavity such as a salt dome or a room mined below ground. This technique-- called decoupling--reduces the noise, or the seismic signal, of the nuclear detonation. The change in the signal of a decoupled test is so significant--it can be reduced by as much as a factor of 70-- that it will be impossible for any known technology to detect it. For example, a 1,000- ton evasive test would have a signal of a 14-ton nonevasive test. This puts the signal of the illicit test well below the threshold of detection. Decoupling is a well-known technique and is technologically simple to achieve. In fact, it is quite likely that Russia and China have continued to conduct nuclear testing during the past 7 years, while the United States has refrained from doing so. If the CTBT were not going to affect U.S. capabilities, it would not be important whether the treaty were verified or not. The fact is, however, that the CTBT will freeze the U.S. nuclear weapons program and will make it impossible to assess with high confidence whether modifications made to the current stockpile will function as intended. And because there are limits to verifying compliance with the treaty, it will not effectively constrain other nations in the same way. That means they will ultimately be able to gain advantage, at the expense of the United States and our defensive posture. Second, I want to touch on an issue that does not regard the text of the treaty, but the so-called six safeguards. I will not be able to get into detail on all of them, but it seems these safeguards have been discussed as if they were part of the treaty itself. In reality, these safeguards are just promises made by President Clinton. Even if they are contained in the Resolution of Ratification, these safeguards are still subject to congressional and budgetary pressures. For instance, safeguard A states that the Stockpile Stewardship Program must be able to ensure a high level of confidence in the safety and reliability of nuclear weapons in the active stockpile. My concern is, what if the program runs into budgetary programs and a few Congressmen decide we are spending too much money on the program and attempt to kill the program? Also, I know there are special interest groups that support the CTBT but oppose the Stockpile Stewardship Program and will put domestic political pressure on all of us to reduce and end the Stockpile Stewardship Program and instead fund other programs. Another example of budgetary and political pressures can be associated with a safeguard E. This safeguard insists on the continuing development of a broad range of intelligence gathering and analytical capabilities. This safeguard is already being tested. This administration already attempted to cancel the WC-135 aircraft, citing funding considerations. The WC-135 is essential to U.S. monitoring of nuclear tests. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I fought for its continued funding. If safeguard E were taken seriously by this administration, they would not be attempting to cancel a program that is essential to monitoring, but would be fully funding these important programs. For these reasons and many others, I must oppose this treaty --not because I want testing, but for the fact that I cannot yet rely upon an untested future program for the safety of our nuclear deterrent. Maybe one day I can support a zero-yield plan. But now is not the time. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. If the Chair will notify me when I have a minute left, I would appreciate it.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the Senate is again considering campaign finance reform. The problem is that almost every Senator has a different definition of--and goal for--reform. Today I am introducing the ``Campaign Finance Integrity Act.'' I believe this bill can actually be agreed upon by a majority of this body that would want to ensure that we improve the campaign finance system (a nearly universally acknowledged goal) without being unconstitutional and attempting measures that fly in the face of the First Amendment. Some in Congress have stated that freedom of speech and the desire for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy are in direct conflict, and that you can't have both. But fortunately for those of us who believe in the First Amendment rights of all American citizens, the founding fathers and the Supreme Court are on our side. They believe, and I believe, that we can have both. I would hope that celebrating the value of the First Amendment on the floor of the United States Senate is preaching to the choir, as the expression goes, but let me go ahead and do it anyway. Thomas Jefferson repeatedly stated the importance of the First Amendment and how it allows the people and the press the right to speak their minds freely. Jefferson clearly described its significance back in 1798 with, ``One of the amendments to the Constitution * * * expressly declares that `Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others.'' Again in 1808, he stated that ``The liberty of speaking and writing guards our other liberties.'' And in 1823, Jefferson stated, ``The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to.'' Jefferson knew and believed that if we begin restricting what people say, how they say it, and how much they can say, then we deny the first and fundamental freedom given to all Citizens. The Supreme Court has also been very clear in its rulings concerning campaign finance and the First Amendment. Since the post-Watergate changes to the campaign finance system began, 24 Congressional actions have been declared unconstitutional, with 9 rejections based on the First Amendment. Out of those nine, 4 dealt directly with campaign finance reform laws. In each case, the Supreme Court has ruled that political spending is equal to political speech. In the now famous decision, or infamous to some, Buckley vs. Valeo, the Court states that, ``The First Amendment denies government the power to determine that spending to promote one's political views is wasteful, excessive, or unwise. In the free society ordained by our Constitution it is not the government but the people--individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political committees--who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign.'' Simply stated, the government cannot ration or regulate political speech of an American through campaign spending limits any more than it can tell the local newspaper how many papers it can print or what it can print. This reinforces Jefferson's statement that to impede one of these rights is to impede all First Amendment rights. Also, supporters of some of the campaign finance reform bills believe that if we stop the growth of campaign spending and force giveaways of public and private resources then all will be fine with the campaign finance system. The Supreme Court agrees and is again very clear in its intent on campaign spending. The Buckley decision says, ``. . . the mere growth in the cost of federal election campaigns in and of itself provides no basis for governmental restrictions on the quantity of campaign spending. . . .'' Campaigns are about ideas and expressing those ideas, no matter how great or small the means. The ``distribution of the humblest handbill'' to the ``expensive modes of communication'' are both indispensable instruments of effective political speech. We should not force one sector to freely distribute our political ideas just because it is more expensive than all the other sectors. So no matter how objectionable the cost of campaigns are, the Supreme Court has stated that this is not reason enough to restrict the speech of candidates or any other groups involved in political speech. We need a campaign finance bill that does not violate the First Amendment, while providing important provisions to open the campaign finances of candidates up to the scrutiny of the American people. I believe the Campaign Finance Integrity Act does that. My bill would: Require candidates to raise at least 50 percent of their contributions from individuals in the state or district in which they are running. Equalize contributions from individuals and political action committees (PACs) by raising the individual limit from $1000 to $2500 and reducing the PAC limit from $5000 to $2500. Index individual and PAC contribution limits for inflation. Reduce the influence of a candidate's personal wealth by allowing political party committees to match dollar for dollar the personal contribution of a candidate above $5000. Require corporations and labor organizations to seek separate, voluntary authorization of the use of any dues, initiative fees or payment as a condition of employment for political activity, and requires annual full disclosure of those activities to members and shareholders. Prohibit depositing an individual contribution by a campaign unless the individual's profession and employer are reported. Encourage the Federal Election Commission to allow filing of reports by computers and other emerging technologies and to make that information accessible to the public on the Internet less than 24 hours of receipt. Ban the use of taxpayer financed mass mailings. This is