Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to consideration of Calendar 347, H.R. 3565.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I had the pleasure of participating in the 14th National Space Symposium hosted last month by the United States Space Foundation. The annual symposium was designed to display and discuss current trends in the space community, and the 1998 theme reflected what has become very significant to the development of the United States space industry: ``The Global Relevance for Space: Civil, Commercial and Military''. As the Foundation's President, Bill Knudsen, said in his remarks, ``Space is increasingly global in all aspects. The strong interrelationship between government, private industry and military space activities has created a completely new environment.'' The location of this symposium highlights the significant position of my state of Colorado in the global space business. All aspects of space thrive in Colorado; we have an extensive and growing industry and a significant military presence. The symposium addressed several issues and opportunities with a broad international flavor, and with a focus on commercial and market concerns. Demonstrating the interrelated nature of space activity, each of the symposium's eleven professional panels had at least one representative from the civil sector, one representing the commercial perspective and one from the national security perspective. This integrated approach produced a spirited dialog on critical space issues. The list of participants was impressive, a few especially captured my attention. NASA Administrator Dan Goldin detailed accomplishments of the agency, announced cooperative efforts with the Air Force and substantiated the need for the International Space Station, rejecting suggestions that the Russians should be dropped from the program. Mr. Goldin also spoke to what I believe may be NASA's greatest accomplishment: increasing their productivity while reducing their budget. The NASA budget has decreased 30% since 1993, and in that same time 10 new programs and numerous partnerships have been created. In the coming era of public and private partnership in space exploration and development, NASA has established a high standard of efficiency and achievement. The capstone panel, led by Mr. Golden, also featured General Howell Estes, Commander in Chief of NORAD and US Space Command. General Estes emphasized the marketplace as the driving force, while recognizing the necessity of a proper partnership between the private sector and government. Robert Mallett, the Deputy Secretary of Commerce, stressed the need to recognize commercial space as the driver of a higher growth job machine in industry that will deliver prosperity and security for coming generations of Americans. Our colleague in the House, Representative Curt Weldon, addressed national security, space and arms control concerns as he spoke passionately from his experience of working with the Russians. I spoke about the important mission of our military to secure the use of space, and my perspective as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee on space implications for national security. I believe that the private and public sector must work together to ensure that the United States is the first and best in space. I support legislation in Congress to encourage commercialization of space, and in particular have been supportive of the efforts of our Colorado companies that plan to operate remote-sensing satellites that will offer unique high- resolution satellite photos. In addition to the panels, more than sixty exhibitors displayed the latest in space technology at this international conference. The Foundation honored exceptional achievement in space activities, recognizing NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory for their public outreach efforts associated with last summer's remarkable Pathfinder Mission, and the career of space leadership of General Thomas S. Moorman, Jr. USAF (ret.), the former vice chief of staff of the Air Force. General Estes and others from the Space Command laid out the future of military space with the unveiling at the symposium of their Long Range Plan. Two technologies were inducted into the Space Technology Hall of Fame, the Global Positioning System and Temper Foam, a NASA Ames Research Center technology used in medical and recreational applications. The Hall of Fame marketed its 10th anniversary of honoring technologies originally developed for the space program and later adapted to benefit others here on Earth. The symposium's sponsor, the United States Foundation, is a national non-profit organization with headquarters in Colorado Springs. The Foundation's mission it to aggressively advance civil, commercial and national security space endeavors for a brighter future and to provide and support educational excellence through the excitement of space. The Foundation should be commended for this symposium and for their other important projects, such as the Mission HOME program, a public awareness campaign for the space community, and Space Discovery graduate courses and teacher education opportunities. This annual event has grown considerably in the past few years, and I expect it to continue growing in scope and significance. I am already looking forward to next April and the 15th Annual National Space Symposium.