Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess on Tuesday from 12 noon until 2:15 p.m. to allow the weekly party caucuses to meet.

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 Tuesday, February 23. I further ask that on Tuesday immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved. I ask unanimous consent that there then be a period of morning business until 11 a.m. with Senator Smith of New Hampshire recognized for up to 20 minutes, and Senator Durbin recognized for up to 10 minutes. I further ask consent that at 11 a.m. the Senate then resume consideration of S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, if you look at this chart we see the problems the services are having in recruiting. This is the fourth chart on the floor that I have provided. In 1998 the Army fell almost 800 recruits short of their goal, and are over 2,000 recruits short of their first quarter goal. If we look at the Air Force, the Air Force's 1998 number was 600 recruits short of their goal and over 400 recruits short in the first quarter. Also, for the first time ever the Air Force will advertise on television to increase their lagging numbers. The Navy's 1998 shortfall was 6,892 recruits. While it met its first quarter, they had to raise their high school dropout rate acceptance from 5 percent to 10 percent. These are troubling numbers and these numbers are one of the reasons why the Personnel Subcommittee, which I chair--my good friend, Senator Cleland, is the ranking member--has called for its first hearing to focus on recruitment and retention problems. We cannot allow our armed services to become hollow due to the lack of personnel. The best way to ensure that we recruit and retain the best and brightest is to pay them the wages they deserve and provide the benefits to keep them. While S. 4 does not directly address recruitment, it does make changes which we believe will assist our military recruiters. Beyond the pay raise incentives, the bill enhances the Montgomery GI bill benefits. S. 4 will eliminate the $1,200 contribution required of members who elect to participate in the GI bill, increase monthly GI bill benefits anywhere between $60 to $70, allow service members to transfer education benefits to immediate family members, and then to accelerate lump-sum benefits for an entire term, semester, or quarter at college, and full amounts for courses not leading to a college degree. The Armed Services Committee believes that these enhancements will make entering the military more attractive to more people, especially when the private sector offers so many more options than in the past. I will conclude with a few personal thoughts. I understand that this bill is not acceptable to all Senators, but if you plan on voting no, I ask that you think about a few people--the young service man or woman who is about to be sent to Kosovo, or the service member who is coming back from Bosnia, or even second tour of Bosnia; or about the pilot patrolling the no-fly zone in Iraq; or the sailor who is doing double duty because his ship is undermanned and so he will have to be away from his family longer than necessary. How will you tell them that they are not worth the extra money in S. 4? Let me finish with a statement from a letter which I believe was printed in the National Association of Uniformed Services Journal and reprinted in the Northern Colorado chapter of the Retired Officers Association's newsletter, entitled, ``Why Am I Getting Out?'' The bottom line is ``Patriotism is great, but it doesn't put food on the table or provide for your family.'' One soldier who requires food stamps is a shame. We can do better for those from whom we ask so much. Madam President, I yield the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD. The retention problem is not just felt at space command but cuts across all the services. Secretary Cohen, General Shelton, and all the service secretaries and chiefs say that the men and women are our greatest assets, but, unfortunately, we are losing our greatest assets in mass numbers. I ask the rhetorical question of whether we would let our planes and ships disappear. Then why should we stand by and let this happen? Planes, ships, tanks, guns, and the rest are useless without properly trained personnel. The Air Force has stated they are 855 pilots short this year and expect to be short 2,000 pilots by the year 2002. This leaves the Air Force with less experienced pilots and higher training costs. Their enlisted retention is no better. I would like to refer the Members of the Senate to a chart that I have drawn up here which points out the enlisted retention rate for 1998. The first term reenlistment goal is 55 percent, but in 1998 it was only 54 percent. The second term reenlistment goal is 75 percent but only achieved 69 percent. The career goal is 95 percent while only getting 93 percent reenlistment. This is the first time that the Air Force has failed to meet its retention goals in all three categories since 1981. Some may believe these numbers are acceptable, but each and every percentage loss hurts the war-fighting skills and readiness across the board for the Air Force. For the Navy, we only have to look at the recent examples of the USS Enterprise. While deployed in the gulf, the USS Enterprise was short nearly 600 sailors. I look again to another chart where we talk about the Navy 1998 officer retention rates: surface warfare officers retention, only 25 percent, against a steady state need of 38 percent. Like the Air Force, the Navy aviator retention was 39 percent in 1997 and further dropped to 32 percent in 1998, which falls short of the 35-percent level required to fill critical department head and flight leader positions. Submarine officers had a 27-percent retention rate, which is far short of the 38 percent needed in fiscal year 2001 in order to meet the stated manning requirements. For the vaunted SEAL forces, their rates have fallen to a dismal 58 percent from a historical level of over 80 percent. The only good news comes from the Army and the Marines. These branches have met their retention goals but have said that they are having major problems in critical war-fighting skill areas which must be addressed to stay at current readiness. All of these numbers are not to glaze people's eyes over but to open some eyes to the problems our military is facing. These retention problems are real and must be addressed. Inadequate retention only heightens the problems of longer deployments, increased frequency of deployment, and longer work hours due to less personnel. This not only places our military in precarious and dangerous situations, but places great stress on their families and loved ones. S. 4 addresses these problems through pay table reforms that focus the emphasis on those retention problem areas--midcareer NCOs and officers. It will reward promotion and achievement over longevity with bumps in pay ranging from 4.8 percent to 10.3 percent. Plus, we provide new incentives to the services to address their other specific problem retention areas. According to the Pentagon, another retention problem, and one of the major complaints, is the current Redux retirement system for those who entered service after 1986. I understand the repeal of the current system is one area that is problematic for some Senators. But we have taken the Secretary, the JCS, and all the service secretaries and chiefs at their word that Redux needs to be repealed. No matter how one comes down on this issue, if the retirement system is a retention problem, it simply cannot be ignored. That is why S. 4 addresses the problem in what I believe is a responsible manner. Service personnel who entered the military on or after August 1, 1986, will be given the option to return to the pre-1986 retirement system of 50 percent of base pay for the average of the 3 highest years or take a $30,000 bonus to stay in the Redux system, which is 40 percent of the 3 high years. In addition, the bill allows service members to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan by placing up to 5 percent of their pretax base pay into one, or any combination, of the TSP's funds --the G, or government securities fund; the F, or bond fund; the C, or common stock fund. Further, the bill allows service members to place any enlistment, reenlistment, and the $30,000 lump-sum bonuses into their TSP. Unlike General Shelton, I don't find the $30,000 bonus an insult, but an innovation in providing more market base and higher yielding--a higher yielding retirement fund. To show you how this can work, here is a chart from an article in the Army Times. It is the third chart I am showing here on the floor where it shows the various pay grades and how the retirement options might be affected through those pay grades. If we look at E-6 with 20 years, the Redux was $378,394; pre-1986 it was $489,942; but then we go to the Redux/bonus and then the buildup in the bond fund is substantial, the buildup shown on the chart would be $477,174; and if the Redux was invested in a higher yield fund such as the stock fund, we would look at somewhere around $553,826. These figures have been projected on this chart through the various grades of E-7 for 20 years, E-7 for 23 years, E-8 for 28 years, and E-9 for 30 years, with the concomitant change in bonus, and how those dollars would build up within those funds, and they are substantial. I think it is an innovative