Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Whatever the solution, I am convinced that we will never alleviate the problem completely, but we certainly can reduce its occurrence. It is hard to understand how two students can become so dysfunctional, but we need to continue to search for answers. There is no simple solution. We must pledge ourselves to do what we can. I ask that the Senate begin by approving this resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand the leadership accommodated Senator Campbell's and my request to observe a moment of silence out of respect for the victims of the tragic shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO. I also understand that later today the Senate will consider a resolution expressing sorrow and offering condolences to the families and friends and students, all of Littleton, CO. I will address the Senate in greater detail at that time. In the meantime, I yield the floor to my senior colleague in order for him to request a moment of silence.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation that will expand and improve Subchapter S of the Internal Revenue Code. I am joined in this effort by Senators Gramm, Bennett, Shelby, Abraham, Hagel, Enzi, Mack, and Grams. The Subchapter S provisions of the Internal Revenue Code reflect the desire of Congress to eliminate the double tax burden on small business corporations. Pursuant to that desire, Subchapter S has been liberalized a number of times, most recently in 1996. This legislation contains several provisions that will make the Subchapter S election more widely available to small businesses in all sectors. It also contains several provisions of particular benefit to community banks that may be contemplating a conversion to Subchapter S. Financial institutions were first made eligible for the Subchapter S election in 1996. This legislation builds on and clarifies the Subchapter S provisions applicable to financial institutions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the attached explanation of the provisions of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation that will expand and improve Subchapter S of the Internal Revenue Code. I am joined in this effort by Senators Gramm, Bennett, Shelby, Abraham, Hagel, Enzi, Mack, and Grams. The Subchapter S provisions of the Internal Revenue Code reflect the desire of Congress to eliminate the double tax burden on small business corporations. Pursuant to that desire, Subchapter S has been liberalized a number of times, most recently in 1996. This legislation contains several provisions that will make the Subchapter S election more widely available to small businesses in all sectors. It also contains several provisions of particular benefit to community banks that may be contemplating a conversion to Subchapter S. Financial institutions were first made eligible for the Subchapter S election in 1996. This legislation builds on and clarifies the Subchapter S provisions applicable to financial institutions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the attached explanation of the provisions of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I wish today to recognize a group from Pueblo, Colorado--the Pueblo Pachyderm Club. This is Founders Week of the National Federation of the Grand Order of Pachyderm Clubs, and I think it is fitting that we acknowledge their civic efforts and attitude. The Pueblo Pachyderm Club, and the National Federation of Pachyderm Clubs, have a motto--``Free government requires active citizens.'' Their goal is to develop future leaders and better citizenship through the promotion of wide-spread involvement by good citizens in politics. They advocate better government through club programs and open meetings, by providing scholarships for political science students, by sponsoring campaign workshops, and by encouraging awareness of political affairs. The founders who have worked tirelessly for the Pueblo Pachyderm Club for years deserve special recognition. They have made the Club a fixture in the Pueblo community. The Club's regularly scheduled luncheons have become an avenue for local and state officials to meet with and listen to the concerns and thoughts of the community. Bringing together citizens, and hosting politicians and officials, leads to greater and better communication and fosters the beginning of new political interests and political potential. To simplify it--the more the better. The larger the percentage of our public that is involved in policy decision making, the better. With this in mind, the Pachyderm Club continues its mission. I wish them the best.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I support this effort to wall off the surplus Social Security revenues. By establishing a lockbox we ensure that all savings in the program are used to build the trust fund and extend the solvency of Social Security. We learned last year that to leave unobligated money lying around Washington is a bad idea because it gets spent! This is one of several budget reforms that I have been actively supporting. First, the budget process is too complicated and frequently abused. I feel it needs to be simplified. This is a step in that direction. With this provision we can remove the temptation that the Social Security surplus presents to those who tend to spend our money carelessly. As we search for ways to modernize Social Security, it makes sense to dedicate the Social Security surplus to repaying debt owed to the trust fund. Paying down the debt and modernizing Social Security need to happen together. It is important to take this issue up now, especially since we have already considered three requests for supplemental spending for this year, totaling $1.36 billion. These proposals spend