Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. The Senator has properly described it. Again, the thing that excites me so much about this particular piece of legislation is, it is for all students. Traditionally, this has always been thought of in terms of postsecondary--actually, through graduation from high school. But now in this particular piece of legislation, we are thinking in terms of kindergarten, first grade, second grade, which gives a lot of flexibility to parents to decide what is the best educational plan for their students, by bringing this plan and incorporating the money that can be used for many, many different purposes. It might be that there is a special-education student out there who needs some special help because of some deficiencies, needs some special help because of deficiencies in hearing or maybe sight; maybe a rural family has some problem with transportation. This flexibility is going to help education, whether it is private or public schools. I think it is going to improve the general educational effort. The real benefactor in all of this is going to be public education, because it is going to be supportive of what we are already doing in education. It doesn't take away from public education, it adds to it. I want to compliment the Senator from Georgia on working so very hard on this issue and his leadership. I think it is something that we can all be proud of. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today Senator Campbell and I are offering a technical amendment to the 1999 Defense Authorization Bill which would authorize the transfer of water interests held by the Army at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, including rights in Highland Canal and Antero Reservoir. Before I give the details of the amendment, I want to thank Chairman Thurmond and Senator Levin for accepting this amendment and for all the hard work by the Armed Service staff, who without their active engagement in this process, this important amendment would never have been possible. As the clean-up at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal has progressed, quite well I might add, there has always been a great need for water. However, as with much of the West, water is a commodity and a way to provide water has been an area of discussion between all the parties since the clean-up began. Unfortunately, the United States' acre rights to water in the High Line Canal have proved inadequate to supply the Army's needs for non-potable water at the Arsenal. In a June 11, 1996 Record of Decision, the Army, Shell, and South Adams County Water and Sanitation District (SACWSD) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding by which the Army and Shell agreed to acquire and deliver 4000 acre-feet of water to SACWSD. However, after a lengthy investigation, it was determined that the only realistic source of potable water for SACWSD was by arranging a permanent contract with the Denver Water Board. Also, it was determined that the only way to be certain that the Refuge received a long term supply of 1200 acre-feet of non-potable water was to obtain the same from the Denver Water Board's non-potable reuse facility pursuant to a perpetual contract. During these discussions, the Denver Water Board desired to acquire all of the Army's interest in the irrigation canal and reservoir company in order to reduce the cost of operating those facilities and consolidate its ownership to the rights of the rights to receive water from those facilities. On December 19, 1997, the Army, the Fish & Wildlife Service, SACWSD, and the Denver Water Board entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The purpose of the MOU was to accomplish the goals of each of the parties as follows: a. Denver will provide SACWSD with 4000 acre-feet of potable water in fulfillment of the Army's responsibility under the June 11, 1996 MOU. b. SACWSD will provide Denver with certain storage facilities and cash to compensate Denver for the potable water supply. c. Denver will provide the Army and the Fish & Wildlife Service with short and long term water supplies. The short term supplies will be 2800 acre-feet, and the permanent supply will be 1200 acre-feet of non- potable reuse water per year as a guaranteed supply. In addition, Denver will supply 50 acre-feet of annual potable water supply. d. The Army will transfer to Denver its interests in the canal and reservoir companies which currently serve as the source of the Arsenal water supply. The result of these understandings fulfills the federal government's responsibility under the Record of Decision to insure a permanent and a firm supply of water for the ultimate needs of the Refuge and the federal government's responsibility to provide a potable supply of SACWSD. Because of the nature of the legal status of the Army's interest in the canal and reservoir companies and the nature of the interests to be received by the federal government from Denver as a permanent supply, there was uncertainty whether federal legislation would be required. It was determined federal legislation is required to avoid the problems associated with the disposal of government property, pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act. However, the property being disposed of is not excess property and, therefore, not readily disposed of under normal procedures. The water supply being received in exchange is a perpetual contract supply and not a real property interest, precluding a like kind exchange. This exchange is for utility contracts or lease agreements that will replace acre rights to water as the mechanisms for the delivery of nonpotable water to the Arsenal and Fitzsimons. My understanding is that this has been confirmed by GSA, which is the main decisionmaker on excess property. All of the federal agencies and involved divisions of local and State governments are supportive of federal legislation and the agreements that it will implement, including Fitzsimons. It must be underscored that this amendment recognizes that the legal status of these rights are not being changed, nor are the rights being disposed of, rather the rights are being exchanged for permanent water contracts from Denver. There will be no change in the amount of flow through the South Platte and that Colorado water law will fully apply to this situation. While this amendment may seem technical and minor on the surface, this transfer of water interests is an important part of the overall solution in the clean-up of the Arsenal. Again, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for accepting this important amendment and I thank their staff in working with my staff to make this happen.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. If the Senator will yield for a moment, I will do everything in my power to make sure this money is spent wisely on that project. We are trying, through our office, to make sure it is well spent. My commitment to you is, we are working hard to help you in overseeing that it is spent responsibly. Again, we appreciate your sensitivity to the urgency of this matter. And like you, I hope that when we get this cleaned up, we can again clean up sites all over the country with similar situations. I appreciate the high priority you have given this particular site. I thank the chairman. (Mr. SMITH of Oregon assumed the Chair.)