and very interesting approach to dealing with the retirement and retention problems of our military services. Another interesting aspect from this article is, according to the Retired Officers Association, for every service member who accepted this bonus, the Government will save about $66,000 per member. In the end, the service men and women could have a higher retirement, while at the same time saving the Government money. Insulting? No. Innovative? I say yes. On a side note, I want to give credit to our very able committee staffer, Charlie Abell, for this idea and congratulate him for this innovation. Some ask, ``Will they use this bonus wisely?'' I believe if we can ask our military men and women to take care of billion-dollar equipment and put their lives on the line for us, we should be able to trust them with their own money. Second, as everyone knows, financial counseling is a must for anyone who plans for retirement. I hope the military is currently providing these services. Let's give the military the option and ability to control their own retirement and best fit it to their needs. A final effort in this bill is to use Government matching funds for TSP accounts or Thrift Savings Plan accounts as a retention tool. We give the service Secretaries the flexibility to offer up to 5 percent matching contributions for 6 years in return for a 6-year commitment in skill areas that they deem necessary. This gives the services the ability to fix their own needs with all the tools available to them. Finally, I want to touch on the problem of recruitment. All we have to do is look to the front page of the February 17, 1999, Washington Post. The below-the-fold headline reads, ``Military Lags in Filling Ranks.'' In the story, Army Secretary Caldera says that the Department of Defense needs to allow the Army to recruit more high school dropouts with GEDs to make up the 10,000-soldier shortfall this year. At this time, I ask unanimous consent to have the Washington Post article printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent Doug Flanders of my staff have floor privileges during the entire debate on the Senate floor.

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

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

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: No. 6 and 7, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk and the Coast Guard. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. As we all know, this impeachment trial has been a difficult process for the Senate and for our nation. As this trial draws to a close of each of us has the solemn duty of voting our conscience according to the dictates of the Constitution. I do not take this responsibility lightly. For me, the vote in this trial will be the second most important of my Congressional career. The only other vote to rank higher was my vote to authorize the Gulf War and thereby send American soldiers into combat. My ultimate goal as we moved into this process was to maintain precedent and not shatter a very thoughtful process laid out in the Constitution and within Senate rules. At the start of this Senate impeachment trial I took an oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws. I worked hard to adhere to that oath, and I pray that I have kept that oath. This is particularly important to me since much of my thinking in this case centers on my conclusion that the President has violated his oath of office. I have determined to base my decision on the facts of the case, not the polls, the performance of the economy, the President's popularity or where he is in his term of office. Finally, I have felt that if any of the parts of an article constitute grounds for impeachment, then an affirmative vote on the article is warranted. While the Senate is clearly divided on conviction and removal, one thing we have all learned is the importance of the Constitution. We may be separated by political party or ideology, but we are united in our belief in the Constitution as the governing charter of our republic. Presidents come and go, and Senators come and go. The Constitution remains. It is the foundation of our political system. The Constitution is what preserves the rule of law, and guarantees that we remain a nation of laws, not of men. And, as we have all learned, in the impeachment and trial of a President, the Constitution is the document that directs how we shall proceed as members of the Congress. Some have argued that this trial has divided America. In the short run, yes. But in the long run, it has united us and made us stronger. We are stronger because we have once again demonstrated that we determine who shall lead this nation by democratic means, not by force of arms. During the past month, I have listened to the evidence and I have weighed it carefully. It is now time for me to cast my vote and to explain my reasoning to my colleagues and to my constituents. We have before us two articles of Impeachment. The first deals with perjury, the second with obstruction of justice. The first article alleges that the President violated his Constitutional oath and his August 17, 1998 sworn oath to tell the truth before a federal grand jury. He did so by willfully providing perjurious, false and misleading testimony in one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action. In my view the House managers demonstrated that at least three of the four provisions are true. The physical evidence is there, and the testimony supports that position. I realize that with enough lawyers, one can certainly cloud things, and confuse and distract, but I believe the facts speak for themselves. To me, once you cut through all the legal details and hours and hours of argument, this case is very clear. The President lied under oath. He lied not once, but repeatedly. On this article, the only question for me is whether it rises to the level of an impeachable offense. I believe that it does. And this has certainly been the prior view of the Senate since it has on several occasions convicted and removed Federal judges for perjury. Most recently in 1989, when Federal District Judge Nixon was convicted and removed from office for ``knowingly and contrary to his oath mak[ing] a material false or misleading statement to a grand jury.'' Here the judge's violation of the oath ``to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth'' was deemed an impeachable offense. I simply cannot justify a different standard for the President. Some have argued that the standard for him should be lower because he is elected by the people, while federal judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve for life. While I respect those who hold this view, I cannot agree with it. I hold the President to a higher standard because he is the chief law enforcement official of the nation. If he is above the law, then we have a double standard; one for the powerful, and one for the rest. Now let me address the second article. The charge is that the President violated his Constitutional oath in that he prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice. Obstruction of justice is clearly an impeachable offense. History and prior practice support this view, and it seems that many members of this body agree that obstruction does warrant removal from office. The question then is whether the House managers have demonstrated obstruction of justice. I believe that they have. When we review the witness depositions of Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and Sidney Blumenthal, we compare those with the depositions of the President, and when we review all the evidence gathered and presented by the House managers, and by the independent counsel and the grand jury, there are at least four areas of obstruction by the President. These relate to the encouraging of a false affidavit, the concealment of gifts, the assistance in employment, and the attempt to refresh the memory of his Secretary Betty Currie which done a second time several days later is pure and simple trying to influence her testimony. While we may never know with absolute certainty what occurred, the evidence is overwhelming that the President took numerous actions designed to impede the administration of justice. I am also of the view that if the President committed perjury, then he obstructed justice. Perjury is a form of obstruction of justice. I will therefore vote for conviction on both articles. I don't believe I will be voting to undo an election. We have a process of succession to the Presidency which maintains control in the Vice President of the same party with the same agenda. Let me now explain why I feel conviction is so important in this case. It has to do with the roll of the oath in our society. This is why the President's removal is necessary to protect the republic. When I was sworn in as a United States Senator I took the following oath to uphold the Constitution as did each one of you: I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. I took the same oath on three occasions when I served in the U.S. House of Representatives. The President takes a similar oath when he enters office: I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Both of these oaths are required by the Constitution. Article VI of the Constitution requires that all Senators, Representatives, Members of the State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers of the United States and