the surplus without regard to major budgetary commitments such as Social Security. I have long been a supporter of debt repayment. I believe that Federal debt retirement should be a priority when decisions must be made regarding a Federal budgetary surplus. That is why I sponsored the American Debt Repayment Act, which requires repayment of the federal debt. Likewise, I support the legislation before us today that sets a statutory limit on federal debt held by the public. We must obligate ourselves to a plan in order to make any progress toward paying down the debt; otherwise, the surplus will most likely invite increased spending. Consider the impact that debt reduction would have on the fate of Social Security. We would be making positive changes to ensure the solvency of Social Security for future generations. We would be making payments on the national debt which is the best way to provide flexibility and a source of funds for changes in Social Security that will modernize it for the generations of the next century. So long as the federal government carries a $5.6 trillion debt, we cannot tell our children and grandchildren that we have provided for their future. By enacting this plan we will be helping to preserve Social Security for future generations. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Social Security lock box to keep the Social Security surplus safe from raids that further threaten the financial condition of the fund.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, my wife Joan and I were shocked and dismayed at the violence and bloodshed at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado yesterday. Words cannot do justification to the deep sense of loss all of us are feeling today following the tragedy. But words--these words, and the words of our prayers--are what we have to offer now. I offer my condolences to all those who lost loved ones, and to those whose loved ones have been wounded, hurt, and terrified. I would like to ask America for their prayers as well. They are needed. The Columbine High School community is in shock, the State of Colorado is in shock, and America is in shock. Before I left my office just now, I heard the final number of casualties--15. Fifteen lives, most of them young, ended yesterday by savage violence. This is a wound, a scar, that will not be removed, and for those who bear the worst of this burden my wife and I offer all our compassion, our sympathy and our prayers. We should recognize the heroism of the local police, the emergency personnel, and others who responded, as well as the heroism of the students and teachers caught in the attack. Many put their lives on the line to rescue students and escort them to safety. The simple, unplanned bravery and courage of those who did whatever they could--in the midst of mayhem and terror--to avert further tragedy might never be fully known but should be fully acknowledged. There are far too many of my colleagues who have had this experience--who have watched as news of school shootings and teen violence spread across the media. This tragedy erupted in Colorado, but it is part of a nationwide concern. In the coming months there will be time, and there will be a need, for us to commit ourselves to finding a solution to this tragic problem. We must ask ourselves how this could happen, and what can be done to prevent it from ever happening again. There is, I am sure, no simple solution. But we must pledge ourselves to doing what we can. Right now, however, I think the best response in the aftermath of this horror is, as Governor Bill Owens said, to hug our children. To hug them, and think about providing a better, more secure future. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the Senate will convene at 10:30 a.m. and be in a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will begin debate on the conference report to accompany the education flexibility bill. A vote can be expected on that conference report at the conclusion or yielding back of that 3- hour debate time. Also, as a reminder, a cloture motion was filed on the lockbox amendment to S. 557. Therefore, Senators should expect that cloture vote on Thursday. On Wednesday, the Senate may also consider any other legislative or executive items cleared for action.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, for the information of all Senators, this cloture vote will occur on Thursday. The majority leader will announce to the Members the time of the vote later today. Call of the Roll

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk to the pending lockbox amendment, No. 254.

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

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, April 21, at a time determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to consideration of the conference report to accompany the education flexibility bill, H.R. 800. I further ask unanimous consent that the conference report be considered under the following limitations: 3 hours for debate on the conference report, with the time divided as follows: 1 hour each under the control of the chairman and ranking member and Senator Wellstone. I further ask that no motions be in order, and that following the expiration of time, the Senate proceed to vote on the adoption of the conference report, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, April 21. I further ask that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved and the Senate then be in a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Gorton, 15 minutes; Senator Warner, 15 minutes; Senator Graham, 10 minutes; Senator Bingaman, 10 minutes; Senators Reid and Boxer, 30 minutes; Senators Nickles and Lincoln, 20 minutes; and Senators McConnell and Lieberman, 20 minutes.