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I want to thank the chairman for allowing me the time to speak for a few minutes on the bill. I rise in support of Senate bill 2138 making an appropriation for energy and water development. I also want to make a few comments in regard to the Jeffords-Harkin amendment, which was adopted a little bit earlier on in the day, which was to restore funding to the renewable energy account in the 1999 energy and water appropriations bill we are now debating. First of all, I thank the chairman for his diligence and hard work in working with my office on issues that are very important to the State of Colorado. Last year, you worked hard with our delegation, and are continuing to work with this delegation. I am comfortable with the legislation in the form that it is being reported out of the Senate. I also recognize that there is a lot of work, or some work, that has to be done in conference committee and maybe a few issues yet that still have to be resolved as far as this particular bill is concerned. Let me just say a little bit about the priorities that I have as somebody who represents Colorado and what I am thinking about as far as those priorities are concerned. First of all, research programs that will benefit from this funding should be a national priority. They are energy-type research, and they are very, very important to the future of this country and having us not rely on foreign sources for our energy. It is well known that nearly half of all our Nation's oil is imported and that these imports account for 36 percent of the U.S. trade deficit. American renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies help offset fuel imports. They build our domestic economy, and they strengthen our national security. Renewable power is an attractive energy source for the future. Alternative fuels such as propane, natural gas, ethanol, and methanol are clean fuels and are largely free of the pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act. Renewable energy will provide clean and inexhaustible energy for millions of consumers. Specifically, funding for renewable energy technology is important to my home State of Colorado. My State supports several energy-efficient pilot programs as well as established renewable energy sources. Some of the Nation's best wind and solar resources are in Colorado, and many of my constituents currently rely on renewable energy. These are not far-fetched research projects that we are talking about. My State, for example, has many ranchers who are currently using sun and wind energy in the management of their lands, providing for their energy needs. Colorado is also the proud home of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, referred to as NREL--the leading renewable energy research laboratory in the Nation, I might add. NREL conducts the needed research and develops and demonstrates sustainable-energy technologies. This lab relies heavily on the funding included in this amendment. In addition, there are many entrepreneurs who are counting on funding from the Department of Energy to continue improving and increasing availability of renewable energy technology. There are 132 businesses in Colorado that specialize in renewable-energy-related products and services. Congress must continue to support research for renewable energy. We also need to support the partnerships among the Government research entities, universities, and businesses. These cooperative efforts ensure that the research produces applicable results and furthers our goal of increasing our use of renewable energy resources. In past years, I have sponsored environmental awareness seminars with Colorado State University to promote the use of alternate fuels. I am a former member of the House Renewable Energy Caucus, and I recently became the chairman of the newly formed bipartisan Senate Renewable and Energy Efficiency Caucus. I am a strong proponent of using renewable energy sources, and I believe we should continue to support that research, perfect the technology, and expand the use of renewable resources. I thank my colleagues from Vermont and Delaware for their efforts to protect funding for renewable energy. The next point I want to make is very, very important. While I do support the intent of the Jeffords-Roth amendment, I want to highlight one portion that I hope the conferees will change. One of the offsets included in the amendment is a 1.5 percent decrease in funding for cleanup of nondefense nuclear sites that are no longer utilized. One of those sites is the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, which I will talk about further a little bit later on. My hope is to have this site cleaned up by 2006. In order to do that, it will require every dollar that has been appropriated for it in this bill. While in this instance I support the Roth-Harkin amendment, in the future I will have difficulty doing so if this same offset is included. In other words, the priority as far as my State is concerned, we spend every dollar to clean up Rocky Flats, but if we can do that, if we can put more money in renewable labs without taking away from the dollars, I can be supportive. I want it clear that my top priority is the cleanup of the Rocky Flats facility. On that topic, Mr. President, I further thank Mr. Domenici and Mr. Reid for their hard work on the energy and water appropriations legislation. There is a lot of talk about surpluses nowadays. While I know that Mr. Domenici's subcommittee was not the beneficiary of any surplus, therefore it is a very pleasant surprise that he was able to find the funds necessary for an accelerated cleanup of Rocky Flats. In fact, I note that he provides $32 million over the administration's request to be sure that we remain as close to a 2006 closure date for Rocky Flats as possible. As Mr. Domenici knows, this has been a very important issue for me since I came to the Senate last year. The basis of my concern is the proximity of Rocky Flats to over 2 million Coloradans. This makes the site one of the biggest potential threats to the Denver metro area. Rocky Flats is home to tons of plutonium that needs to be removed from Colorado. The funding in this bill will help achieve that end. Furthermore, I note the dramatic upward swing in funding from fiscal year 1997 to date. In fiscal year 1997, $487 million was appropriated for Rocky Flats cleanup. In fiscal year 1998, that number jumped to $632 million. Today's bill proposes $657 million for cleanup. If we can hold this amount, we should be able to safeguard this material and close Rocky Flats in an expeditious manner. Again, I close my remarks by complimenting the chairman on his hard work on both the budget and this appropriations bill and tell him how very much I appreciate his sensitivity to the problems we have in my State, particularly in regard to cleanup of Rocky Flats. I yield back the remainder of my time.