common sense campaign finance reform. It drives the candidate back into his district or state to raise money from individual contributions. It has some of the most open, full and timely disclosure requirements of any other campaign finance bill in either the Senate or the House of Representatives. I strongly believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant. The right of political parties, groups and individuals to say what they want in a political campaign is preserved by the right of the public to know how much they are spending and what they are saying is also recognized. I have great faith that the public can make its own decisions about campaign discourse if it is given full and timely information. Many of the proponents of other campaign finance bills try to reduce the influence of interests by suppressing their speech. I believe the best ways to reduce the special interests influence is to suppress and reduce the size of government. If the government rids itself of special interest funding and corporate subsidies, then there would be less reason for influence-buying donations. Objecting to the popular quest of the moment is very difficult for any politician, but turning your back on the First Amendment is more difficult for me. I want campaign finance reform but not at the expense of the First Amendment. My legislation does this. Not everyone will agree with the Campaign Finance Integrity Act, and many of us still disagree on this issue, but the First Amendment is the reason we can disagree and it must be honored here rather than just the Courts.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the Senate is again considering campaign finance reform. The problem is that almost every Senator has a different definition of--and goal for--reform. Today I am introducing the ``Campaign Finance Integrity Act.'' I believe this bill can actually be agreed upon by a majority of this body that would want to ensure that we improve the campaign finance system (a nearly universally acknowledged goal) without being unconstitutional and attempting measures that fly in the face of the First Amendment. Some in Congress have stated that freedom of speech and the desire for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy are in direct conflict, and that you can't have both. But fortunately for those of us who believe in the First Amendment rights of all American citizens, the founding fathers and the Supreme Court are on our side. They believe, and I believe, that we can have both. I would hope that celebrating the value of the First Amendment on the floor of the United States Senate is preaching to the choir, as the expression goes, but let me go ahead and do it anyway. Thomas Jefferson repeatedly stated the importance of the First Amendment and how it allows the people and the press the right to speak their minds freely. Jefferson clearly described its significance back in 1798 with, ``One of the amendments to the Constitution * * * expressly declares that `Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others.'' Again in 1808, he stated that ``The liberty of speaking and writing guards our other liberties.'' And in 1823, Jefferson stated, ``The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to.'' Jefferson knew and believed that if we begin restricting what people say, how they say it, and how much they can say, then we deny the first and fundamental freedom given to all Citizens. The Supreme Court has also been very clear in its rulings concerning campaign finance and the First Amendment. Since the post-Watergate changes to the campaign finance system began, 24 Congressional actions have been declared unconstitutional, with 9 rejections based on the First Amendment. Out of those nine, 4 dealt directly with campaign finance reform laws. In each case, the Supreme Court has ruled that political spending is equal to political speech. In the now famous decision, or infamous to some, Buckley vs. Valeo, the Court states that, ``The First Amendment denies government the power to determine that spending to promote one's political views is wasteful, excessive, or unwise. In the free society ordained by our Constitution it is not the government but the people--individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political committees--who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign.'' Simply stated, the government cannot ration or regulate political speech of an American through campaign spending limits any more than it can tell the local newspaper how many papers it can print or what it can print. This reinforces Jefferson's statement that to impede one of these rights is to impede all First Amendment rights. Also, supporters of some of the campaign finance reform bills believe that if we stop the growth of campaign spending and force giveaways of public and private resources then all will be fine with the campaign finance system. The Supreme Court agrees and is again very clear in its intent on campaign spending. The Buckley decision says, ``. . . the mere growth in the cost of federal election campaigns in and of itself provides no basis for governmental restrictions on the quantity of campaign spending. . . .'' Campaigns are about ideas and expressing those ideas, no matter how great or small the means. The ``distribution of the humblest handbill'' to the ``expensive modes of communication'' are both indispensable instruments of effective political speech. We should not force one sector to freely distribute our political ideas just because it is more expensive than all the other sectors. So no matter how objectionable the cost of campaigns are, the Supreme Court has stated that this is not reason enough to restrict the speech of candidates or any other groups involved in political speech. We need a campaign finance bill that does not violate the First Amendment, while providing important provisions to open the campaign finances of candidates up to the scrutiny of the American people. I believe the Campaign Finance Integrity Act does that. My bill would: Require candidates to raise at least 50 percent of their contributions from individuals in the state or district in which they are running. Equalize contributions from individuals and political action committees (PACs) by raising the individual limit from $1000 to $2500 and reducing the PAC limit from $5000 to $2500. Index individual and PAC contribution limits for inflation. Reduce the influence of a candidate's personal wealth by allowing political party committees to match dollar for dollar the personal contribution of a candidate above $5000. Require corporations and labor organizations to seek separate, voluntary authorization of the use of any dues, initiative fees or payment as a condition of employment for political activity, and requires annual full disclosure of those activities to members and shareholders. Prohibit depositing an individual contribution by a campaign unless the individual's profession and employer are reported. Encourage the Federal Election Commission to allow filing of reports by computers and other emerging technologies and to make that information accessible to the public on the Internet less than 24 hours of receipt. Ban the use of taxpayer financed mass mailings. This is common sense campaign finance reform. It drives the candidate back into his district or state to raise money from individual contributions. It has some of the most open, full and timely disclosure requirements of any other campaign finance bill in either the Senate or the House of Representatives. I strongly believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant. The right of political parties, groups and individuals to say what they want in a political campaign is preserved by the right of the public to know how much they are spending and what they are saying is also recognized. I have great faith that the public can make its own decisions about campaign discourse if it is given full and timely information. Many of the proponents of other campaign finance bills try to reduce the influence of interests by suppressing their speech. I believe the best ways to reduce the special interests influence is to suppress and reduce the size of government. If the government rids itself of special interest funding and corporate subsidies, then there would be less reason for influence-buying donations. Objecting to the popular quest of the moment is very difficult for any politician, but turning your back on the First Amendment is more difficult for me. I want campaign finance reform but not at the expense of the First Amendment. My legislation does this. Not everyone will agree with the Campaign Finance Integrity Act, and many of us still disagree on this issue, but the First Amendment is the reason we can disagree and it must be honored here rather than just the Courts.