Mr. ALLARD. I ask unanimous consent that at 12:30, notwithstanding receipt of the papers, the Senate begin consideration of the education flexibility conference report under the previous order.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today is April 15. It is Tax Day. This is the deadline by which we must file our 1040 Form and pay any additional taxes we might owe on top of what was withheld during the year. Unfortunately, typical Americans will work well beyond April 15, to pay their taxes. This is because Tax Freedom Day does not come until May 11. Tax Freedom Day is the day in the year to which the typical American family must work just to pay the combined state, federal, and local tax burden. For many Americans the total tax burden now exceeds one-third of family income. The Tax Foundation just announced today that Tax Freedom Day will move one day further into the year in 1999. Last year it was May 10, this year it will be May 11. This is the latest day ever, and it marks the sixth straight year that Tax Freedom Day has advanced a day or more further into the year. As the Tax Foundation has reported year after year, in a typical household the tax bill now exceeds the cost of housing, food, transportation and clothing combined. In fact, in 1999 the federal tax burden will reach a peacetime high. Nearly 21 percent of the Gross Domestic Product--that is the wealth created in the country this year--will go to the federal government. As we approach the end of the 20th century it is useful to look back on the history of the tax burden. The Joint Economic Committee of the Congress estimates that in 1900, the average federal tax burden on a family was 3 percent, and the average state and local burden was 5 percent, for a combined total of 8 percent. As the century closes the JEC estimates the average federal tax burden on a family is 24 percent, and the average state and local burden is 11 percent, for a total of 35 percent. Mr. President, we have come a very long way. The IRS estimates that 123 million families will file their tax returns this year. The tax code is so complex that nearly half of these families require the service of some type of tax professional in order to file their tax returns. This means that on top of the actual tax owed to the government, there is a hidden tax for millions of Americans in the form of tax- compliance and professional services fees. Even for simple tax returns, this can add another $100 to the tax bill each year. For small businesses the tax compliance costs run into the thousands of dollars. Mr. President, it is time for fundamental tax reform. We should begin this process by reducing income tax rates across the board. We should also eliminate complex and punitive taxes such as the estate and gift tax, and we should continue to build on our successful reform of the IRS by making it possible for most Americans to comply with the tax system with minimal expense and effort. The federal government is too big, and it costs too much. We should use the budget surplus for two things, reduction of the federal debt, and tax relief. The surplus belongs to the American people, it does not belong to the government. For decades the cost of government has risen, Tax Freedom Day has moved later and later into the year. Mr. President, it is time for us to begin rolling back Tax Freedom Day. Let's give the American family a well earned break.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his thought and effort in this regard. Mr. President, I think we get stuck in the way things used to be. The fact is, this is a changing world. We have changing dynamics as far as what other countries are doing in regard to weapons development and what their risks may be to the mainland of the United States. My colleague from Mississippi has said yes, this is a changing world out there and we need to make sure we have a national missile defense system. If you talk to the average Americans out here on the street, they think we do have a national missile defense system. The fact is, we are no longer in a cold war era where the foreign policy of threat of mutual destruction is going to be effective. We are in a modern era where countries can develop a missile rather quickly, because of the natural resources that they have--maybe it is oil and gas--and with these huge financial resources that all of a sudden become available to them. In fact, we have heard testimony in the committees on which I serve--I serve on both the Intelligence Committee and the Armed Services Committee--that the time required for a newly developed country to build a missile from scratch has halved in the last few years. That is because there is lots of technology out there, that is readily available, that they can acquire quickly. They can put this all together into a very effective offensive system if they so choose. So I want to take some time today to talk about what the bill means to me, and some of the language in the bill specifically. I would like to talk a little bit about the threats of today's world and talk about the system's feasibility. We have heard comments here on the floor that we are dreaming, that this is really not that feasible an approach. I want to make some comments in that regard and talk a little bit about the cost of the system and how I think we can pay for it. And then, finally, before I conclude, I want to talk a little bit about the ABM Treaty and the treaty ramifications. What does S. 257, the National Defense Act of 1999, do? Simply, the National Defense Act of 1999 states that it is the policy of the United States ``to deploy as soon as technologically possible a National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether that is accidental, unauthorized or deliberate).'' The bill's policy statement is identical to that of S. 1873, which was proposed during the 105th Congress, except for the addition of the statement that missile defense is subject to the authorization and appropriations process, which is an amendment we just adopted