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 by Congress in 1976 to repay the general fund of the Treasury for funds borrowed by the unemployment trust fund. While 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 pay for tax packages. In fact, the surtax was most recently extended to help pay for the 1997 tax bill. This is unfair to small business which has been told repeatedly that the surtax was temporary and would be repealed when it was no longer needed to finance the unemployment tax system. The reason for the FUTA surtax no longer exists. 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 surplus unemployment taxes and use those surpluses for purposes totally unrelated to the unemployment tax system. The FUTA surtax hits small businesses hardest because they are often labor intensive. Any payroll tax is added directly to the employer's payroll costs, and payroll taxes must be paid whether the business has a profit or loss. Mr. President, prior to my election to the House of Representatives in 1990, I ran a small business. I am well aware of payroll taxes and the burden that they can place on a business. The unemployment surtax was in place when I ran my small business. I suspect that my view of the surtax is similar to the view of most small business owners. It is one thing to have a surtax when unemployment is high. It is totally unjustified when unemployment is at the lowest level in three decades. What really upsets small business owners is the fact that the government is breaking its commitment that the surtax would be temporary. This is not the way the federal government should do business. 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. While the employer appears to fully pay the unemployment surtax and other payroll taxes, the economic evidence is strong that the cost of payroll taxes is passed on to workers in form of lower wages. Consistent tax relief will help to ensure that our economy remains the strongest and most competitive in the world. Low taxes reduce unemployment and help ensure that future surtaxes are unnecessary. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record along with several charts showing the level of State Unemployment System Reserves from 1991-1997.

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 by Congress in 1976 to repay the general fund of the Treasury for funds borrowed by the unemployment trust fund. While 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 pay for tax packages. In fact, the surtax was most recently extended to help pay for the 1997 tax bill. This is unfair to small business which has been told repeatedly that the surtax was temporary and would be repealed when it was no longer needed to finance the unemployment tax system. The reason for the FUTA surtax no longer exists. 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 surplus unemployment taxes and use those surpluses for purposes totally unrelated to the unemployment tax system. The FUTA surtax hits small businesses hardest because they are often labor intensive. Any payroll tax is added directly to the employer's payroll costs, and payroll taxes must be paid whether the business has a profit or loss. Mr. President, prior to my election to the House of Representatives in 1990, I ran a small business. I am well aware of payroll taxes and the burden that they can place on a business. The unemployment surtax was in place when I ran my small business. I suspect that my view of the surtax is similar to the view of most small business owners. It is one thing to have a surtax when unemployment is high. It is totally unjustified when unemployment is at the lowest level in three decades. What really upsets small business owners is the fact that the government is breaking its commitment that the surtax would be temporary. This is not the way the federal government should do business. 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. While the employer appears to fully pay the unemployment surtax and other payroll taxes, the economic evidence is strong that the cost of payroll taxes is passed on to workers in form of lower wages. Consistent tax relief will help to ensure that our economy remains the strongest and most competitive in the world. Low taxes reduce unemployment and help ensure that future surtaxes are unnecessary. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record along with several charts showing the level of State Unemployment System Reserves from 1991-1997.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the tobacco bill, with a Reed amendment pending regarding advertising. The Senate may also consider the vocational education bill, the Higher Education Act, the NASA authorization bill, the drug czar office reauthorization bill, and any other legislative or executive items that may be cleared for action. As a reminder to all Members, the majority leader has announced that there will be no rollcall votes during today's session. Therefore, any votes ordered during Friday's session with respect to the tobacco bill will be postponed to occur on Monday, June 15, at a time to be determined by the two leaders but not before 5 p.m. Any votes ordered with respect to other legislative or executive items will be postponed to occur on Tuesday, June 16. All Members will be notified of Tuesday's voting schedule as it becomes available. I thank my colleagues for their attention. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to encourage the Secretary of the Department of Transportation to act expeditiously in the interest of fairness and in support of the economy of my home state of Colorado. I would like to explain the situation that causes me to make this proposal. There exists an agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom to allow US Airways to operate a direct flight from Charlotte, North Carolina, to Gatwick Airport in London, England. In accordance with fair and recognized practices, the airlines with established routes and time slots that have served Gatwick Airport for years were not disturbed, and US Airways was given landing rights for a time slot that is not currently occupied. Although it may not be US Airways' top choice, the time slot that has been allocated appears to be commercially viable. US Airways, however, refuses to begin service unless they are given a better time slot at Gatwick. This request is beyond the provisions of the approved agreement. An unrelated agreement to allow British Airways to provide non-stop service from Denver, Colorado, to London, England, is currently pending approval by the United States Department of Transportation. The Department has chosen to deliberately delay approval of the British Airways' agreement in order to pressure British Airways and the authorities at Gatwick Airport to give US Airways the most desirable time slots. The Department is simply holding the Denver-London flights hostage until the demands of US Airways are met. This is not proper use of the Department of Transportation's authority; it sets a negative precedent for airline competition and cooperation between the United States and Europe, and it is impacting the growth of Colorado's economy. The Secretary has been kind enough to meet with me personally, along with my colleague from Colorado, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, to discuss this issue. In spite of our concerns about Colorado, the Department still resists any effort to progress on the approval of the British Airways Denver-London flights. The date for beginning service was postponed from June 1st to August 1st, and unfortunately British Airways will announce tomorrow that the delay in approval will preclude them from starting service by August 1st. The start date for Denver- London direct service has been indefinitely postponed. This postponement denies Colorado its first overseas international flight at Denver International Airport. It prohibits our tourism industry from growing, especially during the upcoming ski season. It prevents increased competition that would result from connecting flights at DIA. It creates a problem for the employees in Denver who have already been hired by British Airways, but who have no jobs. I hope that the Department of Transportation takes immediate action on the pending British Airways agreement, and I encourage my colleagues to support me and my efforts to ensure that the British Airways agreement is justly considered, and that Colorado is not harmed as the Department of Transportation deals with the separate concerns of US airways.