the States shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. The oath of office lies at the center of this impeachment debate. As George Washington stated in his Second Inaugural Address on March 4, 1793: Previous to the execution of any official act of the President the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (besides incurring constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony. The sworn oath is central not only to our Constitution, but also to the administration of justice. Our legal system would not function without it. Witnesses in trials swear under oath to ``tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.'' Similarly, parties in civil lawsuits answer written questions or ``interrogatories'' put to them by their opponents. All answers are given under penalty of perjury. The answering party must sign a statement attesting to the truthfulness of the answers. Testimony before a federal grand jury is given under oath, with the witness swearing to ``tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.'' And the citizens who sit on a grand jury take an oath to seek the truth. The Federal Rules of Evidence make reference to the importance of the oath in our judicial system. Rule 603 states that the oath is ``calculated to awaken the witness' conscience and impress the witness' mind with the duty'' to tell the truth. The Supreme Court has commented in a number of cases on the question of perjury. In the 1975 case of United States v. Mandujano the Court opinion noted: In this constitutional process of securing a witness' testimony, perjury simply has no place whatever. Perjured testimony is an obvious and flagrant affront to the basic concepts of judicial proceedings. Effective restraints against this type of egregious offense are therefore imperative. In the much earlier 1937 case of United States v. Norris the Court observed: There is occasional misunderstanding to the effect that perjury is somehow distinct from ``obstruction of justice.'' While the crimes are distinct, they are in fact variations on a single theme: preventing a court, the parties, and the public from discovering the truth. Perjury, subornation of perjury, concealment of subpoenaed documents, and witness tampering are all forms of obstruction of justice. As the House prosecutors have argued, the principle of ``Equal Justice Under Law'' is at the very heart of our legal system. In order to survive it requires not only an impartial judiciary and an ethical bar, but also a sacred oath. Without the sanctity of the oath, ``Equal Justice Under Law'' cannot be guaranteed. In addition to our legal system, other sectors of our society rely on oaths to ensure truthfulness and uphold values. At a very early age we frequently ask our young people to take an oath: The Boy Scout Oath is as follows: On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight. And the Girl Scout Promise: On my honor, I will try: To serve God and my country, To help people at all times, And to live by the Girl Scout Law. Members of our armed forces take the following oath of enlistment: I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Code of Military Justice. So help me God. Police officers, local officials and members of many civic organizations take an oath. What is the purpose of an oath, and why do we rely on an oath in so many sectors of our society? The oath in legal proceedings is designed to ensure truthfulness. The oath taken by public officials and the military is designed to uphold the Constitution and preserve the rule of law. The oath taken by scouts and members of civil organizations is designed to encourage values and good citizenship. A violation of these oaths is taken seriously, and is often punished under the law. Why? To protect the organization, to protect the government, to protect the republic. The President's oath is the most important oath any person takes in our Constitutional system, If that oath can be ignored it will set a very damaging precedent for our society. Throughout this impeachment process there have been many proposals concerning the best means of resolution. At each turn however, Members of the Congress have ultimately recognized that the appropriate path to take is the path laid out in the Constitution. That path was a full trial in the U.S. Senate. I am proud to have been among those who argued for a trial. Whatever the outcome, I will leave this process confident that the system has worked. While I may disagree with the final vote, I will respect that vote and I will urge that we move forward united and determined to do the people's business.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, last year I rose to offer a Mile High Salute to the Denver Broncos for winning their first world championship. It gives me great pleasure to rise again today and offer a ``Repeat Mile High Salute'' to Colorado's repeat Super Bowl champions. On Sunday the Denver Broncos won their second world championship in two years in Super Bowl Thirty-Three by beating Coach Dan Reeves and the Atlanta Falcons. The Broncos thrilling win came after the finest regular season in club history. Coach Mike Shanahan guided the Broncos to a thirteen game winning streak to start the season and an overall 19-2 record. Hall of Fame bound icon John Elway became only the second quarterback ever to throw for over 50,000 yards and he stands today as the winningest quarterback in NFL history with 148 regular season wins. Running back Terrell Davis became only the fourth player in NFL history to run for more than 2,000 yards and his season ranks as the third best ever for his position. Even place kicker Jason Elam kicked his way into the record books with a record tying 63 yard field goal earlier this year. The Denver receiving corps is among the finest in football, featuring the sure-handed and hard blocking Ed McCaffrey and Rod Smith who each caught for over 1,000 yards this season. And no one will be able to forget the verbose Shannon Sharpe who became the first tight-end in history to record 7 straight fifty catch seasons. The Broncos will send an American Football Conference record 10 players to the Pro Bowl in Hawaii. John Elway, Terrell Davis, Ed McCaffrey, Shannon Sharpe, Steve Atwater, Bill Romanowski, Tom Nalen, Mark Schlereth, Tony Jones and Jason Elam each made the trip to Hawaii. The Denver offensive line, while quiet and unassuming off the field, dominates the line of scrimmage every week. The well-balanced offense has been complimented by an equally well- balanced defense. Led this season by leading tackler Bill Romanowski and veterans Ray Crockett, Steve Atwater, Neil Smith, Maa Tanuvasa and Keith Traylor. The Broncos defense has improved every step of the way through the regular season and playoffs. The Broncos defense was as equally team oriented in their Super Bowl efforts. Their 30 tackles were distributed among twelve players. Darrien Gordon and Darrius Johnson combined for three interceptions and linebackers John Mobley and Bill Romanowski each recorded a sack on Atlanta quarterback Chris Chandler. What makes the Broncos special, though, is that all of their individual accomplishments highlight fine team play from each and every player. When you look at the Super Bowl, Mr. President, you can see that this championship was truly a team effort. The Broncos offense totaled 457 yards. Terrell Davis rushed for 102 yards, while John Elway connected with six different receivers for 336 yards. Rod Smith led all receivers with 152 yards, including a key 80 yard reception that broke the game open in the second quarter. At the conclusion of the game, and perhaps at the close of his amazing sixteen year career, John Elway was named Most Valuable Player of the Super Bowl. While nothing will compare to the excitement of last year's win, I know I speak for all Coloradans when I say that we are proud to be the home of the back to back world champion Denver Broncos.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help protect the financial privacy of Americans. The so- called Know Your Customer regulations proposed by Federal banking agencies threaten the privacy of our financial transactions. My bill would ensure that those regulations are not enacted, and that Americans can be confident in the privacy of their bank account. Governmental overregulation has invaded nearly every aspect of our lives, often at the cost of our privacy. Technology has the potential to accelerate the invasion of our privacy. The Know Your Customer regulations have been proposed by the four banking regulators: the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision. These regulations may force banks to snoop through customers' bank accounts under the guise of looking for ``suspicious activity.'' Banks would have to know the source of funds for all financial transactions. Specifically, the regulations would require banks to develop standards of normal and expected transactions for all accounts. The bank then would be required to monitor all account activity to see if it fits the normal and expected activity profile. If a financial transaction takes place that doesn't fit the model, the bank could be forced to file a suspicious activity report with a federal law enforcement agency, such as the FBI or DEA. Imagine that you sell an old car and then go to the bank to deposit the money in your account. You explain that you simply sold your car and this is the money