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President. I am honored today to introduce the Residential Solar Energy Tax Credit Act of 1999 which provides a 15 percent residential tax credit for consumers who purchase solar electric (photovoltaics) and solar thermal products. This bill is an important step in preserving U.S. global leadership in the solar industry where we now export over 70 percent of our products. In the last five years, over ten U.S. solar manufacturing facilities have been built or expanded making the U.S. the world's largest manufacturer of solar products. The expansion of the U.S. domestic market is essential to sustain U.S. global market dominance. Other countries, notably Japan and Germany, have instituted very large-scale market incentives for the use of solar energy on buildings--spending far more by their governments to build their respective domestic solar industries. Passage of this bill will insure the U.S. stays the global solar market leader into the next millennium. The recent tax bill passed by this body included necessary support of the independent domestic oil producers, overseas oil refiners, nuclear industry decommissioning, and wind energy--all worthy. This small proposal not only adds to these but provides an incentive to the individual homeowner to generate their own energy. In fact, 28 states have passed laws in the last two years to provide a technical standard for interconnecting solar systems to the electric grid, provide consumer friendly contracts, and provide rates for the excess power generated. These efforts at regulatory reform at the state level combined with a limited incentive as proposed in this bill, will drive the use of solar energy. Contrary to popular belief, solar energy is manufactured and used evenly throughout the United States. Solar manufacturers are in Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. In addition, solar assembly and distribution companies are in: Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, as well as Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam. In addition to these states, solar component and research companies are in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and West Virginia. More than 90 U.S. electric utilities, including municipals, cooperatives and independents--which represent more than half of U.S. power generation--are active in solar energy. Aside from new, automated solar manufacturing facilities, a wide range of new uses of solar occurred in 1999, such as: an array of facilities installed in June at the Pentagon power block to provide mid-day peak power; installation of solar on the first U.S. skyscraper in Times Square in New York City; and development of a solar mini-manufacturing facility at a brown field in Chicago which will provide solar products for roadway lighting and for area schools This small sampling of American ingenuity is just the beginning of the U.S. solar industry's maturity. Adoption of solar power by individual American consumers will create economies-of-scale of production that will, over time, dramatically lower costs and increase availability of solar power. The bill I have introduced costs much less than the Administration's proposal and provides consumer safeguards. This bill represents a pragmatic approach in utilizing the marketplace as a driver of technology. The benefits to our country are profound. The U.S. solar industry believes the incentives will create 20,000 new high technology manufacturing jobs, offset pollution of more than 2 million vehicles, cut U.S. solar energy unit imports which are already over 50 percent, and leverage U.S. industry even further into the global export markets. The Residential Solar Energy Tax Credit Act of 1999 is sound energy policy, sound environmental policy, promotes our national security, and enhances our economic strength at home and abroad. I ask my colleagues to include this initiative in upcoming tax deliberations. American consumers will thank us, and our children will thank us for the future benefits we have preserved for them.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, that concludes my comments. I thank the chairman, again, for working with my committee. I look forward to a very positive relationship with him in the future.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the chairman for granting me time to make a few comments on the bill. As the relatively new chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation of the Banking Committee, I view my relationship with the authorizing committee as a very good relationship, and I know the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has made sure there have been staff at our hearings. I really do appreciate that. I have made a very special effort to make sure I have staff at his hearings, not only his hearings but hearings on the House side. I come to my new responsibilities as chairman of the Subcommittee on HUD to look for change. I think change needs to occur in that agency. I think working together in a bipartisan manner, as well as working between authorization and appropriations, is the way to bring about that change. Mr. President, I thank Senator Bond for giving me the opportunity to make a statement on the VA-HUD Appropriations bill. I appreciate this chance to share my thoughts as chairman of the authorizing subcommittee for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Bond in our joint effort to closely monitor and improve the operations of HUD. This is particularly important when we are dealing with a Federal agency that has repeatedly been designated ``high risk'' by the General Accounting Office. The Department of Housing and Urban Development is the only cabinet level agency that is ``high risk.'' This means that the management deficiencies of the Department pose a significant risk to both taxpayers and the individuals served by HUD programs. The GAO is not alone in its assessment of HUD. The Department's own inspector general has repeatedly reported on management deficiencies at HUD. There are two positive provisions in this bill concerning the General Accounting Office and the inspector general and I want to commend the chairman for including them. The first requires the GAO to certify quarterly on the cost of time attributable to the failure of HUD to cooperate with any GAO investigation and to reimburse GAO for these costs. The General Accounting Office is the investigative arm of the Congress, and we expect HUD and other agencies to cooperate fully in the investigations that the Congress requests. The second provision is an increase in funding for the Office of Inspector General. The IG is an independent voice within HUD. The present IG is a tremendous watchdog over HUD programs and a valuable resource to the Congress and to the taxpayers. This is clearly an agency that needs a strong and well funded inspector general's office. Let me comment on several other important provisions in the bill. The first terminates a portion of the Community Builders program. In my view, the Community Builders program is a misallocation of the Department's resources. Nearly 10 percent of the Department's personnel are now Community Builders. As best we can tell these positions are largely public relations positions. The Community Builders are among the highest paid employees at HUD, with the program consuming a disproportionate share of travel and training resources. At a time when HUD is considered ``high risk'' the focus should not be on public relations, it should be on ensuring adequate personnel to police HUD programs. As a result of our concerns with the Community Builders program, the Housing Subcommittee will hold an oversight hearing of this program in early October. The hearing will focus on the upcoming inspector general's audit of the program and the views of career HUD employees on the merits of the program. I also want to comment on the section 8 ``opt-out'' issue. This legislation once again grants HUD the authority to renegotiate section 8 contracts and where necessary adjust the contracts up to market rents. This is essentially the same authority given to HUD 2 years ago. Earlier this year, the Housing Subcommittee held a hearing on this very issue. We found that HUD has moved very slowly in utilizing this authority. Hopefully, the language in this bill will once again make clear that HUD has the authority to work with section 8 owners who want to remain in the program and adjust the contracts to the local market rents. Finally, I want to reiterate a point made by the Appropriations Committee in the committee report regarding unauthorized programs. This year HUD requested funding for a number of new programs that have never been authorized by the Congress. The GAO identified 19 new programs with total funding of over $700 million. The administration continues to propose funding for new programs that have little or no relationship to affordable housing. This diverts precious resources from those most in need. If the administration wants new programs, it should make its case before the authorizing committee, not the Appropriations Committee, and I appreciate Senator Bond's recognitiion of this fact. In recent years the Congress has enacted a great deal of housing legislation--including both a major restructuring of public housing and the section 8 program. It has been my view that the Congress should refrain from passing more housing laws until we can determine whether the laws that we have already passed are being properly implemented and whether the Department is being properly managed. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. In closing, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an outline of some of the findings from the oversight hearings conducted by the Senate Housing and Transportation Subcommittee this year.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks concerning the specifics of the conference report, I want to congratulate Chairman Warner and Senator Levin, for all their hard work on this bill. I believe we have a strong bill which makes dramatic improvements for our military men and women. Also, I want to say that I feel honored to be a part of the Armed Services Committee. It is not too often that a first year member of the committee becomes a Subcommittee Chair. It has been a learning experience but one that I have enjoyed as much as any time during my years in office. We rightly began the year with S.4, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines Bill of Rights and this has been our guide which brought us to this point. And, I am proud of the many achievements in this conference report. Specifically, the Personnel Subcommittee held four hearings in preparation of this important bill. Through these hearings, we explored recruiting, retention, pay and compensation, military and civilian personnel management and the military health care system. During these hearings, particular emphasis was put on readiness, the retention of highly trained people and the inability of the military services to achieve their recruiting goals. General Shelton and the Service Chiefs urged the President and the Congress to support a military pay raise that would begin to address inequities between military pay and civilian wages, and to resolve the inequity of the ``Redux'' retirement system. This conference report will provide military personnel a four-point- eight percent pay raise on January 1, 2000, and will require that, for the next six years, military pay raises be based on the annual increase in the Employment Cost Index plus one-half a percent. The bill restructures the military pay tables to recognize the value of promotions and to weight the pay raise toward mid-career NCOs and officers where retention is most critical. The Joint Chiefs testified that there is a pay gap between military and private sector wages of 14 percent. This bill moves aggressively to close this gap and ensure military personnel are compensated in an equitable manner. The conference report includes over $250 million specifically to reduce the out-of-pocket housing expense for military personnel and their families. The conference report provides military personnel who entered the service after July 31, 1986 the option to revert to the previous military retirement system that provided at 50 percent multiplier to their base pay averaged over their highest three years and includes full cost-of-living adjustments; or, to accept a $30,000 bonus and remain under the ``Redux'' retirement system. The Joint Chiefs testified that the ``Redux'' retirement system is responsible for an increasing number of mid-career military personnel deciding to leave the service. The conference report will offer these highly trained personnel an attractive incentive to continue to serve a full career. We have authorized a Thrift Savings Plan that will allow service members to save up to five percent of their base pay, before taxes, and will permit them to directly deposit their enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses, up to the limits established by the IRS, into their Thrift Savings Plan. The bill authorizes Service Secretaries to offer to match the Thrift Savings Plan contributions of those service members serving in critical specialities for a period of six years in return for a six year service commitment. This is a powerful tool to assist the services in retaining key personnel in the most critical specialities. In addition to the pay increase, the re-engineering of the military retirement system and the Thrift Savings Plan, we have taken dramatic steps to assist military recruiters and re-enlistment NCOs by authorizing new and increased bonuses and incentives to attract high quality young men and women to join the military services and to stay once they become trained and experienced professionals. We targeted these incentives and bonuses at those critical specialities which the services are having difficulty filling. The Committee has found that the single most frequent reason departing service members cite when asked why they decided to leave the military is excessive time on deployment--too much time away from home and family. We are all well aware that the Clinton administration has deployed military personnel more than at any previous time in our history. The conference report includes a provision that will require the military services to manage the deployment of military personnel within strict time lines. The provision does provide the Secretary of Defense board waiver authority to ensure that military readiness or national security will not be compromised. However, during normal operations, the services will be required to minimize the impact of deployments and track the details that separate a service member from his or her family. This provision will be an important step toward retaining the trained and experienced personnel the services are now losing at an alarming rate. I am sure each Senator has received complaints from constituents regarding the TRICARE health care system. The original Senate bill and the conference report take important steps towards improving the TRICARE health care system of the military services. The conference report directs a totally revamped pharmacy benefit, improves access to care and claims processing, reduces the administrative burden on beneficiaries, enhances the dental benefits, and requires the establishment of a beneficiary advocate to assist service members, retirees and their families who are experiencing difficulty with the TRICARE system. While this conference report has taken a number of important steps toward resolving the most frequent complaints against TRICARE, during the next year the Chairman and I intend to continue to pursue ways to further improve and streamline the military health care system. I have described just a few of the many personnel related provisions in this conference report. As we are all aware, recruiting and retention in the military services is suffering. We simply cannot allow the best military force in the world wither away. As I and other Members of the Senate have visited military bases here in the United States, in Bosnia and in other deployment areas, we have found that our young service men and women are doing a tremendous job, under adverse conditions in many cases. We should move quickly to pass this conference report in order to permit military personnel and their families to make the decision to continue to serve and will assist the military services in recruiting the high quality force we have worked so hard to achieve. There are many other issues outside of the personnel area that I wish I could touch on but there is just not enough time. However, I would like to mention one in particular and that concerns Rocky Flats. The conference Report has four very important provisions which will help ensure that the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site will close safely and efficiently by the year 2006. First, the bill authorizes $1.1 billion for all closure projects, with Rocky Flats receiving an extra $15 million above the President's request to help ensure closure by 2006. Second, there is a three year pilot program (FY 2000-2002) authorizing the Secretary of Energy to allocate up to $15 million of prior year unobligated balances in the defense environmental management account for accelerated cleanup at Rocky Flats. This provision could provide $45 million extra for Rocky Flats through the year 2002. Third, we are requiring the Secretary of Energy to provide a proposed schedule for the shipment of waste from Rocky Flats to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, including in the schedule a timetable for obtaining shipping containers. And fourth, the Comptroller General (GAO) must report on the progress of the closure of Rocky Flats by 2006. Again, I want to state that I am proud of this Conference Report and what it provides for our military. In conclusion, I want to recognize and thank the Staff Director of the Personnel Subcommittee Charlie Abell. He is a tremendous asset to me and my staff, the Armed Services Committee, and this Senate. Also, I want to let Senator Cleland know how much I enjoy having him as my partner and ranking member of the Subcommittee. He is an American hero whose commitment in improving the lives of our military personnel is to be commended. And lastly, I want to thank the Chairman for this time to speak and I want to thank him for his commitment to the bill and to our brave and honorable men and women in uniform. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to commend a fellow Coloradan, William M. Houston of Denver, who will be installed as President of the nation's largest insurance association--the Independent Insurance Agents of America (IIAA)--later this month in Las Vegas. Bill is branch manager of Riedman Insurance Corporation, an independent insurance agency located in Denver. Bill began his volunteer service within the insurance industry at the local and state levels. He served on numerous committees of both the Independent Insurance Agents of Denver and the Independent Insurance Agents of Colorado, including serving as president of both organizations. In 1976, Bill was awarded the Local Board President of the Year Award and in 1987 was honored as Colorado Insuror of the year. Bill was elected to IIAA's Executive committee in October 1994 and was honored by his peers when they named him President-Elect of the Association last fall. While on this Association leadership panel; he was worked to strengthen the competitive standing of independent insurance agents by helping to provide the tools they need to run more successful businesses. Over the years, Mr. Houston has been active on several IIAA committees, and has represented the state of Colorado as its representative to IIAA's National Board of State Directors for six years. Aside from his professional volunteer work, Bill also has distinguished himself as an active and concerned member of his community. He is past president of both the Gyro Club and the University Club of Denver, and Trustee (Director) of the National Sports Center for the Disabled in Winter Park, Colorado. Currently, Bill serves on the Board of Directors for the Denver Rotary Club and as an elder in the Wellshire Presbyterian Church. Bill also proudly served his country in the U.S. Marine Corps, initially as a first lieutenant on active duty and as a captain in the Marine Corps Reserves. I am proud of my fellow Coloradan's accomplishments and bid him a successful year as president of the Independent Insurance Agents of America. As his past accomplishments show, Bill will serve his fellow agents with distinction and strong leadership as he leads IIAA into the new millennium. I wish him and his lovely wife, Jane, all the best as IIAA President and First Lady.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the Congress has just sent to the President a tax relief package. I believe very strongly that we can do three things: We can cut taxes, we can make substantial strides in paying down the debt, and we can save Social Security. I do not think that asking for a tax cut of between 3 and 3.5 percent of the total anticipated budget spending in the next 10 years is being irresponsible. That is how this administration--the President and the Vice President, Al Gore--would like to characterize it. We have the highest tax burden since World War II. I think this Congress is being responsible to the American people in saying: You deserve some relief, too. I am very disappointed that the President is saying he is going to veto this tax-relief package. I have believed all along that he really does not support any tax cuts. I have believed all along that he really does not want to pay down the debt and that he really does not care that much about Social Security. I have believed all along that his real agenda is spending. As we move forward this fall with some of the debate, I think it will become more and more clear that the President's agenda is really spending, while the Republicans' agenda in the Congress--and I want to be part of that team--will be to fight to keep taxes down, will be to fight especially hard to pay down the debt, and to save Social Security. I would like to take a moment to make some comments on tax cuts. I believe we took an important step toward addressing our Nation's future by passing the $792 billion tax cut package last month. We passed a bill that pays down the debt, ensures that our obligations to Social Security are met, and provides tax relief for millions of Americans. This tax cut package returns the tax overpayment to those who paid it. I believe this is a far better option than the plans we have seen from the other side of the aisle that would merely spend the extra money. Under our plan, a middle-class family of four will receive over $1,000 a year in tax relief when the plan is fully implemented. In addition to broad-based relief for all taxpayers, the tax bill provides relief in many important areas, including the marriage penalty, the alternative minimum tax, savings and investment, education, health care, the estate tax, and housing. I, for one, believe in the ``opportunity society.'' I believe in success and that people should not be punished when they succeed and prosper. The surplus belongs to those who are succeeding and paying record levels of taxes. When we cut taxes, people are motivated to work harder, and the economy does well. When the economy does well, everyone does well. Some are trying to claim that the Republicans want to return money to the people instead of paying down the debt. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, in 2000, the Republican plan, along with a significant tax cut, leaves the public debt $220 billion less than the President's budget proposal. The Republican plan saves 75 percent of the total surplus, as compared to the President's plan which only saves 67 percent of the surplus. I also point out that the Republican plan saves every penny of the Social Security surplus. The President's budget spends $29 billion of the Social Security surplus. These numbers come from the Congressional Budget Office, which Members of Congress can rely on, on a nonpartisan basis, to provide us with accurate figures. Clearly, the recent debate in the Senate was not about debt repayment. The debate was about what to do with the surplus money after addressing debt repayment. I happen to believe we should refund this overpayment to the taxpayers. Some of my colleagues believe we should spend it. I believe the American people are in a better position to know what they need than the Government, particularly the Government here in Washington. I believe we should let the people keep more of their own money to spend on their priorities, not Washington's priorities. I believe the tax package we passed will do just that. By contrast, the President's budget increases taxes--I repeat that, increases taxes--by nearly $100 billion over 10 years. I find it interesting that the President claims we cannot afford $792 billion in tax cuts but believes we can afford $1 trillion in new spending. Although some have tried to portray the tax-relief package as large and irresponsible, I have to disagree. The tax cuts only equal 3.5 percent of what the Congressional Budget Office projects the Federal Government will take in over the next 10 years. In light of the fact Federal tax receipts are already at a record high, I consider this tax cut to be extremely modest. In response to the claim that tax cuts only help the rich, first of all, tax cuts are for taxpayers. If you do not pay taxes, you can't get a tax cut. Under the recently passed tax bill, every American who pays income taxes will get an income tax cut. Our income tax system is progressive. The top 1 percent of earners make 16 percent of the income but pay 32 percent of the income taxes. The top 25 percent of earners pay 81 percent of the income tax, and the top half of earners pay nearly all of the income taxes. Looking more closely at who pays the income taxes, as I noted, the top half of earners pay nearly all of the Federal income taxes. As taxpayers, they will be the ones to receive a tax cut. I would like to examine who those so-called rich are. The rich are 62 percent of all homeowners; 66 percent of those between the ages of 45 and 64; 67 percent of those with a child in the home; 68 percent of those who have attended college, even just one quarter of college; 69 percent of married couples; and 80 percent of two-earner households. I want to comment about the 80 percent of two-earner households. I believe most of those are young Americans who are trying to get started. They are young families, people who have just graduated from college, maybe just come from high school and have the first job. They are trying to buy a house, get a family started, and pay for a very expensive education. In order to do that, both the husband and the wife work. We are taking 80 percent of those two-earner households and we are taxing them at record levels. This particular tax bill is going to help young families getting started, future citizens of this country, the future leaders of this country. I think this is a very good piece of legislation. I remind Senators, again, to remember when they hear our Democrat colleagues talk about the rich who benefit from those tax cuts, this is really who they are talking about. I am pleased this body has taken steps to address tax relief for hard-working Americans. I will continue to support efforts to cut taxes and downsize Government. I believe Congress should reject new taxes and new spending in favor of meaningful tax relief. It is time we return Government money to the rightful owner--the American people. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the endeavors of two staff members from my D.C. office who have been working especially hard to increase our Republican majority for the future. Three weeks ago, Beth Brown, an employee of mine since I started in the Senate, and her husband Motte, who works for our esteemed President Pro Temp, became the proud parents of Sophie Isabelle Brown. She was born around 11 pm on August 25th at a healthy 7 pound and 2 ounces. This is their first child and my staff and I wish them all the happiness in the world. I am also pleased to announce that just last week John and Eileen Carson brought their second baby girl into their family. Ainsley Jane Adeline Carson arrived September 2nd at 3:09 p.m., weighting 7 pounds and 3 ounces. John is a 5-year member of my staff and my Senior Legislative Assistant. They are doing very well and we extend our warmest wishes and congratulations to them also.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a program in Colorado aimed at stopping youth violence. In the wake of the shootings at Columbine in Littleton, students and parents throughout northern Colorado in Fort Collins, Greeley, Windsor and my home town of Loveland organized the week of August 29 through September 4 as ``I will pledge week.'' The program was sponsored by the Fort Collins Coloradoan, Clear Channel--the parent company of radio stations KPAW, KCOL, KIIX, and KGLL, and school districts throughout northern Colorado. The ``pledge'' is a symbolic gesture meant to heighten everyone's awareness of the problem of youth violence. It stresses personal responsibility, tolerance and empowers each student to be part of the solution. I have proudly endorsed ``the pledge'' because I believe it will make a difference. I would like to now share with my colleagues ``the pledge.'' The Pledge To end violence . . . ``I will pledge to be a part of the solution. I will eliminate taunting from my behavior. I will encourage others to do the same. I will do my part to make my community a safe place by being more sensitive to others. I will set the example of a caring individual. I will eliminate profanity toward others from my language. I will not let my words or actions hurt others . . . And if others won't become part of the solution, I will.'' Last week, literally thousands of students across northern Colorado took this pledge. They committed themselves to be part of the solution to ending youth violence. It is an example I encourage others to follow.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the federal budget is prominent right now as we discuss the spending policies that will guide Congress through the coming fiscal years. In the midst of these discussions, I would like to bring up an important issue that many members have supported in the past. I am here today to introduce a line-item veto constitutional amendment. Prior to my election to the Senate I served in the House of Representatives. In that body I introduced a constitutional line-item veto on several occasions. This was motivated by my view that the greatest threat to our economy was deficit spending which is still adding to the accumulated $5.6 trillion national debt. As a Member of the Senate, I introduced this legislation again in 1997. This occurred just after a Federal district court declared the enacted statutory line-item veto, or more accurately, enhanced rescission authority, to be unconstitutional. In 1996, Congress gave the President what is generally referred to as expanded rescission authority when it passed the Line Item Veto Act. All Presidents, beginning with George Washington, had impoundment authority similar to what the Line Item Veto Act intended until Congress limited rescission authority in 1974 under the Impoundment Control Act. Ultimately the Supreme Court upheld the district court ruling in Clinton v. City of New York, where the Line Item Veto Act was ruled unconstitutional on grounds that it violates the presentment clause. Now a presidential line-item veto can only be provided by amending the Constitution, and that is what I seek to do with this legislation. Governors in 43 states have some type of line item veto. This is consistent with the approach taken in most state constitutions of providing a greater level of detail concerning the budget process than is contained in the U.S. Constitution. In my view, the line item veto has been an important factor in the more responsible budgeting that occurs at the state level. Colorado gives line item veto authority to the governor, and that power, along with a balanced budget requirement in the state constitution, has worked well and insured that Colorado has been governed in a fiscally responsible manner regardless of who served in the legislature or in the governor's office. I believe it is time that we take the approach of the states. In order to do this we must enact a Constitutional Amendment. Under article I, section 7 of the Constitution, the President's veto authority has been interpreted to mean that he must sign or veto an entire piece of legislation. The Constitution reads: ``Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, * * *'' this section then proceeds to outline the procedures by which Congress may override this veto with a two-thirds vote of both houses. The amendment that I am introducing today amends this language as it pertains to appropriations bills. It specifically provides that the President shall have the power to disapprove any appropriation of an appropriations bill at the time the President approves the bill. This change will make explicit that the President is no longer confined to either vetoing or signing an entire bill, but that he may choose to single out certain appropriations for veto and still sign a portion of the bill. A constitutional amendment ensuring that the President has line-item veto authority over congressional spending bills is an important tool in our continuing efforts to restore fiscal responsibility to the Federal government. Mr. President, I look forward to further discussion on this important issue. We must seriously consider a constitutional amendment to allow the line item veto, and I hope that my colleagues will support this amendment or similar language in the Senate.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the federal budget is prominent right now as we discuss the spending policies that will guide Congress through the coming fiscal years. In the midst of these discussions, I would like to bring up an important issue that many members have supported in the past. I am here today to introduce a line-item veto constitutional amendment. Prior to my election to the Senate I served in the House of Representatives. In that body I introduced a constitutional line-item veto on several occasions. This was motivated by my view that the greatest threat to our economy was deficit spending which is still adding to the accumulated $5.6 trillion national debt. As a Member of the Senate, I introduced this legislation again in 1997. This occurred just after a Federal district court declared the enacted statutory line-item veto, or more accurately, enhanced rescission authority, to be unconstitutional. In 1996, Congress gave the President what is generally referred to as expanded rescission authority when it passed the Line Item Veto Act. All Presidents, beginning with George Washington, had impoundment authority similar to what the Line Item Veto Act intended until Congress limited rescission authority in 1974 under the Impoundment Control Act. Ultimately the Supreme Court upheld the district court ruling in Clinton v. City of New York, where the Line Item Veto Act was ruled unconstitutional on grounds that it violates the presentment clause. Now a presidential line-item veto can only be provided by amending the Constitution, and that is what I seek to do with this legislation. Governors in 43 states have some type of line item veto. This is consistent with the approach taken in most state constitutions of providing a greater level of detail concerning the budget process than is contained in the U.S. Constitution. In my view, the line item veto has been an important factor in the more responsible budgeting that occurs at the state level. Colorado gives line item veto authority to the governor, and that power, along with a balanced budget requirement in the state constitution, has worked well and insured that Colorado has been governed in a fiscally responsible manner regardless of who served in the legislature or in the governor's office. I believe it is time that we take the approach of the states. In order to do this we must enact a Constitutional Amendment. Under article I, section 7 of the Constitution, the President's veto authority has been interpreted to mean that he must sign or veto an entire piece of legislation. The Constitution reads: ``Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, * * *'' this section then proceeds to outline the procedures by which Congress may override this veto with a two-thirds vote of both houses. The amendment that I am introducing today amends this language as it pertains to appropriations bills. It specifically provides that the President shall have the power to disapprove any appropriation of an appropriations bill at the time the President approves the bill. This change will make explicit that the President is no longer confined to either vetoing or signing an entire bill, but that he may choose to single out certain appropriations for veto and still sign a portion of the bill. A constitutional amendment ensuring that the President has line-item veto authority over congressional spending bills is an important tool in our continuing efforts to restore fiscal responsibility to the Federal government. Mr. President, I look forward to further discussion on this important issue. We must seriously consider a constitutional amendment to allow the line item veto, and I hope that my colleagues will support this amendment or similar language in the Senate.