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to encourage the Secretary of the Department of Transportation to act expeditiously in the interest of fairness and in support of the economy of my home state of Colorado. I would like to explain the situation that causes me to make this proposal. There exists an agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom to allow US Airways to operate a direct flight from Charlotte, North Carolina, to Gatwick Airport in London, England. In accordance with fair and recognized practices, the airlines with established routes and time slots that have served Gatwick Airport for years were not disturbed, and US Airways was given landing rights for a time slot that is not currently occupied. Although it may not be US Airways' top choice, the time slot that has been allocated appears to be commercially viable. US Airways, however, refuses to begin service unless they are given a better time slot at Gatwick. This request is beyond the provisions of the approved agreement. An unrelated agreement to allow British Airways to provide non-stop service from Denver, Colorado, to London, England, is currently pending approval by the United States Department of Transportation. The Department has chosen to deliberately delay approval of the British Airways' agreement in order to pressure British Airways and the authorities at Gatwick Airport to give US Airways the most desirable time slots. The Department is simply holding the Denver-London flights hostage until the demands of US Airways are met. This is not proper use of the Department of Transportation's authority; it sets a negative precedent for airline competition and cooperation between the United States and Europe, and it is impacting the growth of Colorado's economy. The Secretary has been kind enough to meet with me personally, along with my colleague from Colorado, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, to discuss this issue. In spite of our concerns about Colorado, the Department still resists any effort to progress on the approval of the British Airways Denver-London flights. The date for beginning service was postponed from June 1st to August 1st, and unfortunately British Airways will announce tomorrow that the delay in approval will preclude them from starting service by August 1st. The start date for Denver- London direct service has been indefinitely postponed. This postponement denies Colorado its first overseas international flight at Denver International Airport. It prohibits our tourism industry from growing, especially during the upcoming ski season. It prevents increased competition that would result from connecting flights at DIA. It creates a problem for the employees in Denver who have already been hired by British Airways, but who have no jobs. I hope that the Department of Transportation takes immediate action on the pending British Airways agreement, and I encourage my colleagues to support me and my efforts to ensure that the British Airways agreement is justly considered, and that Colorado is not harmed as the Department of Transportation deals with the separate concerns of US airways.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise as a strong supporter and a cosponsor of the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1997. This bill addresses the very serious concern of proliferation of ballistic missiles. While this bill is directed at Iran, the problem of proliferation is one of the United States' most serious problems. The problem must be addressed. Iran has been actively pursuing better and more sophisticated ballistic missiles. If the Iranians acquire more long range missiles with a range of at least 1300 miles, then many of our troops and allies in the Gulf region will be seriously threatened. While we know that Iran has already received some of the missile components, we must stop them from receiving the critical support and know-how to move forward. There have been many reports of technology transfers between Russia and Iran. Russia has been actively assisting the Iranians in their efforts in not only technology, but also in their research and development programs. While Russia has promised the Administration that they are not doing this, even the Administration states that there is a real disconnect between their words and their actions. I believe that this bill is important to stop this disconnect and let the world know that this activity can and should not be tolerated. If we do nothing, then who will. I believe nobody will. And, if we do nothing, within a year Iran could be capable of being able to deploy missiles that could deliver nuclear or chemical warheads about 850 miles. These missiles could reach Tel Aviv Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and many of the air bases where our Armed Forces are located. But let me also address a problem that is not being discussed concerning serious military activity between Russia and Iran, with the assistance of the United States. Last year, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation became involved in an office complex project in St. Petersburg, Russia, the Nevsky 25. This project is jointly owned by a main U.S. investor in Golub & Company from Chicago with 10 percent ownership, the St. Petersburg Property Fund with 10 percent, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development with 40 percent, and the Rubin Central Design Bureau for Marine Engineering with 40 percent. My concern is that the Rubin Central Design Bureau is a Russian state-controlled military company whose main product line is military submarines. Rubin is the builder of the Russian Kilo-class submarine and has sold 4 Kilo submarines to Iran, 4 Kilo submarines and 2 Project 636 Kilo submarines to China, and counts Algeria as one of its customers. Rubin got involved in commercial activities to supplement their submarine production. They have become active in the field of oil and gas, high-speed rolling stock, power generation, and marine ecology. Igor Spassky, the Rubin Bureau head, is quoted as saying, The main reason for these commercial ventures is to help us survive. There is a major responsibility for the company to preserve its intellectual potential and capability for the design and development of submarines. (Janes Navy International 11/1/96) Even with these commercial interests, defense work still accounts for 60-65 percent of Rubin's work. OPIC has tried to assure me that Rubin does not have access to assets of the property until the OPIC loan is paid in full and that they are monitoring the situation. The problem is even after the loan is paid, OPIC will have assisted in providing a flow of income for Rubin to continue to build its Kilo class and nuclear ballistic missile submarines. Also, knowing Russia's record in proliferation and this legislation addresses this problem, I am afraid that this project can only help Rubin in providing future funding for these submarines. Also, OPIC has said that they are assured that only commercial activity is taking place in this office complex. Again, while this may be the case, the activity of concern is being used with the funds becoming available to the company to engage in their military activities. OPIC did say that this is a concern and that they are monitoring it but that this is not a high priority. I believe if this bill to stop missile proliferation is important enough to vote on then sales of submarines which can deliver ballistic missiles, which may be assisted with U.S. funds is just as important. Mr. President, before I end I want to encourage all my colleagues to vote in favor of the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1997 and to take serious the problems of proliferation and the problems of being involved with state controlled military complexes who are engaging in commercial activity in order to supplement their military activity and sales.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Why does ISTEA allow the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to provide for earlier state implementation of the Commission's recommendations?