from the sale. However, you are informed that the explanation is insufficient. The deposit does not fit your usual and expected transaction profile, so you might be reported to law enforcement officials. You may now have to prove to the satisfaction of the FBI or other federal agency that you are not a drug dealer or money launderer. These proposed regulations could force you to prove your innocence before you have even been accused of a crime. Unfortunately, this scenario is one that could be repeated many times over. Anytime someone receives a bonus at work, receives an inheritance, receives a large gift, sells a large item, or withdraws money to make a major purchase it could trigger a suspicious activity report and an investigation by law enforcement. The perverse effect of causing law enforcement officials to investigate so much mundane financial activity merely because it deviates from some profile of ``normal'' is that resources will be unavailable to combat genuine financial fraud. Would all this happen? We don't know, but the extremely broad and vague wording of the draft regulations could certainly permit it to happen. Furthermore, these regulations are unnecessary because banks already partner with law enforcement to fight financial crime without invading the privacy of customers. Banks currently report insider abuse, violations of federal law, and potential money laundering activity. But these are after the fact. Banks are also required to report all cash transactions over $10,000. By contrast, the proposed regulations would force them to snoop through accounts to look for transactions to report, merely because they are deemed ``suspicious.'' Banks are then transformed from an agent monitoring regulatory compliance to an investigator and enforcer for the government. This creates a significant unfunded federal mandate for the banking industry. Accordingly, the proposed regulations are opposed by major banking groups, including the American Bankers Association and the Independent Bankers Association of America. They fear a loss of privacy for their customers that would negatively impact their industry. In addition, these regulations are very selective-credit unions, securities firms, and insurance firms would not be subject to the proposed regulations. Obviously, these proposed regulations could be detrimental to the millions of Americans who use a bank for their financial transactions. This legislation would prevent the Federal banking agencies involved from implementing the proposed Know Your Customer regulations. We must protect the financial privacy of Americans, and prevent the proposed regulations from being enacted. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help protect the financial privacy of Americans. The so- called Know Your Customer regulations proposed by Federal banking agencies threaten the privacy of our financial transactions. My bill would ensure that those regulations are not enacted, and that Americans can be confident in the privacy of their bank account. Governmental overregulation has invaded nearly every aspect of our lives, often at the cost of our privacy. Technology has the potential to accelerate the invasion of our privacy. The Know Your Customer regulations have been proposed by the four banking regulators: the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision. These regulations may force banks to snoop through customers' bank accounts under the guise of looking for ``suspicious activity.'' Banks would have to know the source of funds for all financial transactions. Specifically, the regulations would require banks to develop standards of normal and expected transactions for all accounts. The bank then would be required to monitor all account activity to see if it fits the normal and expected activity profile. If a financial transaction takes place that doesn't fit the model, the bank could be forced to file a suspicious activity report with a federal law enforcement agency, such as the FBI or DEA. Imagine that you sell an old car and then go to the bank to deposit the money in your account. You explain that you simply sold your car and this is the money from the sale. However, you are informed that the explanation is insufficient. The deposit does not fit your usual and expected transaction profile, so you might be reported to law enforcement officials. You may now have to prove to the satisfaction of the FBI or other federal agency that you are not a drug dealer or money launderer. These proposed regulations could force you to prove your innocence before you have even been accused of a crime. Unfortunately, this scenario is one that could be repeated many times over. Anytime someone receives a bonus at work, receives an inheritance, receives a large gift, sells a large item, or withdraws money to make a major purchase it could trigger a suspicious activity report and an investigation by law enforcement. The perverse effect of causing law enforcement officials to investigate so much mundane financial activity merely because it deviates from some profile of ``normal'' is that resources will be unavailable to combat genuine financial fraud. Would all this happen? We don't know, but the extremely broad and vague wording of the draft regulations could certainly permit it to happen. Furthermore, these regulations are unnecessary because banks already partner with law enforcement to fight financial crime without invading the privacy of customers. Banks currently report insider abuse, violations of federal law, and potential money laundering activity. But these are after the fact. Banks are also required to report all cash transactions over $10,000. By contrast, the proposed regulations would force them to snoop through accounts to look for transactions to report, merely because they are deemed ``suspicious.'' Banks are then transformed from an agent monitoring regulatory compliance to an investigator and enforcer for the government. This creates a significant unfunded federal mandate for the banking industry. Accordingly, the proposed regulations are opposed by major banking groups, including the American Bankers Association and the Independent Bankers Association of America. They fear a loss of privacy for their customers that would negatively impact their industry. In addition, these regulations are very selective-credit unions, securities firms, and insurance firms would not be subject to the proposed regulations. Obviously, these proposed regulations could be detrimental to the millions of Americans who use a bank for their financial transactions. This legislation would prevent the Federal banking agencies involved from implementing the proposed Know Your Customer regulations. We must protect the financial privacy of Americans, and prevent the proposed regulations from being enacted. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to remove the limitation that permits interstate movement of live birds for the purpose of fighting to States in which animal fighting is lawful. Currently, the Animal Welfare Act makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly sponsor or exhibit an animal in any animal fighting venture to which the animal was moved in interstate or foreign commerce. This means that if an animal crosses state lines and then fights in a state where cockfighting is not legal, that is a crime. However, the law further states, ``the activities prohibited by such subsections shall be unlawful with respect to fighting ventures involving live birds only if the fight is to take place in a State where it would be in violation of the laws thereof.'' This means that the law applies to all animals involved in all types of fighting--except for birds being transported for cockfighting purposes to a state where cockfighting is still legal. Because of the loophole, law enforcement officers have a more difficult time prosecuting under their state cockfighting bans. As introduced this legislation will close the loophole on cockfighting, and prohibit interstate movement of birds for the purpose of fighting from states where cockfighting is illegal to states where cockfighting is legal. This legislation will clarify that possession of fighting birds in any of the 47 states would then be illegal, as shipping them out for cockfighting purposes would be illegal. I believe that my colleague from states where cockfighting is illegal will benefit from this change because it will make law enforcement easier. I also believe that my colleagues from states or territories where cockfighting is currently legal should not oppose this change as it merely confines cockfighting to within that state's borders.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to amend the Cache La Poudre River Corridor Act to make technical corrections. This Act became Public Law on October 19, 1996 thanks to the diligence and hard work of Senator Brown, my predecessor. The purpose of this Act is to designate the Cache La Poudre Corridor with the Cache La Poudre River Basin. The Poudre Corridor provides an educational and inspirational benefit to both present and future generations, as well as unique and significant contributions to our national heritage of cultural and historical lands, waterways, and structures within the Corridor. It is important that the following technical corrections be made to ensure that this act is interpreted and implemented correctly.