here in a vote we had around 2 o'clock or 2:15. This bill does not mandate a date for deployment of a system, calling instead for deployment as soon as the required technology is mature. As I mentioned earlier, the United States has no defense against these systems, but I think it is important that we continue to push for their development as soon as it is technologically feasible--that we quickly move ahead. I think this is completely compatible with the January 20, 1999, statement of the Secretary of Defense: ``The United States in fact will face a rogue nation threat to our homeland against which we will have to defend the American people.'' And, he goes on to say, ``technological readiness will be the sole remaining criterion'' in deciding when to deploy a national missile defense system. Secretary Cohen stated on February 3, 1999, during the Armed Services hearing, that any country which fires ballistic missiles at us will face immediate retaliation. Again, this is the old, cold war attitude of mutual destruction. While I agree with this statement, we again decide to place ourselves at the mercy of rogue states instead of being proactive in protecting our citizens, because these rogue states have the capability of developing a system of missiles with some type of warhead--whether it is bacteriological, chemical, or nuclear--and we do not have any defense system today to counteract any missile that would be headed towards the United States. I would like to talk a little bit about the threats that are posed to the U.S. mainland today. I want to refer to the July 1998 Rumsfeld report on ballistic missile threats to the United States. The commissioners who put together the report concluded: [T]he threat to the U.S. posed by these emerging capabilities is broader, more mature and evolving more rapidly than has been reported in estimates and reports by the Intelligence community. The report goes on and further states: [T]he warning times that the U.S. can expect of new ballistic missile deployments are being reduced. I believe the missile threat to the United States is growing at an accelerated pace. Numerous hostile nations have declared their intent to obtain missiles capable of attacking the United States, and are succeeding in doing so. These include launches that have been made from North Korea and China, the old missile fields of the former Soviet Union--now in the Commonwealth of Independent States. I happen to believe that very soon Iraq, Iran, Libya, India, and Pakistan will have the same capability. Two of the worst proliferators of ballistic missiles are North Korea and Russia. North Korea has tested a missile capable of attacking Alaska and Hawaii, and is apparently developing a second missile which will be capable of reaching the entire United States mainland. North Korea has sold every missile it has developed, and the associated technology, to other rogue states. During the Armed Services hearing on February 2, 1999, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said: North Korea is on the verge of developing ballistic missiles capable of hitting the continental United States. Again, relating to the North Koreans' launch when they set off a second-stage rocket that went over the tip of Japan, Tenet said: The proliferation implications of these missiles are obviously significant. During the hearing, Director Tenet also warned that Russia is reneging on their earlier commitment to the United States to curb the transfer of advanced missile technology to Iran. Again, he stated: The bottom line is that assistance from Russian countries is still contributing substantially to progress in Iran's dangerous missile programs. He added: India, Pakistan, and Iran, who have traditionally been considered technology customers, now have developed capabilities that could, in some cases, be exported to others. So here we are. We have a commission set up by the United States to analyze our defensive posture and our ability to counteract a missile attack, and we have the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency both warning us that we need to update our defense system to a current situation that exists throughout the world. I happen to believe both the report as well as the comments by George Tenet. I think that we need to move forward. The President's 3+3 Missile Defense Plan has already been pushed back to 2005, but the problem is that the threat is right now. It is not in 2005. In December, Robert Walpole, National Intelligence Officer for Strategic and Nuclear Programs, said in a speech that the Central Intelligence Agency was caught by surprise by North Korea's flight testing of a three-stage missile. While the third stage of the missile failed, CIA analysts had to agree to the Rumsfeld report, as I stated earlier in my comments, that the threat is here despite the CIA's dismissal of the report when it was released. I want to talk a little bit about the feasibility of us moving ahead with the technology that we have today. We have the pieces of a national missile defense system with proven technology. However, the risk to development lies not in the pieces but in the integration of these pieces into an effective system in a timely manner, which is exactly what this bill does. When we talk about the term ``technologically possible,'' it includes system integration. There is no date in the bill. The bill just calls for the policy to deploy when technologically possible. During a February 3, 1999, Sea Power interview, General Shelton said: The simple fact is that we do not have the technology to field a national missile defense. . . . My colleagues--the Joint Chiefs and I--believe that when we have the technology for NMD, we ought to have the capability to be able to transition right into the deployment, if the threat warrants. A followup on that, Ted Warner, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Threat Reduction, said that the threat is no longer the issue holding back national missile defense, but technical feasibility is all that drives