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the students from East High School in Denver, CO who participated in the ``We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution finals held here in our Nation's Capital, May 2-4, 1998. East High School competed against 49 other classes from across the Nation. Their hard work was rewarded with an Honorable mention as one of the top ten finalists in the competition. I am always pleased when I have the opportunity to come to the Senate floor to praise students that have taken an interest in their government and their Constitution. By taking part in this competition, the students of East High School have served to strengthen the foundation of our democracy. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate the participants, Daniel Berson, Lisa Bianco, Rosemary Blosser, Tristan Bridges, John Patrick Crum, Jessica Dismang, Belle Duggan, Sterling Ekwo, Heidi Gehret, Sarah Givens, Jamaal Harmon, Courtney Hopley, Scott Kronewitter, Melanie McRae, Jennifer Newman, Gavin Rember, Jennifer Roche, Sarah Showalter, Jessica Slenger, Lauren Strickland, Matthew Vellone, Feliz Ventura, Michaela Welch, and their teacher Ms. Deanna Morrison for doing such a fine job of representing Colorado. I cannot overstate the achievements of these young people, they are some of the best and brightest that America has to offer. I am proud to say that I, along with all Coloradans, congratulate East High School on a job well done.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Catherine Kalinowski who has been named the Colorado State champion in The Citizens Flag Alliance Essay Contest. This young lady was charged with the task of writing an essay on the theme, ``The American Flag Protection Amendment: A Right of the People . . . the Right Thing to Do,'' and did a fine job of making the case for protecting the greatest of our national symbols. As many in this Chamber know, I am a strong supporter of a constitutional amendment to prohibit the desecration of our flag. The American flag is a great symbol of our Nation, and it should be regarded with the highest of honors. It is a part of our national identity, representing the hopes, dreams, and honor of our country. As I read this essay, one passage struck me as particularly insightful. I believe that Catherine sums up our beliefs best when she writes, The visage of the nation's flag has altered as it has aged, with modifications in the dimensions, design, and number of stars; yet changing appearance has not impeded the flag from becoming the principal image of American ideals. I would like to submit the full text of Ms. Kalinowski's essay for inclusion in the Congressional Record at this time. Mr. President, Catherine Kalinowski represents the best and brightest that America has to offer. Young people like her are our future, a future that is brighter because of her commitment and resolve. On behalf of all Coloradans, I would like to congratulate Catherine and wish her the best of luck in the upcoming national competition. The essay follows: The American Flag Protection Amendment: A Right of the People . . . the Right Thing to Do (By Catherine M. Kalinowski) ``Stars and Stripes Forever,'' a song by John Philip Sousa proclaims the American flag as ``the flag of the free'' and ``the Banner of the Right.'' Sousa declares ``May it wave as our standard forever,'' but may it? The flag of the United States of America is so loosely protected by state and federal laws that the molestation of the flag has become acceptable. America's flag has gone from being a symbol of freedom and righteousness to one of commercialism and insurrection. As the Colonists fought for the rule of the land they considered their own, creation of a separate identity from England became important. Before a fleet of the Continental Congress set out to intercept British supply boats coming into Boston, Col. Joseph Reed wrote to his commander, General George Washington. ``Please to fix upon Some particular Colour for a Flag--& a Signal, by which our vessels may know one another.'' Col. Reed's letter of request was lamentably late, forcing the ships to sail under their old flags. The flag issue was settled when on June 14, 1777, Congress, ``Resolved, That the flag of the thirteen United States be thirteen stripes alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation.'' And by November 1, 1777, Stars and Stripes were seen flying from a US ship under the command of Continental Navy Captain John Paul Jones. The flag on Jones' vessel was the first to represent the United States in a foreign port and to receive recognition as representing America as a nation, being given a nine-gun salute by the French at Quiberon Bay. Though originally needed for the practical objective of identification at sea, the creation of Old Glory became significant to the establishment of the nation. The visage of the nation's flag has altered as it has aged, with modifications in the dimensions, design, and number of stars; yet changing appearance has not impeded the flag from becoming the principal image of American ideals. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is embodied in every stitch of the US flag. As United States Senator Paul Fannin wrote, ``Those who tear down the flag reveal their hatred for everything good and great in our country, because the flag is a symbol of what we want America to be--a land of justice, opportunity, equality and compassion.'' New York Mayor John V. Lindsay viewed the flag as having individual stars and stripes to represent the individuality of the country's citizens; however, because the same flag flies over all Americans, the flag ``binds us together in the common enterprise we call America.'' A representation of so much positive in American society, a representation of the United States itself, it is unfortunate that the flag is becoming insignificant. During the beginning of this century, most states enacted laws to discourage flag desecration, outlawing placing any marks or pictures of the flag, forbade any flag usage for commercial purposes, and banned any physical destruction of flags or any'' act or words' that publicly cast ``contempt'' on the flag. These standards have been obscured to the point of oblivion. The flag is pictured on everything from apparel and political paraphernalia to automobiles and boxes of cereal. Depicted on every corner, the flag no longer receives the veneration due to it. Penalization for defiling the flag through acts such as flag burning was practiced until what has been called the 1989-1990 Flag Burning Controversy. Gregory Lee Johnson was arrested in 1984 for burning a flag in Dallas, Texas. Under Texas' Venerated Objects law, Johnson had committed a crime and was sentenced to the maximum penalty of one year in prison and a fine of $2,000. An appeals court reversed Johnson's conviction by a 5-4 vote on April 20, 1988. Dallas County, in response to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, requested the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision of the Supreme Court upheld through another 5-4 vote the conclusion of the Texas court, agreeing that flag burning is protected by the First Amendment. In response to the Johnson decision, there have been votes for an amendment protecting the flag, but none with enough majority to adopt the amendment. Constitutionality of flag burning has been supported by the guarantee of free speech, including symbolic speech, in the First Amendment. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of speech has limits; restricted areas of speech include obscenity, defamation, speech that leads to illegal action, fighting words, and speech in public schools. Because obscenity is generally defined as anything that violates society's standards of decency, desecration of Old Glory could be considered indecent, thus unprotected by the Constitution. The consideration of actions protected as speech also allows for destruction of the flag to be viewed as fighting words, exceeding another limit of the First Amendment. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court defined ``fighting words'' as words that, ``have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence.'' Flag burning seems a fighting word as it often leads to acts of violence. When considering obscenity and fighting words, the flag does not appear to be protected by free speech. Therefore, it seems in order to go ahead and proceed with the next step, creating an American Flag Protection Amendment. To propose such a protection amendment, two-thirds of the members of both houses of Congress or the same percentage of members of a national convention must vote for the proposal of the amendment. Once proposed, three-fourths of the states must ratify the amendment by a vote in each state's legislature or state convention. If enough citizens gave their support of an American Flag Protection Amendment, the representatives of the people would surely follow their will and obtain protection for the banner of the nation. American's flag needs and deserves to be treated with dignity, and it is the right of the public to rally for Constitutional protection of the magnificent symbol of the United States. So much time as already elapsed--now is the time to act justly on the behalf of Old Glory. With swift action, Stars and Stripes will be able to, ``wave as our standard forever.''

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, today the Senate will resume consideration of the tobacco legislation. There are two amendments currently pending, and it is expected that a vote on or in relation to one or both of those amendments will occur by 11 a.m. this morning. It is hoped that following disposition of those amendments, Members will come to the floor to offer and debate remaining amendments to the tobacco legislation under short time agreements. Therefore, Members should expect rollcall votes throughout Wednesday's session as the Senate attempts to make good progress on this important bill. I thank my colleagues for their attention, and I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to amend the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978. This bill will allow the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce to more effectively use proceeds from the sale of forfeited and abandoned wildlife items. Mr. President, there is a warehouse in Commerce City, Colorado, operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is filled with wildlife parts and products. It is the National Repository for items that have been forfeited or abandoned to the U.S. Government and are being held for disposition by the Service. Some of these items are quite unusual: mounted rhinoceros, coral jewelry, stuffed alligators, elephant foot footstools. Some of these items are endangered or otherwise protected by law, and it is illegal to import them into the United States. Those companies or individuals who were caught trying to do so either abandoned the items or they were forfeited to the U.S. Government through a legal process. The Service distributes these wildlife items to museums and to schools for conservation education programs around the country. Anyone who flew through Denver's old Stapleton Airport, for instance, might have seen a display in the main terminal reminding travelers about various laws regulating importation of wildlife and wildlife products. A similar display is being erected at Denver International Airport. In addition to the unusual wildlife specimens stored at the Service's Colorado Repository are some more familiar items such as leather boots, jackets, purses, watchbands, and sea shells. These are in the possession of the Service because, in many cases, the required foreign export permits were not obtained or the items were falsely identified. Although it is legal to possess and sell many of these wildlife items, there is, of course, a procedure for importing them. This includes obtaining the required foreign export permits prior to importation and properly declaring the items. If these procedures are not followed correctly, then the items can be seized. Abandonment or forfeiture actions are then initiated with title being transferred to the Government. Many times, however, the people who try to bring them in will just abandon them to the Service. These items are retained by the Service at the Commerce City facility until an appropriate disposition can be made. I want to take just a moment here to point out that the Repository in question is located on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal northeast of Denver. This inactive military facility is in the middle of a transformation from a Superfund site to the largest urban wildlife refuge in the country. The Arsenal, which once produced nerve agents and chemical weapons, is now a haven for eagles, migratory birds, deer, and other wildlife. I've been told that there is hope to one day introduce bison back into the 27 square mile facility. The old Arsenal will become a new gem in the National Wildlife Refuge System, and an excellent resource for the people of Colorado. A Service priority for disposing of these wildlife items is to utilize them in scientific and educational programs. There are, however, many items in the Repository inventory excess to the needs of these scientific and educational programs. Those excess items which are not given a high level of protection-- those that are not endangered, or marine mammals, or migratory birds-- can legally be sold on the open market. If these surplus items were sold by the Service at an auction, they would generate proceeds which could be used to offset operational costs of the Repository, thereby allowing for a more efficient use of appropriated funds by the Service and a saving of money for the tax payers. But there is a hitch. Current law mandates proceeds from the sale except for those that can be used for rewards, must be returned to the General Treasury. This sounds fine, until you consider the mechanics of holding an auction. An auctioneer charges a commission which is usually a percentage of the proceeds from a sale. Since the Service estimates that they have about one million-dollars worth of surplus wildlife items on hand, which is a 10 year backlog, they can expect to pay the auctioneer a commission of around 15 percent or about $150,000. Now, the budget for the Repository in Fiscal Year 1998 is $310,000 with salaries alone costing 80 percent of that number. They simply cannot pay about half of their funding towards an auctioneer's commission, and that is what they would have to do under current law. Although a sale would bring in money, the majority of the proceeds would go to the General Treasury, and the Service would have to use money already in their operational budget to pay for the sale. Needless to say, there are not enough funds to pay the auctioneer's commission, so the auction does not take place and the wildlife property sits and decays. What this bill would do is allow the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Commerce Department, to keep the proceeds from the selling of wildlife products at an auction. The money would be used for very specific purposes. These purposes, except for one, are all related to the task of storing, shipping and disposing of the forfeited and abandoned items located around the country. The other uses of the funds I will explain in just a minute. This bill specifically says that the Services can use the proceeds of the sale for: (1) Shipping items from one location to another; (2) Storage and security of the items; (3) Appraisal of the items; (4) Sale of the items--this is necessary to pay an auctioneer's commission; and (5) Payment of any valid liens against the objects. As you can see, this will not allow the Services to establish a slush fund for their use. The bill requires the money may be used only to continue paying for rewards, storage and shipping of the property, and to facilitate the disposal of the items, thereby making them available for the people of the United States. The other use for the proceeds is very special. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers a program that provides for the distribution of dead eagles to Native Americans so they may be used for religious and cultural purposes. As you probably know, bald and golden eagles are highly protected and it is illegal for anyone to kill an eagle or possess an eagle carcass or its feathers. The way the program is set up, dead eagles are sent to the National Eagle Repository, which is also located on Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Commerce City, Colorado. There they are cataloged, processed, and shipped to Native Americans. Even though the Repository distributes about 1,000 eagles to Native Americans each year, there is currently about a three year wait to receive an eagle carcass. This is because of the limited number of eagles being received at the Repository. Most have been trapped, or electrocuted, or have collided with power lines and cars--they are not in very good shape. When an eagle is received by the Repository, attempts are made to match the type of eagle with that being requested, i.e. bald or golden, immature or mature. Requests for individual feathers are also filled. The Repository is so concerned about customer service that they will replace any broken or missing feathers with whole ones from another bird. The cost to box and ship an eagle is about $50. This cost is absorbed by the Service rather than being passed on to the Native Americans. This bill will allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to use the proceeds from an auction to assist the eagle program by paying for boxes, dry ice, and other costs associated with shipping the eagles. For instance, some of the proceeds could also be used to purchase chest freezers to be placed in regional collection points. This would be for short term storage of the eagles near where they are initially found. This would hopefully increase the number of eagles being sent to the Repository and subsequently increase the number being shipped to the Native Americans, thereby reducing the waiting period to receive an eagle. Before I close here, let me stress--the auctions will only be selling wildlife items that are legal to possess and sell in the U.S., items like boots, belts, wallets, purses, shell products, etc. These items have a valid place on the U.S. market. Items that have a higher scientific or educational value will be distributed to museums and schools. No products from endangered species, eagles, marine mammals, or migratory birds will be sold. The Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act already gives the authority to sell those items that are surplus for scientific and educational needs. The Act is silent, however, as to what happens to the proceeds from the sale of abandoned items, so by default they go to the General Treasury. The Services are therefore precluded from being able to utilize these funds. If this bill is enacted, the proceeds from the sale of forfeited and abandoned items will aid in the shipping, storing, and disposing of wildlife products to scientific and educational programs and the distribution of eagles to Native Americans for religious and ceremonial purposes. I hope this bill can be moved quickly in the Senate.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to amend the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978. This bill will allow the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce to more effectively use proceeds from the sale of forfeited and abandoned wildlife items. Mr. President, there is a warehouse in Commerce City, Colorado, operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is filled with wildlife parts and products. It is the National Repository for items that have been forfeited or abandoned to the U.S. Government and are being held for disposition by the Service. Some of these items are quite unusual: mounted rhinoceros, coral jewelry, stuffed alligators, elephant foot footstools. Some of these items are endangered or otherwise protected by law, and it is illegal to import them into the United States. Those companies or individuals who were caught trying to do so either abandoned the items or they were forfeited to the U.S. Government through a legal process. The Service distributes these wildlife items to museums and to schools for conservation education programs around the country. Anyone who flew through Denver's old Stapleton Airport, for instance, might have seen a display in the main terminal reminding travelers about various laws regulating importation of wildlife and wildlife products. A similar display is being erected at Denver International Airport. In addition to the unusual wildlife specimens stored at the Service's Colorado Repository are some more familiar items such as leather boots, jackets, purses, watchbands, and sea shells. These are in the possession of the Service because, in many cases, the required foreign export permits were not obtained or the items were falsely identified. Although it is legal to possess and sell many of these wildlife items, there is, of course, a procedure for importing them. This includes obtaining the required foreign export permits prior to importation and properly declaring the items. If these procedures are not followed correctly, then the items can be seized. Abandonment or forfeiture actions are then initiated with title being transferred to the Government. Many times, however, the people who try to bring them in will just abandon them to the Service. These items are retained by the Service at the Commerce City facility until an appropriate disposition can be made. I want to take just a moment here to point out that the Repository in question is located on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal northeast of Denver. This inactive military facility is in the middle of a transformation from a Superfund site to the largest urban wildlife refuge in the country. The Arsenal, which once produced nerve agents and chemical weapons, is now a haven for eagles, migratory birds, deer, and other wildlife. I've been told that there is hope to one day introduce bison back into the 27 square mile facility. The old Arsenal will become a new gem in the National Wildlife Refuge System, and an excellent resource for the people of Colorado. A Service priority for disposing of these wildlife items is to utilize them in scientific and educational programs. There are, however, many items in the Repository inventory excess