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to remove the limitation that permits interstate movement of live birds for the purpose of fighting to States in which animal fighting is lawful. Currently, the Animal Welfare Act makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly sponsor or exhibit an animal in any animal fighting venture to which the animal was moved in interstate or foreign commerce. This means that if an animal crosses state lines and then fights in a state where cockfighting is not legal, that is a crime. However, the law further states, ``the activities prohibited by such subsections shall be unlawful with respect to fighting ventures involving live birds only if the fight is to take place in a State where it would be in violation of the laws thereof.'' This means that the law applies to all animals involved in all types of fighting--except for birds being transported for cockfighting purposes to a state where cockfighting is still legal. Because of the loophole, law enforcement officers have a more difficult time prosecuting under their state cockfighting bans. As introduced this legislation will close the loophole on cockfighting, and prohibit interstate movement of birds for the purpose of fighting from states where cockfighting is illegal to states where cockfighting is legal. This legislation will clarify that possession of fighting birds in any of the 47 states would then be illegal, as shipping them out for cockfighting purposes would be illegal. I believe that my colleague from states where cockfighting is illegal will benefit from this change because it will make law enforcement easier. I also believe that my colleagues from states or territories where cockfighting is currently legal should not oppose this change as it merely confines cockfighting to within that state's borders.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to amend the Cache La Poudre River Corridor Act to make technical corrections. This Act became Public Law on October 19, 1996 thanks to the diligence and hard work of Senator Brown, my predecessor. The purpose of this Act is to designate the Cache La Poudre Corridor with the Cache La Poudre River Basin. The Poudre Corridor provides an educational and inspirational benefit to both present and future generations, as well as unique and significant contributions to our national heritage of cultural and historical lands, waterways, and structures within the Corridor. It is important that the following technical corrections be made to ensure that this act is interpreted and implemented correctly.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the contributions of Lieutenant General Normand G. Lezy of the United States Air Force, who will retire on March 1st after more than three decades of outstanding service to our nation. Norm Lezy is an extraordinary officer whose leadership skills, professionalism and service before self are a tribute to our country's military. General Lezy is a native of Rhode Island, and was commissioned into the Air Force in November 1964 through the Reserve Officer Training Corps program. Throughout his career, General Lezy has earned a well- deserved reputation as a leader who truly cares about people. Whether he was commanding his student training squadron, a Minuteman I combat missile launch crew, an air base squadron, a combat support group or working in his many key staff assignments, Norm Lezy made people his priority. In addition to his many tours of duty around the world, General Lezy has served as Director of Administration and Information Management for the Secretary of the Air Force; the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Headquarters Pacific Air Force; and the Director of Services, Headquarters U.S. Air Force. Many here in the Senate first came to know Norm when he was the Director of Legislative Liaison for the Secretary of the Air Force. With his exceptional knowledge of all aspects of Air Force operations and his keen awareness of the legislative process, General Lezy dramatically improved communication between the United States Congress and the United States Air Force. He was the driving force in gaining Congressional support for critical Air Force programs such as the C-17, B-2, and F-22 weapon systems, all of which will have a significant impact on the future of the United States Air Force and the security of our nation. In his most recent assignment as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel Policy), General Lezy was directly responsible for the establishment of all policies concerning military personnel matters. Specifically, he focused on accessing and retaining military personnel in all services; pay, compensation and benefits; and the classification, assignment, and career development for the 1.4 million service members of the Department of Defense. True to his reputation, General Lezy fought for increased support for service members and worked to develop personnel policies that will successfully guide our armed forces well into the next century. Some of the more significant efforts he undertook include conducting a complete review of the military pay and retirement system, improving recruiting policies and advertising programs, enhancing Professional Military Education, and streamlining the Department of Defense Disability Evaluation System. Throughout his distinguished career, General Lezy's tireless and sincere dedication to the men and women in uniform has vastly improved their quality of life and mission readiness. As General Norm Lezy retires from the United States Air Force, he will leave behind a tremendous legacy. Mr. President, General Norm Lezy is a great credit to the Air Force and the Nation. He will certainly be missed by many, both in the Pentagon and in Congress. I salute him for his many years of selfless service to our country, and offer my gratitude to Norm, his wife Prudence, and their son Chip on the occasion of his retirement from the United States Air Force.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to repeal the ``temporary'' 0.2 percent Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) surtax. 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. I would suggest at a minimum that if we are going to keep extending this tax, that we be honest with the American worker and small business owner and stop calling this tax ``temporary.'' 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 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 for the unemployment surtax and other payroll taxes, the economic evidence is strong that the cost is actually passed 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, an editorial from the Wall Street Journal, and several charts that demonstrate the surpluses in each state fund be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning the Auto Choice Reform Act. I am a co-sponsor of this legislation. The Auto Choice Act proposes the development of a ``no fault compensation system'' to provide an option to drivers who do not want to pay for services they do not want and will not use. This legislation would allow for the recovery of economic losses, but not for the recovery of non-economic damages like pain and suffering. Those who choose to stay insured under the tort system would retain the right to sue and be sued for economic and non-economic losses, while those who choose the ``no fault'' system would be able to sue or be sued for economic damages only. And that is what the Auto Choice Act is really about, Mr. President. Choice for the driving public. All drivers are currently insured through a system that requires them to pay for insurance on the assumption that if they are involved in an accident then they will sue or be sued for more than economic damages. The majority of drivers are never involved in a suit for pain and suffering, yet they pay for this coverage every single month. Between 1987 and 1994 the cost of automobile insurance increased by 44%. This extraordinary increase was due in large part to excessive claims made by accident victims for pain and suffering, that is, for compensation beyond the costs of automobile damages and medical bills. For every $1 in actual economic loss generated by this system, $3 are paid out for non-economic damages. Rampant abuse of the insurance industry attempts to turn people's misfortune into a sweepstakes. This sweepstakes is particularly beneficial for attorneys who collect 40 cents of every dollar paid for bodily injury. Twenty-eight cents from every premium dollar goes to attorneys. According to the Joint Economic Committee, lawyers earn between $15 and $17 billion a year under the current tort system and lawyers on both sides of a dispute make almost two times the amount of money that injured parties receive for actual economic loss. This is abuse of a system that exists to protect people from the genuine financial costs of misfortune and tragedy. The Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that such excessive legal and medical claims, combined with outright fraudulent claims, have added $200 in unnecessary premiums for every household in America. That's a $200 increase for every family--regardless of what type of coverage that family may want. That's $200 that will not be spent on groceries, clothing for children, or tucked away into savings for education. This system becomes more inequitable when the burden on low-income and urban drivers is considered. These drivers pay a disproportionate