deployment. During a February 3, 1999, Armed Services hearing, Secretary Cohen stated that the Department is committed to advancing its missile defense efforts as technology risks allow, without any mention of when the threat is there. He admits that the threat is here now. I will discuss the architecture of a national missile defense system. The architecture for national missile defense consists of three pieces: the battle management system, the radars that detect incoming missiles, and the booster and ground-based interceptor that will comprise our response. The battle management command, control and communications system will receive data on the incoming missiles, calculate the number of interceptors needed to destroy the missiles, and monitor the status of the test elements, giving decisionmakers a prioritized set of choices for our response. Portions of this system have already been tested and performed flawlessly in previous tests. Our current detection system consists of a combination of upgraded early warning radars, new ground-based radars and our space-based satellites. Once the satellites detect a launch, they will pass the data to our ground-based radars, which will create a detection net to gather high-fidelity data on the incoming missile that will help our interceptor strike its target. The upgraded early warning radars have been rigorously tested using both computer simulations and actual test launches and are more than capable of performing their mission. Their replacement, a space-based infrared radar system, will vastly improve our detection. Moreover, our targeting capabilities will be increased with the eventual deployment of a complementary low space- based infrared system which performs cold-body tracking of incoming missiles. The least proven piece of the architecture may very well be the booster and interceptor. Various parts of the interceptors, such as the seeker, have been tested many times, and the test objectives have been met. Actually, just yesterday the PAC-3 missile collected, detected, tracked and gauged and then hit an incoming test missile. The technology exists to build a national missile defense system. Further testing of integration should show whether the system is ready to deploy. Requiring more studies and analysis to see if the technology is here, which it is, before we decide to deploy will only place us at the mercy of a threat we already know is out there. Let me speak a little bit about the cost of the system. With regard to the national missile defense budget, on one hand, the administration added $600 million from its fiscal year 1999 emergency supplemental but has yet to put forward exactly where this money will be spent. There was discussion to use part of this money for the Wye peace agreement. Then the administration added $6.6 billion over the 5-year plan for the national missile defense but pushed the majority of the money into the outyears, making it vulnerable to future cuts and the whims of another administration. I happen to believe that we should field an NMD system as soon as it works. Given that most of the system is technologically feasible already, we should be putting money in military construction and procurement starting in fiscal year 2000 and deploy much earlier than the year 2005. To make a few comments about the ABM Treaty and the treaty ratification, this bill is not about the ABM Treaty, specific architecture, deployment dates, or reports. The cold war is over, and we shouldn't hold to the cold war ways of protecting ourselves, the ABM Treaty. MAD, referred to as mutually assured destruction, should not rule our defense posture. We are no longer facing a superpower but now face rogue states. We keep hearing that if we deploy a missile defense system, Russia will not ratify START II. They have used this threat entirely too many times--in the bombing of Iraq, they used it; in the sanctions for missile proliferation with Iran. As columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote: What standing does Russia, of all nations, have to dictate how and whether the United States will defend itself? Russia is the principal supplier to Iran of the missile and nuclear technology that could one day turn New York into a Hiroshima. The administration has been saying that any national missile defense is not directed at Russia. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger said: It's directed at rogue states that have long range missiles. These are threats not only to us, but to the Russians. In conclusion, Mr. President, a firm policy to build a defense against ballistic missiles will send a clear message to rogue states that they are wasting their money building ballistic missiles with which to attack or threaten the United States. If rogue countries decide to ignore this message, the United States will be prepared to protect itself as soon as the technology is ready against such attack or threat of attack. The bill is a policy declaration, making clear to the citizens, allies, and adversaries of the United States that it will not remain defenseless against a ballistic missile attack. I believe there is a need to have a bipartisan bill, and this is a bipartisan bill. This bill was introduced by Senator Cochran and Senator Inouye, and the exact same bill in the 105th Congress had three Democrat cosponsors, with four voting for cloture. Let me end with a final conclusion from the Rumsfeld report and our ability to protect the threats for the future: Therefore, we unanimously recommend that U.S. analyses, practices and policies that depend on expectations of extended warning of deployment be reviewed and, as appropriate, revised to reflect the reality of an environment in which there may be little or no warning. I yield the floor, Mr. President, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 257, the National Missile Defense Act of 1999. Before I make my comments, I ask unanimous consent that Tim Coy be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the consideration of S. 257.