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this morning the Senate will begin a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill. It is hoped that Senators will come to the floor to debate this important piece of legislation and offer amendments under short time agreements. Members should expect rollcall votes throughout the day's session in an attempt to make good progress on the defense bill. Also, the Senate has reached time agreements with respect to the Abraham immigration bill and the WIPO copyright treaty legislation, and those bills could be considered during today's session. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have been allocated 15 minutes this morning for comments under morning business.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, earlier this year, I introduced S. 1635, legislation to reduce the capital gains tax to 14 percent and to provide indexing of capital gains. This legislation builds on last year's tax bill, which moved the capital gains rate down from 28 percent to 20 percent. Last year's tax change was a good first step, but I favor a more aggressive approach to tax reform. The U.S. level of tax on capital has been among the highest in the world. I am dedicated to seeing that it becomes one of the lowest in the world. A low rate of tax will encourage capital investment, economic growth, and job creation. This is no time for the United States to sit on its lead; We must continue to ensure that America is the premier location in the world to do business. A low capital gains tax will help our economy, but it will also help America's families by reducing their tax burden. Mr. President, the profile of the average stock market investor is changing rapidly. To make this point, I would like to refer now to a chart that outlines the tremendous growth in stock ownership among middle class Americans. This reflects a recent study commissioned by the NASDAQ stock market, which determined that 43 percent of adult Americans now invest in the stock market. This is double the level of just 7 years ago. Investing is no longer the exclusive province of the elderly, affluent, or male. A majority of the investors are under 50 years of age, 47 percent of the investors are women, and half of the investors are not even college graduates. Most working-age investors describe themselves as blue- or white-collar workers rather than managers or professionals. I think that this rather dramatically reflects the change in the makeup of the investor on the stock market. In addition to investing in the stock market, millions of Americans own small businesses and farms, and they certainly feel the impact of any tax on capital assets. Mr. President, while a cut in the capital gains tax rate would help investors and their families, it is also likely to increase tax revenues. At first, this may seem odd, but there are two principal reasons that a cut in capital gains taxes increases revenues. First, there is the short-term incentive to sell more capital assets. Second is the long-term progrowth benefit from a capital-friendly tax policy. Let me first discuss the short-term incentive to sell more assets. In order to understand this concept, one has to first recognize that the capital gains tax is largely a voluntary tax; the tax is only paid if the investor chooses to sell the asset. If taxes are high, the investor can hold on to the asset for years. But when taxes are dropped down, lowered, investors will often decide to sell the assets and realize the capital gain. History confirms this pattern. In 1978, when the capital gains tax rate was reduced from 40 percent to 28 percent, capital realizations increased by 50 percent and tax receipts increased. In fact, it was done at that particular point in our country's history to stimulate the economy. In 1981, Congress and President Reagan further reduced the capital gains tax rate to 20 percent. Once again, capital realizations increased dramatically. And by 1983, they were again up by 50 percent. In fact, during the period from 1978 to 1983, capital gains tax rates were cut in half. But by the end of the period, the Federal Government was receiving twice as much revenue from capital gains taxes. I would like to emphasize that point by turning to a chart which compares the level of capital gains tax with tax revenue over a 20-year period, running from 1976 and projecting out to the end of 1997. As the chart clearly shows, the tax rate was cut in half between 1997 and 1983, right in this time period here, and the revenues more than doubled, from $9 billion in 1978 to nearly $19 billion by 1983. This was not a temporary blip. As the chart shows, revenues continued to rise through the 1980s. The underlying point is proven dramatically, I think, in 1986. What happened in 1986 is this: Congress voted to increase the capital gains tax to 28 percent. This was a 40 percent increase in the tax rate then in place. But the new, higher rate was delayed until January 1 of 1987. What we saw then was a massive sale of assets through 1986, while the rate was still 20 percent. Investors rushed to sell their assets before the higher 28 percent went into effect. If we look again at the chart, we find that capital gains revenues, after 1986, began a nearly 5-year decline. In fact, despite the much higher tax rate, by 1991, capital gains revenues were actually at their lowest level since 1984. Mr. President, the pattern should be clear by now. But I would like us to take one more look at this issue by reviewing the revenue estimates associated with last year's cut in the capital gains tax rate. Any time Congress considers tax changes, it is required to estimate the revenue impact of those changes. This task falls principally on the Joint Committee on Taxation, which