amount of their income for auto insurance. In my home state of Colorado we have the 14th highest insurance rates in the nation. The effects of the high cost of driving in Colorado are particularly noticeable along the more densely populated front range. Last week Denver Mayor Wellington Webb testified before the Senate Commerce Committee concerning the effects of high premium costs on a large urban population. Mayor Webb testified that not only do the urban poor pay a premium disproportionate to their income, but high premium costs can also deter drivers from purchasing insurance at all. Dr. Robert Lee Maril testified to the disproportionate cost of insurance stating that nationally households spend 2% of their annual income on automobile insurance. The upper 50% of people living below the poverty line, however, spend a staggering 14% of their income on automobile insurance. Mayor Webb also testified that this is not just an issue for the poor. Middle-income families spend on average 150% more on auto insurance than they do on education, and in the City of Denver alone residents would see their premiums reduced by as much as 40%. In July the Joint Economic Committee released a report that demonstrates the benefits of Auto Choice for businesses. In addition to the relief this bill provides for individual drivers, the JEC reports that nearly 40% of all tort cases against businesses are auto-related. The incentives that drive the tort system increase the cost of doing business. In 1994 businesses spent $21 billion on auto liability insurance. Just as families are forced to spend money on high premiums that could be better spent on food or education, businesses are forced to dedicate resources to liability insurance instead of payroll and capital investments. The JEC report concluded that the Auto Choice Act would result in an average 27% savings on commercial auto insurance, potentially saving American businesses $41 billion over five years. The Insurance Commissioner from my state of Colorado has endorsed this legislation, however, I realize that in spite of the expected benefits of this legislation, some states prefer their current system. Therefore, this bill provides a choice for the individual states. Under this legislation, state legislatures are able to opt-out of Auto Choice for any reason. Furthermore, the bill clearly states that it will not preclude a State or State Official from fully exercising their regulatory authority concerning policy rates, consumer protection or carrying out the requirements of this act. The Auto Choice Reform Act will leave the ultimate regulation of auto insurance to the states. The implementation of The Auto Choice Act would cause the average insurance policy to decrease by $243 annually, saving drivers an estimated $45 billion nationwide. By providing greater choice to the driving public, without cost to the government, the driving public would save $246 billion over five years. That's an enormous savings for simply providing an option to the consumer. This is a bill about choice, it is a bill about savings, and it is a bill about equitable compensation for the American driver.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, now that it seems the debate on campaign finance is over for this session, I wanted to make a few comments concerning the current approach to reform and what I believe would be the best approach. I agree that something needs to be done in fixing the system, but the problem is that the approaches debated this year raise constitutional issues. I have supported Congressional reform since entering Congress in 1990, especially term limits. If we want to end the so-called money chase, then lets end the life terms in Congress. Many outside groups who favor campaign finance reform are against term limits for they believe it to be undemocratic. I find quieting peoples voices and stopping them from participating in the electoral process to be even more undemocratic, and probably unconstitutional. We have heard that people have become disenchanted with the process. I believe this disenchantment has less to do with the fact that campaigns have become expensive, than they are tired of campaign laws being broken. Let's enforce the laws on the books before we pass more laws and make it even more difficult for citizens to participate. Let's not penalize law abiding citizens because some elected officials will not follow current laws. Regarding expensive campaigns, lets take a look at some numbers. When I first came to Congress in 1990, there were 1,759 federal election candidates in the U.S., who raised 471.7 million dollars and spent 446.3 million dollars. This roughly averages to 268,168 dollars raised and 253,753 dollars spent by each federal candidate in the U.S. By comparison, in 1996 there were 2,605 federal election candidates which raised 790.5 million dollars and spent 765.3 million dollars. This means that each candidate raised 303,454 dollars and spent 293,781 dollars. We can see that spending on campaigns has increased but so has the number of candidates. This influx of new candidates could make some incumbents nervous. But, I say that competition is a positive thing for the electoral system. So, when we hear that there are fewer people who want to run because of the cost of campaigns, we know that this is incorrect according to the Federal Election Commission. Yes, fewer incumbents are running for reelection, but more people are trying to replace them in representing their states or districts. With overall campaign spending going up, I can understand how some in this body and around the United States find that the cost of campaigns are just too high. However, during my 63 town meetings in 1998, this topic has come up only a few times. But, more and more people are complaining abut taxes being too high. Last year, as a percentage of GDP, federal tax revenue reached its highest level since World War II to 19.8% and rising to 19.9% this year. I am much more worried about the working man and woman who must work long hard hours to make ends meet only to find that nearly 40% of their hard earned money must be given to the local, state, and federal government. I think we should give the American people a tax cut. My town meetings also indicated that Coloradans are concerned about the national debt and the interest their children and grandchildren will pay. I don't see this getting much attention by the so-called ``good government'' groups. I am more concerned about the abusive 5.5 trillion dollar debt that we have levied on this nation. Let's pass my bill, S. 1608, the American Debt Repayment Act, and get this burden off the American people's back. In regards to campaign finance reform, I believe that reform should pass three tests. First, it should be voluntary; Second, it should be inclusive, not exclusive; And third, it should be constitutional. The United States is based on freedom and we have become the model for freedom around the world. However, with freedom comes rights and responsibilities. One of these rights is the ability to join or not to join, to participate or not to participate, to speak or not to speak. The decision to participate should be made by the individual and Congress has the responsibility to preserve this right for all Americans. When I ran for the Senate, people participated in my campaign only if they wanted to. They could give either their time or their money. I had to assume that if they did, they did so because they believed in me and the ideas that I stressed. I never forced any person to put out a sign, wear a button, or give a contribution to my campaign, it was always voluntary. We need to ensure that any campaign finance reform makes participation a voluntary activity for all individuals. If someone doesn't want to give, they have the right to say no or at least should be able to provide their consent. That is why it is important to include the Paycheck Protection Act in any campaign finance reform. I find it confusing at best that we allow labor unions to take money out of a paycheck and use it on political matters without their members expressed written consent. According to the Department of Labor, 80 percent, or 8.1 million, of all private sector workers covered by a union contract are required under that contract to pay union dues as a condition of employment, American workers should not have to choose between their jobs which provide the food and clothing or political activity with which they may disagree. I have yet to hear a solid reason how asking people to give their consent to use their required dues for political purposes would hinder a group's ability to participate. When I was a small business owner, I was a member of a few groups, but I joined each one voluntarily. I could have removed my name at any time without any threat to my job or well being. Whenever a person is forced to join a group, like those in a closed shop, their dues should never be used for political purposes unless they first state that it is OK to do so. To do less would be deceptive. Another problem area is the possibility that the FCC may require free TV time to be provided to federal candidates. First, I have never believed that a regulatory agency should act without the authorization of Congress. The Constitution states that ``all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States * * * .'' Regulatory agencies only enforce the laws as set by