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to make some comments regarding repeal of the ``temporary'' 0.2 percent Federal unemployment tax (FUTA) surtax. Earlier this year I introduced S. 103 to repeal the surtax. I commend Chairman Roth and my colleagues on the Finance Committee for including in their tax bill repeal of the temporary 0.2 percent FUTA surtax. I would, however, like to accelerate the effective date from 2004 to next year. I believe that this tax relief provision is very important for both businesses and employees. We should repeal the surtax immediately. The ``temporary'' surtax was enacted in 1976 by Congress to repay the general fund of the Treasury for funds borrowed by the unemployment trust fund. Although the borrowings were repaid in 1987, Congress has continued to extend the surtax in tax bill after tax bill. Since 1987, Congress has used extension of the surtax to help raise revenue to pay for tax packages. In fact, the surtax was most recently extended to help pay for the 1997 tax bill. The tax takes money out of the private economy for no valid reason. By repealing the surtax, Congress will honor a promise that it made when the surtax was first enacted. Small businesses were told repeatedly that the tax was temporary and would be repealed when it was no longer needed to finance the unemployment tax system. Clearly a tax is not temporary when it has already been in place for over twenty years. Based on the original purpose, the surtax is no longer needed. The economy is experiencing the highest level of employment in decades, and all state unemployment funds have surpluses. It is inappropriate for the government to continue to raise excess unemployment taxes and then use the surplus for purposes completely unrelated to unemployment. Repeal of the temporary unemployment surtax will also be beneficial to small businesses. The surtax is especially hard on the small businesses because they are often labor intensive. Any payroll tax is added directly to the employer's payroll costs. In fact, according to the National Federation of Independent Business, payroll taxes are the fastest growing federal tax burden on small business. It is also important to note that the payroll taxes must be paid whether the business experiences a profit or a loss. As a former small businessman myself, I am particularly aware of this fact. I suspect that my view is similar to the view of many other small business owners. It is one thing to have a surtax when unemployment is high and the surtax is necessary. However, it is totally unjustified when unemployment is at the lowest level in three decades. Repeal of the 0.2 percent surtax will reduce the tax burden on employers and workers by $6 billion over the next five years. Lower payroll taxes mean higher wages for workers. Although the employer appears to fully pay the unemployment surtax and other payroll taxes, the economic evidence is strong that the cost is actually passed along to workers in the form of lower wages. Consistent tax relief will help to ensure that our economy remains the strongest and most vibrant in the world. Low taxes reduce unemployment and help ensure that future surtaxes are unnecessary. The time has come to do away with this outdated and unnecessary surtax. Again, I commend the Finance Committee for their provision to repeal the FUTA surtax, and I urge my colleagues to support efforts to accelerate the effective date so that repeal is immediate.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, this amendment would expand the small business provisions of this tax bill. I am pleased that several of the provisions have been accepted. We are making solid progress on this issue. This is a bipartisan amendment, cosponsored by Senators Robb of Virginia and Hagel of Nebraska. I support tax relief for the American people, and I will support this tax bill. The surplus belongs to the American people, and I think a refund of one-third of the surplus is reasonable. While I support the bill, I have been working to improve it before final passage. In particular, we should expand the small business tax section of the code known as Subchapter S. Subchapter S of the Internal Revenue Code was enacted by Congress in 1958 and has been liberalized a number of times over the last two decades, significantly in 1982 and again in 1996. This reflects a desire on the part of Congress to reduce taxes on small businesses. Subchapter S eliminates the double taxation of small business income. Under Subchapter S the business is taxed at the shareholder level alone, it is not taxed at the corporate level. Subchapter S is available only to small businesses that have a small number of shareholders. Congress made small banks eligible for S corporation status in the 1996 ``Small Business Job Protection Act.'' Since first becoming eligible, nearly 1,000 small banks have converted from regular corporations to small business corporations. Unfortunately, many more would like to convert, but are prevented from doing so by a number of remaining obstacles in the tax law. My amendment builds on and clarifies the Subchapter S provisions from 1996. It contains several provisions of particular benefit to community banks that may be contemplating a conversion to Subchapter S. The amendment is based on S. 875, legislation that I introduced earlier this year with the cosponsorship of Senators Gramm, Bennett, Shelby, Abraham, Hagel, Enzi, Mack, Grams, Inhofe, Brownback, and Thomas. I have selected several provisions from the bill for this amendment and the Finance Committee has agreed to accept them. Let me review these provisions: First, we exclude investment securities income from the passive income test for banks. Banks are unique, they are required to hold passive investments such as federal bonds and municipal bonds in order to comply with safety and soundness regulations. This provision is only fair. If we require certain investments by regulation, we should not use this requirement to prohibit banks from becoming Subchapter S small businesses. Second, we permit Subchapter S small business corporations to have bank director stock. Again, regulations require banks to have bank director stock. We clarify that this does not punish banks. They can still become small business corporations. In addition, I will be working with Chairman Roth and his staff on several other provisions to consider for the future. These include one to permit Individual Retirement Accounts to be shareholders in an S corporation. This provision is a recognition of the importance of IRAs. We have found that many community bank owners have their shares in an IRA. There is nothing wrong with this. We should let them be shareholders. In addition, we hope in the future to permit S corporations to issue preferred stock. This would give all small businesses that are S corporations access to investment capital. Let me conclude with a general statement on why we should enact these changes. Last year we enacted broad legislation to support credit unions. I supported this legislation. We should now give small banks some tax relief. They are in a tough competitive position. We are about to approve financial modernization in this Congress. I am a member of the Conference on this important legislation. I support the legislation. But I think it is right to note that this legislation is of greatest appeal to larger financial institutions. Again, our small community banks need help. They need tax relief to help them compete and survive. This amendment give the small banks tax relief. This amendment is supported by the Independent Community Bankers of America, the American Bankers Association, the Independent Bankers of Colorado, the Colorado Bankers Association, the Independent Bankers Association of Texas, and others. I am pleased that the Finance Committee has accepted the passive income and director stock provisions of the amendment. In addition, Senator Roth and his staff have agreed to work with us on the remaining provisions of the amendment and S. 875. Amendment No. 1403