Mr. ALLARD. Probably 15 to 20 minutes would be adequate for my remarks. I request 20 minutes, and then, if I finish before that, I will yield back.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I believe the minority manager wants to be recognized. I yield, with the understanding that I will follow.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator for yielding for the purpose of a question. I just want to be clear that we are talking about the same issue here. My understanding is that these are the same rules and regulations proposed by the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency on December 7. As I understand, the regulations are going to require banks to set up customer profiles. I cannot imagine anything more intrusive than looking into somebody's banking account any time there is a little bonus that they get in their paycheck or they give a contribution somewhere. Then they suddenly become subject to scrutiny, not only by their banker but by law enforcement agencies and by the regulators. I think that is extremely intrusive. I just wanted to clarify that. The regulations that are being proposed are extremely vague and are certainly a threat to our privacy in this country. The regulations, as I understand, were drawn up to fight fraud, tax evasion, and combat money laundering, but I do believe that they are reaching entirely too far. I think these regulations are unnecessary and, frankly, I think these regulations ought to be scratched. One other thing that I want to clarify with Senator Gramm from Texas is that credit unions, security firms and insurance firms are exempt from these regulations. Again, we have one part of the financial industry being regulated and none of the other parts being regulated. I think the proposed regulations would create a lot of imbalance.

Mr. ALLARD. It is interesting how their light sort of turned on after such diverse groups as the ACLU and the Christian Coalition came together and opposed these regulations. As my colleague from Pennsylvania pointed out, the regulators have received over 100,000 objections. There are so many objections coming in, that they have a hard time keeping the number up on the web page because so many people are writing in to explain their concerns. I think the American people have caught on to this folly, and I think it is a shame that we have to bring it up in this manner to address it in the Senate. Again, I thank the chairman of the Banking Committee for his fight to protect the Constitution and to protect the privacy rights of American citizens. It is extremely important that we do everything possible to keep from having these rules and regulations passed. They are so invasive.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, my colleague from Maryland made several comments on the ``Know Your Customer'' amendment we had up for consideration before the Senate. I want to take just a couple of moments to respond. The reason that I felt it was important to bring up the amendment this morning with my colleagues on this side is that I serve on the Banking Committee with my colleague from Maryland, and I made an attempt to bring this issue forward in the Banking Committee. It was objected to by the minority party at that time. We also brought up a bill here on the Senate floor for consideration, but again it was objected to by his side. It seemed that the only way we could get this issue considered by the Senate was to bring it up at this particular time. It was well within the rules of the Senate, and I thought it was very important that the Senate have an opportunity to speak on these rules and regulations before a final decision was made. As to his second comment on the amendment being too broad, I admit that the amendment I introduced in the committee was broad. We wanted to do that because we were concerned that the regulators would just make minute changes in the rules and regulations, and then the regulations would be back before the American people. After further consideration, the language that was considered here on the Senate floor was narrowed and applied specifically to those rules and regulations in the current ``Know Your Customer'' proposal. I just wanted to make those two comments. I also would like to thank the chairman and recognize the chairman's effort in trying to improve education in this country. I want to compliment him on his confidence in the States as well as local school boards. That is where a lot of these decisions should be made. I think there is a tendency here in Washington to think that we have all the answers, that one shoe size should fit all, and that one regulation should fit all. I am one who feels that local school boards and States really are the ones that will come up with the innovative changes for education. We just need to give them the flexibility to do so. We need to allow them to work with parents who really do have a vested interest. We all want to see our children get a better education. Again, I want to thank the chairman for his hard work and diligent efforts. We all appreciate that. I yield the floor.