Congress, not make them. Second, the American media is a large, vast enterprise. I understand that the broadcasting medium is unique, but I am afraid that this may take us down a slippery slope. How long will it take before we order free space in newspapers and magazines, or free time on cable, or free web sites on the Internet, or free postage for our mailings, just in the name of clean campaigns? Lastly, for the states without any major media outlets, such as New Jersey and Delaware, their neighboring states which supply the broadcasting signal will be subsidizing not only their own federal candidates but also the federal candidates of the states that depend on them for the broadcast. Not only do I believe it is wrong for the FCC to implement this without Congressional authorization, but it would force the media to be unwitting volunteers for candidates. Freedom must be preserved for all individuals to choose the ideas that they support or oppose. Thomas Jefferson said it best, ``To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.'' The Supreme Court has been very clear in its decisions regarding the First Amendment and campaign finance laws. Since the post-Watergate changes to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 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 equals political speech. This Senate attempted to change this through a constitutional amendment limiting the amount one can spend in a campaign, which only tells me that this fact is undeniably recognized by this body. The First Amendment is not there to hinder Americans from speaking their ideas, but to ensure that their ideas can be spoken. One way Congress and outside groups speak is through political campaigns, and it is a fact of life that it takes money. After deciding the Valeo vs. Buckley case, former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall stated that, ``One of the points of which all Members of the Court agree is that money is essential for effective communication in a political campaign.'' When we pull the rug out from underneath people who want to speak their mind, whether they have little or lots of money, we pull the rug out from underneath their basic right to freedom of speech. From the much quoted Buckley case, this fact is placed into its proper context. It states, ``A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of exploration, and the size of audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money.'' This encompasses the ``distribution of the humblest handbill'' to the more ``expensive modes of communication'' such as radio and television. The Court ensures that ``a major purpose of the [First] Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs'' and that any limitations of contributions and/or expenditures ``operate in an area of the most fundamental First Amendment activities.'' While, the Court found that contribution limits were constitutional up to a certain point, expenditure limits were not. The Buckley decision also stated that ``* * * the mere growth in the cost of federal election campaigns in and of itself provides no basis for government restrictions on the quantity of campaign spending.'' They went further 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.'' Simply stated, the government can not ration or regulate the political speech of a citizen through spending limits or limit its quantity any more than it can regulate what newspapers publishes, its circulation, or when it can be printed. Which brings me to another point concerning who and how one can spend their money. Our system should not exclude people from expressing their ideas. In the much debated McCain-Feingold bill, there is a provision which would not allow groups to issue ads 60 days before an election. A person or a group's speech is just as valid the day before an election as it is 61 days before. We all have experienced attack ads during a campaign and many times they are very difficult to take. But to quiet them so that a candidate can have an easier time during an election is just flat wrong. Every American should have the opportunity to speak in favor or against any elected official whenever they choose. So how can I support legislation which I believe would make our system exclusive, when our political process should be inclusive for all citizens who want to speak their minds? I truly do believe it is wrong for me to try and silence people who want to criticize my voting record. That is their right and they should be able to do so whenever they choose and I should be able to defend it whenever I choose and groups that support positions I take should be able to support my position whenever they choose. From the beginning, I have believed the 60 day blackout provision to be unconstitutional and a recent case in Michigan shows this to be right. In August, a federal court struck down, on First Amendment grounds, a Michigan election rule prohibited incorporated groups and labor unions from using the names and likeness of political candidates for 45 days before the election. The state argued that the ban should be allowed because it applied ``only'' to a limited time period and did not apply to PACs and that ``the rule does not suffer from constitutional overbreadth because it is content neutral, and is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest in the integrity of the electoral process.'' However, the U.S. District Judge Robert Holmes Bell ruled that the ban violated the First Amendment. Judge Bell ruled that ``[I]n this case the censorial effect of the Rule on issue advocacy is neither speculative nor insubstantial.'' He also stated that ``[W]hile the time period is short, it could involve a critical time period for communications. . . . A 45-day blackout on using names would protect incumbents seeking re-election from grassroots lobbying efforts on pending legislation, and incumbents would soon learn to schedule votes on controversial legislation during this time period and thus avoid unwanted publicity and attention. . . . The ban on the use of candidates' names is a heavy burden on highly protected First Amendment expression. Voters have an interest in knowing what legislators are associated with pending litigation, an organization's ability to educate the public on pending legislation is unduly hampered if they are unable to name the legislators involved.'' In conclusion, Judge Bell said, ``The mere fact that we are dealing with a corporation rather than an individual does not remove its speech from the ambit of the First Amendment. . . . Because the rule not only prohibits expenditures in support of or in opposition to a candidate, but also prohibits the use of corporate treasury funds for communications containing the name or likeness of a candidate, without regard to whether the communication can be understood as supporting or opposing the candidate, there is a realistic danger that the Rule will significantly compromise the First Amendment protections of not only the Plaintiff, but many other organizations which seek to have a voice in political issue advocacy.'' I believe Judge Bell's ruling will stand the test of appeal for he stated that any decision regarding the ``constitutionality of campaign finance must begin with and usually ends'' with the Buckley case. And again, the Buckley decision clearly states that, ``. . . the distinction between discussion of issues and candidates and advocacy of election or defeat of candidates may often dissolve in practical application. Candidates, especially incumbents, are intimately tied to public issues involving legislative proposals and governmental actions. Not only do candidates campaign on the basis of their positions on various public issues, but campaigns themselves generate issues of public interest.'' This clearly states that it is a constitutional right to criticize an elected official and their record, and that no citizen needs to ask permission from the government when and how this can be done. Believe me, I can understand wanting to control the debate of a campaign and silence some of the critics, but I cannot constitutionally, or in good conscience, do that. For every citizen has the right to be a part of the debate. I believe that placing a road block to the First Amendment only closes doors to the system not opens them. We will always hear that money is the reason why people don't run or get involved. I can say that I am not a wealthy man. I started a veterinarian hospital with sweat and hard work. When I decided to run for Congress, I didn't have a lot of money, but worked hard to make myself known. When I ran for the Senate, I still wasn't wealthy, but I did run against a wealthy man. When the campaign was over, I had more votes and no campaign debt despite the fact that I was outspent by 750,000 dollars, three-quarter of a million dollars. You don't have to have a lot of money to win a race, just the right message. I will not vote for legislation that I believe would stop someone from speaking their message, even if it's my opponent. While I do not believe closing the door on the First Amendment is the right approach, I do believe that opening up the system to fuller and more timely disclosure would provide for a much more robust campaign system. This is why I introduced my own bill, the Campaign Finance Integrity Act, S. 1190. My bill does not restrict one from exercising their political speech rights, but asks for complete and