relies on data compiled by the Congressional Budget Office. Current law requires revenue estimates to stretch 10 years into the future. Last year, when Congress proposed to cut the capital gains rate from 28 to 20 percent, the Joint Committee on Taxation submitted its revenue estimate. Despite forecasting an initial pick up in revenue due to greater realizations, JCT forecast a 10 year revenue loss from the rate cut of $21 billion. The JCT and CBO estimates now appear to have dramatically underestimated the strength of the economy and the positive response to the tax rate cut. The JCT forecast last July that capital gains revenue for 1998 would be $57 billion after the rate cut. Again, this is reflected here on the chart projecting a much lower impact, actually a loss that we will end up with. In the shaded area over here with the lines drawn we see a dramatic increase in revenue that happened to the Federal Government, just contrary to what our ``budgeteers'' were projecting when we initiated the capital gains reduction in rate. Recently, I contacted the CBO and JCT to determine how the forecast was holding up. The Congressional Budget Office is now anticipating that both the 1997 and 1998 capital gains realizations will be much higher than previously thought. It is therefore reasonable to assume that even with a lower tax rate, capital gains tax revenues for 1997 and 1998 will be a good deal higher than previously forecast. The irony here is that the entire 10 year revenue loss that was forecast may be made up for in the first several years of the rate cut. Once again, we will have a situation where a tax rate cut leads to greater revenues. Mr. President, what does all this tell us? In my view, a review of the last twenty years of capital gains tax rates and the associated revenues suggests that the model used by JCT and CBO to estimate capital gains revenues is flawed. At minimum, it would appear that when tax rates are lowered the model significantly exaggerates the revenues losses. In fact, in no single year after a rate cut has there ever been a loss of revenue. Conversely, when tax rates are increased, the model significantly exaggerates the level of revenue gains. Not only do the Congressional models fail to accurately measure the response of taxpayers to changes in tax rates, they completely exclude any estimate of the impact of tax changes on economic performance. Mr. President, up to this point we have only been discussing the short term behavioral changes that come from changes in the capital gains tax rate. What about the longer term impact on economic growth? Congress is largely in the dark when it comes to any estimate of this benefit. It is logical to assume that a lower tax rate on capital encourages capital formation. A higher rate of capital formation clearly benefits the economy. As a consequence the federal government will realize greater income, payroll, and excise taxes. In addition, state and local tax revenues will also rise. Admittedly, all of this is difficult to measure. However, I would like to see some attempt made to include these factors in revenue models. At a minimum they should be appended to the official revenue estimates. This would give Congress a more complete picture of the impact of tax changes on revenues. As I review the issue of capital gains tax revenues I am struck by several things. First, capital gains tax rate cuts do not appear to cost the government revenue, and may in fact increase revenue rather dramatically. Second, the current revenue estimating model should be updated to reflect evidence that the model exaggerates losses from rate cuts, and also exaggerates the gains from tax rate hikes. In addition, some attempt should be made to measure the impact of tax changes on the level of economic performance. Third, less emphasis should be placed on the revenue models. Instead, greater emphasis should be placed on the impact that changes in the tax treatment of capital gains will have on the private economy. Economic growth, job creation, and international competitiveness should be our focus, not projections of government revenue. This is particularly true when we know that the revenue projections are not likely to be terribly accurate. This is not intended as a criticism of those whose job it is to make the estimates. This is difficult work. I certainly recognize this having served on the House Budget Committee for several years. And those who do the work are professionals who work hard at getting it right. Unfortunately, this business is a bit like gazing into a crystal ball. There are just too many factors at work to think we can accurately project the revenue impact of changes in capital gains tax policy. Mr. President, when it comes to capital gains taxes I suggest that Congress spend less time gazing into the crystal ball of revenue forecasting, and more time focusing on the real world impact of taxes on capital formation, job creation, and economic growth. I think it will then be abundantly clear that we should continue to reduce the tax on capital to 14 percent. This will continue the good work that we began last year. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today as a co-sponsor and supporter of S. 1873, The American Missile Protection Act of 1998. This important legislation will remove present barriers to the deployment of an effective, reliable missile defense system, so that our citizens will be free from the threat of an attack by missiles launched from across oceans. Prudence demands that we deploy a domestic missile defense system as soon as we possess the technology to do so. Missile technology developed during the Cold War has forever neutralized what was once our greatest domestic security asset-- distance. As a result, today many of our citizens have never known a world in which nuclear missiles were not pointed at their families. It is unconscionable that now, after years of being in the shadow of nuclear threat, the most powerful nation in the world still cannot defend its own soil against even one ballistic missile attack. In the post-Cold War era, a multiple array of new threats exist. Not only do we still face the possibility of accidental launch from a nuclear state--a possibility not without precedent--but now the proliferation of missile components and technology compounds the threat beyond even Cold War-levels. The capability of a rogue state to bypass years of development by clandestinely obtaining nuclear, chemical, and biological materials and long-range ballistic missile technology poses a new, more sinister threat. Procurement by rogue nations--especially by those who have a demonstrated desire to use force outside their own borders--cripples our ability to calculate emerging strategic threats with any degree of certainty. Just as a policy of total vulnerability will no longer suffice, neither will a policy characterized by the ``gaps and uncertainty'' due to the underestimation of the technological capabilities of states like North Korea, Iran, Iraq, China, and now India. Refusing to implement a National Missile Defense system as soon as it is technologically possible will render Americans vulnerable to the whims of any rogue regime that manages to procure ICBM technology. Bearing in mind that this bill itself violates no treaties, nor seeks to mandate the particulars of implementing a missile defense system, S. 1873 is important bipartisan legislation that should be passed. By eliminating a dependence on underestimated capabilities, this bill is a decisive affirmation that our country is indeed committed to ensuring the security of the American people. I urge all my colleagues to support S. 1873.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 2676. Mr. President, I also want to talk about reform of the Internal Revenue Service. The Senate Finance Committee examined this issue last year, and they recently conducted a careful reexamination. I commend my colleagues, particularly the chairman of the Finance Committee, for their vigilance on this issue. They have worked very hard to identify problems with the Internal Revenue Service and to craft legislation to correct the problems that were pointed out during committee hearings. As we saw in the hearings last fall, the IRS has lacked accountability for years. The most recent hearings remind us of the importance of reforming this institution. No one can dispute the fact that we must end business as usual at the IRS. We must bring accountability and integrity back to the IRS. American citizens should not live in fear of their government. Certainly most IRS employees work diligently and honestly to insure that they administer the nation's tax laws accurately and fairly. But as we have seen, the IRS as an institution has fostered a culture that tolerates and at times even encourages those few who operate outside the law. We desperately need reforms to bring to justice those agents and elements within the IRS that have so far flauted the law. The best way to curtail the power of the IRS is to simplify our nation's tax laws. Congress is the principal entity responsible for the tax code. Frankly, I believe Congress should scrap the current tax system and start fresh with a simple and fair system. The federal tax burden on hard working Americans is excessive and overly intrusive, and reform is long overdue. By striking at the heart of the problem with a fairer, flatter tax system, Congress will put an end to abusive IRS practices. Until Congress is able to pass substantive changes to the nation's tax system that the President is willing to sign, we must reform the IRS. Senator Roth's bill would create an independent oversight board that would redefine IRS accountability. The board would provide desperately needed oversight of the management and operation of the IRS, as well as its enforcement and collection activities. Taxpayers have a right to expect honesty and integrity in their dealings with the IRS. In fact, the mission statement of the IRS calls on its employees to perform in a manner warranting the highest degree of public confidence in their integrity, efficiency, and fairness. Let me repeat that. The mission statement of the IRS calls on its employees to perform in a manner warranting the highest degree of public confidence in their integrity, efficiency, and fairness. When this fundamental trust is breached, taxpayers must have adequate recourse. The Senate IRS reform bill gives them the necessary recourse. Taxpayers would have expanded ability to collect damages and expenses when they are the target of improper IRS actions. Also, agents who take improper actions, such as improper seizures we have heard on this floor, false statements under oath, which was heard in the committee, falsifying documents, we heard those before, violation of taxpayer confidentiality, and even harassing a taxpayer, would be terminated under the Senate bill. While it is important to make whole those who have been injured by the IRS, it is even more important to prevent abuses from ever happening. Senator Roth's bill would provide this important protection for taxpayers. Innocent spouses could no longer be held