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, if he asks unanimous consent to be allowed to speak for 2 minutes, I will be glad to yield that time.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Texas for her remarks, and I also thank the two Senators from Wyoming for their remarks this morning regarding tax cuts. Our economy has been doing well. It is an unprecedented time of economic growth. Whenever our economy does well, everybody does well. People who are poor do well. You can break it out to any type of economic group you want, but everybody does well because the total tide comes up. I happen to believe our economy is doing well because we have worked hard in the last decade, decade and a half, to hold down taxes, to reduce the regulatory burden, and to promote good economic growth. The last effort by the Republicans in the Congress to make sure we continue to have good, strong economic growth in this country was when we dropped the capital gains rate. Nobody is talking about the profound impact that reducing the capital gains rate has had on this country's economic growth. Historically, every time we have dropped capital gains, whether it was during the Kennedy administration or whether it was during the Reagan administration--in some cases, I have seen that happen in my own State of Colorado--revenues to the Federal Government increase. Today tax revenues to the Federal Government are at a historic high. There is a windfall. There is more money coming into the Federal Government than any of us would have imagined. I think we need to give back some change to the American people. It is their money. They worked hard to earn the money. Consequently, I think they should be the primary recipient of a windfall. The people of Colorado were blessed because a Republican legislature, with a Republican Governor, returned dollars that came in unexpectedly as revenues to the State of Colorado. They returned it to the taxpayers of Colorado, the people who earn the money, who pay taxes. I happen to think my State of Colorado, under their leadership, has set a great example for the country. I certainly hope this Congress will move forward with a meaningful tax break that will make a difference in people's lives. We hear a lot of figures thrown around here on the floor. We just heard an example of some of the numbers that had been thrown around this morning and then this afternoon about what is happening to our budget. We have figures that have come out of OMB. We have figures that have come out of CBO. Let's just take one agency so we are comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges. I don't think it is fair to pick some of the figures out of OMB and then some of the figures out of CBO and make comparisons. We need to go with one agency. Let's make a comparison between what the President has done with his plan and the Democrat Party, and what the Republican leadership is pushing for. Let's take the figures from the Congressional Budget Office and see what they look like, comparing the President's budget with what the Republicans are putting together and what they would like to see happen for the future of America. The President's budget, as reported in the latest report issued by CBO, on July 21, 1999, would leave a public debt of $1.80 trillion in 2009. When you compare that to the Republican proposal, it is over $200 billion higher than the amount left under the congressional budget resolution and the tax cut. Let's look at the President's budget in terms of the total surplus under CBO's scoring. CBO says the President's budget saves just 67 percent of the total surplus. Now, that compares to a 75-percent saving of the total surplus by the congressional budget resolution and tax cut on the Republican side. President Clinton's budget contains $1 trillion in new spending. I think this issue is really more about spending than about taxes. The President wants to have the money so he can continue to spend more and more. We have heard from the big spenders. They would much rather increase spending than cut taxes. I think we ought to cut taxes instead of increasing spending. President Clinton's budget, again, contains $1 trillion in new spending. That is 25 percent larger than the Republicans' $792 billion reconciliation tax cut. President Clinton's budget increases taxes by $100 billion over the next 10 years, according to the CBO report, in contrast to the largest middle-class tax cut since Ronald Reagan that is being offered by the Republicans. President Clinton's budget spends the Social Security surplus, the off-budget surplus, for fiscal years 2000, 2004, and 2005 by a total of $29 billion. Now, that is in contrast to the congressional budget resolution and tax cut where the Social Security trust fund is not raided at all in any year. Even Democrats don't agree necessarily with their own President on his obsessive stand against tax cuts. I can think of one problem to which a Democrat, a friend of mine with whom I serve on the Intelligence Committee, who also happens to be on the Finance Committee, refers. He says: ``To me, cutting taxes when we have $3 trillion more coming in than we forecast in the neighborhood''--he is talking about his $800 billion tax proposal--``is hardly what I call an outrageous, irresponsible move.'' Some of the Members of the Senate on the other side who have been talking this morning are talking about more spending as opposed to wanting to cut taxes. They say they are willing to run on that agenda. I am willing to take our agenda as Republicans and put it up against what the President is proposing in his plan for the American people. This Republican Congress, I think, has the right message and has the right approach for protecting the future of America. I think this is great. I am willing to brag about the fact that we protect every cent of Social Security's $1.9 trillion surplus in every year, which adheres to the spending agreement reached with the President in 1997. It also leaves $277 billion to finance emergencies and other priorities, like Medicare and prescription drugs, or simply additional debt reduction, yet still proposes returning $792 billion of the $1 trillion personal income tax overpayment to the taxpayers--I will run on that. I would be glad to run against any Democrat who would come up and say that he supports the President's plan which proposes to increase taxes by $100 billion over the next 10 years, a plan that, despite the largest Federal budget surplus in history, wants to increase taxes, wants $1.1 trillion more spending than a Congress which is adhering to the 1997 budget agreement, which raids Social Security for $30 billion over the next 10 years, which retires over $200 billion less in public debt than the Congress, and which would still not provide a single cent in net tax relief, despite a $1 trillion personal income tax overpayment. I would be glad to run on that. It amazes me that as we get closer to the election, more and more of the debate gets to be toward cutting taxes. But when we are out from the election, then people criticize Republicans. Other Members in this body, on the other side, criticize Republicans for trying to do the responsible thing and recognize that the windfall that is coming into the Federal Government, the windfall that is coming into the States, actually belongs to the people. They are the ones who worked hard and the ones who earned it. I want to come down on the side of many of my colleagues on the Republican side who have argued for a tax cut. I think we can do that and pay down the debt. As Senator Enzi mentioned in his comments earlier this morning, we can do both. We can pay down the debt. We can provide for a tax cut, and that is the responsible thing to do. To say that the responsible thing to do is more spending, I believe, is irresponsible. I want to let it be known that I am strongly in favor of a tax cut, and I am strongly in favor of paying down the debt. I believe we can do both. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor the 50th anniversary of Colorado Chapter 26 of the Disabled American Veterans. July 26, 1999 is the anniversary of this distinguished group. Chapter 26 consists of over 2,000 veterans, making it the largest chapter in Colorado. Not only did these men and women serve their country in a time of war, but they came home and continued to demonstrate their respect for America. Colorado Springs, El Paso County, and the State of Colorado have seen and felt their numerous contributions first hand in these times of peace--a peace which they helped to provide. The Veterans of Chapter 26 have never forgotten their duty to serve and defend, whether it be overseas or at home. Their un-relinquishing duty to America should be recognized. Reaching fifty years of service and dedication is a milestone in the lives of these men and women who served in the Armed Forces of the United States of America and became members of Chapter 26. These members offered their lives to protect our country. They survived the perils of war, not unscathed, to come home and continue to serve as outstanding citizens. They have shown a love that has been unwavering for fifty years towards this country that they sacrificed so much to preserve. They are models of patriotism, citizenship, and dedication to the freedoms cherished in these United States. And they continue to serve America with all of the pride and honor that they showed fifty years ago when they sacrificed their time and bodies for the freedom of others. So on July 26th 1999 the Colorado Chapter 26 of the United States Disabled American Veterans should be recognized and honored for the fifty years of unwavering pride and service--the ideals which America was built upon.