honest disclosure of all campaign spending. While this statement is not one of endorsement concerning my legislation, the American Civil Liberties Union did state in a review of the McCain-Feingold bill that, ``Disclosure, rather than limitation, of large soft money contributions to political parties, is the more appropriate and less restrictive alternative.'' My bill does just that. As a matter of fact, I believe my bill has some of the strongest disclosure requirements of any bill introduced. My bill also: Requires 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. Indexes individual and PAC contribution limits for inflation. Reduces 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, by using only hard money. Requires organizations, groups, and political party committees to disclose within 24 hours the amount and type of independent expenditures over $1,000 in support of or against a candidate. Only the organization discloses it expenditures, not the names of the individual donors. Requires corporations and labor organizations to seek separate, voluntary authorization of the use of any dues, initiation fees or payment as a condition of employment for political activity, and requires annual full disclosure of those activities to union members and shareholders. Prohibits depositing of an individual contribution by a campaign unless the individual's profession and employer are reported. Encourages 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. Completely bans the use of taxpayer financed mass mailings. Lastly, S. 1190 creates a tax deduction for political contributions up to $100 for individuals and $200 for a joint return to encourage small donations. Another way to ``clean up'' the campaign finance system and reduce the so-called special interest money is to reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government and I am not alone in believing this. Last year, Rasmussen Research did a survey showing that 62% of Americans think that reducing government spending would reduce corruption in government. The same survey showed that 44% think that cutting government spending would do more to reduce corruption than campaign finance reform, while 42% think campaign finance reform would reduce corruption more than cutting government spending. I have said many times, if the government rids itself of special interest funding and corporate welfare, then there would be little influence left for these large donors. I know that no one in this chamber takes the first amendment lightly. It is the cornerstone by which many of the rights we enjoy today are set. It is there to ensure that the Government does not control us, but that the Government is under control. In 1808, Thomas Jefferson stated what the first amendment should and would mean to each of us--``The liberty of speaking and writing guards our other liberties.'' And again in 1828, he said, ``The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted to freely be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to.'' This is why any campaign finance reform should be reform that preserves the right of free speech and which allows all Americans to voice their opinion.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Kyl's initiative to provide more choice for our nation's senior citizens. I encourage the majority leader and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Roth to continue to work to address the issue of private contracting so that S. 1194 can be enacted into law. I believe that our seniors should have the right to make their own decisions when it comes to matters of their health. Somewhere along the way, it has been mistakenly assumed that once a person reaches 65, they no longer are able to make their own decisions and do not desire the freedom of choice that others enjoy. Since when did the seniors of our nation become so helpless? Shouldn't seniors be afforded the same rights that the rest of us enjoy--to determine what is in their best interest? Current law does not permit seniors to purchase their own health care services if those services are covered under Medicare and provided by a physician who accepts Medicare payments. This is ludicrous. Not only does this law take away rights of senior citizens, but these types of regulations within the Medicare system also discourage the participation of doctors. If a physician decides to accept a private contracting fee, the doctor must give up all Medicare patients for two years. In effect, this law has the potential of limiting physicians who participate in the Medicare program. This could consequently decrease the quality of physicians in the Medicare system because doctors refuse to be part of such an oppressive system. This issue is one of fundamental rights. No other government program restricts the participants as does Medicare--including Medicaid and health programs for government employees. Medicare beneficiaries should be given the right to pay out-of-pocket and to choose their own health care provider. One of the guiding principles of this nation is individual freedom. Congress should not support measures that clearly restrict freedom. I urge the enactment of S. 1194, the Medicare Beneficiaries Freedom to Contract Act.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I wish to thank the conference committee members, and in particular the chairman of the VA/HUD Appropriations Committee, Senator Bond, and the Chairman of the Housing Subcommittee, Senator Mack. I appreciate their working with me to include two provisions in public housing reform language which I feel are important. We have worked together to include a provision to allow vouchers for crime victims. This would create an opportunity for individuals who are living in public housing units the chance to leave a bad situation if they are a victim of a crime. Public housing residents could receive a housing voucher if they were the victim of a crime of violence that has been reported to law enforcement. These individuals would be empowered with the choice of where they want to live and are given the freedom to determine what surroundings they desire. I strongly believe that people should have the option of vouchers when their housing is unsafe. We have also included what I hope will be a thorough study by the General Accounting Office of the full costs of each federal housing programs. I have been dismayed by the lack of data on the cost and benefits of public housing, section 8, and voucher programs. We need better data. Once we determine what these programs actually cost on a unit by unit basis we can better determine the best approach. I personally prefer vouchers, but I want a complete review of all these programs to help us determine the most cost effective means of providing government assisted housing as we enter the 21st century. Again, I would like to thank the chairmen and their staff for completing action on public housing reform legislation and look forward to working with them in the future. clarifying the statement of the managers accompanying the va-hud conference report

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, this morning there will be a period for morning business until 10 a.m. Following morning business, under a previous order, the Senate will proceed to two stacked rollcall votes. The first vote will be on adoption of the motion to proceed to H.R. 10, the financial services reform bill, followed by a second vote on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 442, which is the Internet tax bill. Assuming cloture is invoked, the Senate will remain on the Internet tax bill with amendments being offered and debated throughout today's session. In addition to the Internet tax bill, the Senate may consider the VA- HUD appropriations conference report under a 40-minute time agreement reached last night. The Senate may also consider other available conference reports or any legislative or executive items cleared for action. The leader reminds all Members that there are only a few days left in which to consider remaining appropriations bills and other important legislation. Members are encouraged to plan their schedules accordingly to accommodate a very busy week, with votes beginning early each morning and extending late into the evenings. I thank my colleagues for their attention, and I yield the floor. Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with my good friend from Vermont, Senator Leahy regarding an issue that impacts bison ranchers nationwide as well as in both of our States. It is my understanding that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has taken major steps during the past year to ensure that our country's food supply is as safe as possible. USDA requires all firms that wish to sell meat to USDA and other Federal agencies to comply with newly adopted regulations known as HACCP. It is also my understanding that the beef, pork, and poultry industries are provided USDA inspection at no cost, and that ranchers who raise American bison must pay a steep fee to USDA for inspection at slaughter and inspection of products to be sold to USDA. These costs exceed $40 per hour, per inspector, both for inspection at slaughter and at further processing. I would like to ask my colleague on the Agricultural Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Leahy, whether he would agree with me that USDA should explore what impact inspection fees has on the bison industry?