to the needs of these scientific and educational programs. Those excess items which are not given a high level of protection-- those that are not endangered, or marine mammals, or migratory birds-- can legally be sold on the open market. If these surplus items were sold by the Service at an auction, they would generate proceeds which could be used to offset operational costs of the Repository, thereby allowing for a more efficient use of appropriated funds by the Service and a saving of money for the tax payers. But there is a hitch. Current law mandates proceeds from the sale except for those that can be used for rewards, must be returned to the General Treasury. This sounds fine, until you consider the mechanics of holding an auction. An auctioneer charges a commission which is usually a percentage of the proceeds from a sale. Since the Service estimates that they have about one million-dollars worth of surplus wildlife items on hand, which is a 10 year backlog, they can expect to pay the auctioneer a commission of around 15 percent or about $150,000. Now, the budget for the Repository in Fiscal Year 1998 is $310,000 with salaries alone costing 80 percent of that number. They simply cannot pay about half of their funding towards an auctioneer's commission, and that is what they would have to do under current law. Although a sale would bring in money, the majority of the proceeds would go to the General Treasury, and the Service would have to use money already in their operational budget to pay for the sale. Needless to say, there are not enough funds to pay the auctioneer's commission, so the auction does not take place and the wildlife property sits and decays. What this bill would do is allow the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Commerce Department, to keep the proceeds from the selling of wildlife products at an auction. The money would be used for very specific purposes. These purposes, except for one, are all related to the task of storing, shipping and disposing of the forfeited and abandoned items located around the country. The other uses of the funds I will explain in just a minute. This bill specifically says that the Services can use the proceeds of the sale for: (1) Shipping items from one location to another; (2) Storage and security of the items; (3) Appraisal of the items; (4) Sale of the items--this is necessary to pay an auctioneer's commission; and (5) Payment of any valid liens against the objects. As you can see, this will not allow the Services to establish a slush fund for their use. The bill requires the money may be used only to continue paying for rewards, storage and shipping of the property, and to facilitate the disposal of the items, thereby making them available for the people of the United States. The other use for the proceeds is very special. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers a program that provides for the distribution of dead eagles to Native Americans so they may be used for religious and cultural purposes. As you probably know, bald and golden eagles are highly protected and it is illegal for anyone to kill an eagle or possess an eagle carcass or its feathers. The way the program is set up, dead eagles are sent to the National Eagle Repository, which is also located on Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Commerce City, Colorado. There they are cataloged, processed, and shipped to Native Americans. Even though the Repository distributes about 1,000 eagles to Native Americans each year, there is currently about a three year wait to receive an eagle carcass. This is because of the limited number of eagles being received at the Repository. Most have been trapped, or electrocuted, or have collided with power lines and cars--they are not in very good shape. When an eagle is received by the Repository, attempts are made to match the type of eagle with that being requested, i.e. bald or golden, immature or mature. Requests for individual feathers are also filled. The Repository is so concerned about customer service that they will replace any broken or missing feathers with whole ones from another bird. The cost to box and ship an eagle is about $50. This cost is absorbed by the Service rather than being passed on to the Native Americans. This bill will allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to use the proceeds from an auction to assist the eagle program by paying for boxes, dry ice, and other costs associated with shipping the eagles. For instance, some of the proceeds could also be used to purchase chest freezers to be placed in regional collection points. This would be for short term storage of the eagles near where they are initially found. This would hopefully increase the number of eagles being sent to the Repository and subsequently increase the number being shipped to the Native Americans, thereby reducing the waiting period to receive an eagle. Before I close here, let me stress--the auctions will only be selling wildlife items that are legal to possess and sell in the U.S., items like boots, belts, wallets, purses, shell products, etc. These items have a valid place on the U.S. market. Items that have a higher scientific or educational value will be distributed to museums and schools. No products from endangered species, eagles, marine mammals, or migratory birds will be sold. The Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act already gives the authority to sell those items that are surplus for scientific and educational needs. The Act is silent, however, as to what happens to the proceeds from the sale of abandoned items, so by default they go to the General Treasury. The Services are therefore precluded from being able to utilize these funds. If this bill is enacted, the proceeds from the sale of forfeited and abandoned items will aid in the shipping, storing, and disposing of wildlife products to scientific and educational programs and the distribution of eagles to Native Americans for religious and ceremonial purposes. I hope this bill can be moved quickly in the Senate.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of calendar 359, S. 1525.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this morning the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 12 noon. As a reminder, the majority leader has announced there will be no rollcall votes during today's session. A cloture motion was filed yesterday on the motion to proceed to the tobacco legislation and that vote will occur on Monday at a time to be determined by the two leaders, but not prior to 5 p.m. Also at noon on Monday, the Senate will begin consideration of Senate bill 1723, the Abraham immigration legislation, under the consent agreement of May 13. Therefore, Members can expect a rollcall vote on cloture and additional votes with respect to the immigration legislation Monday evening.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 1605) to establish a matching grant program to help States, units of local government, and Indian tribes to purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers; to the Committee on the Judiciary. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1605) entitled ``An Act to establish a matching grant program to help States, units of local government, and Indian tribes to purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers'', do pass with the following amendments: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Mr. ALLARD. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the amendments of the House.