liable for the tax debts of their spouse, and spousal liability would be limited on joint returns. Thanks to this bill, taxpayers will finally receive due process in their dealings with the IRS, which I think is a significant part of this bill. IRS agents would have to follow specific procedures before seizing assets or filing liens, and they would be prevented from seizing someone's home for a minor tax liability. The IRS would also be subject to the same Fair Debt collection standards that all other bill collectors in America are required to follow. This year I have met with citizens in all 63 counties of Colorado. In many of those meetings I had, I constantly heard about how frustrating and intimidating it can be to deal with the IRS. The Senate IRS reform bill would make it easier for citizens to communicate with the IRS. The bill would require all IRS notices and correspondence to include the name, phone number, and address of an IRS employee that the taxpayer should contact regarding the notice. It would also be easier to contact the IRS with general questions since they would finally be required to publish local phone numbers and addresses in the phone book. Unfortunately a few agents have elected to use the IRS as their personal weapon, but the abuse of taxpayers must stop. The IRS must recommit itself to serving the taxpayers. The Senate IRS reform bill is a significant step towards that goal. According to Judge William Downes, The conduct of our Nation's affairs always demands that public servants discharge their duties under the Constitution and the laws of this Republic with fairness and a proper spirit of subservience to the people whom they are sworn to serve. Respect for the law can only be fostered if citizens believe that those responsible for implementing and enforcing the law are themselves acting in conformity with the law. I conclude by saying Congress must pass this legislation to end abusive practices and restore American confidence in the IRS. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Roth offers his amendment regarding offsets, the amendment be temporarily set aside; further, that Senator Kerrey then be recognized to offer his amendment regarding offsets and there then be a total of 1 hour equally divided for debate on both amendments.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2676, the IRS reform bill. Under the previous order, Senator Roth will be immediately recognized to offer his so- called ``pay for'' amendment. It is hoped that after the Roth amendment is offered Senator Kerrey will offer his ``pay for'' amendment and a short-time agreement can be worked out with respect to both amendments. As a reminder, an agreement was reached yesterday limiting the bill to relevant amendments. Therefore, it is hoped that the Senate will make good progress on the IRS bill today in an effort to finish this important legislation by tonight or Thursday. Senators should expect rollcall votes throughout today's session on amendments to the IRS bill, or any other legislative or executive items cleared for action. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, first of all, I thank my good friend, the Senator from Michigan, for his very hard work on this particular issue. He was working on the issue before I was elected to the Senate and is recognized for his efforts to try to control the use of illegal drugs. His national reputation precedes my meeting him here in the Senate, so the question is, How did I get involved in this particular issue? I got involved in this issue because I do hold a lot of town meetings in the State of Colorado, the State which I represent. In the inner-city areas of the Denver metropolitan area, the issue of discrepancy sentencing between powder cocaine and crack cocaine was brought up by the minority communities. There were a few members who felt the crack cocaine penalties should be less. But, by far, the majority of members in those meetings felt we needed to make tougher powder cocaine penalties because the crack cocaine penalties were working. I also heard some concern from within the judiciary of the State of Colorado about the discrepancy between crack and powder cocaine. So that is how I got involved in the issue. Then I had introduced some legislation to deal with this issue. I had an opportunity to sit down with the Senator from Michigan and we have worked out a provision in a new bill that I think is the right answer. It does toughen the penalties on powder cocaine, brings it more in line with crack cocaine. It is a position I support. It is a position I believe the voters of Colorado and the people of Colorado, even in the minority communities, do support. Mr. President, today I rise to address one of the most longstanding and racially sensitive disputes in the criminal justice system. Senators Abraham, Hatch, Feinstein, Kyl, and I are introducing a bill to lessen the disparity between criminal penalties of selling crack and powder cocaine. Under current law, a seller of 5 grams of crack cocaine receives the same mandatory 5-year prison term as a seller of 500 grams of powder cocaine. I believe this is inexcusable. The disparity between penalties has been scrutinized by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Congress, and the Clinton administration for the last several years. Recommendations by the administration and U.S. Sentencing Commission have called for lessening the penalties for crack dealers, bringing them closer to the lax penalties applied to powder offenders. Our legislation rejects the administration's harmful solution. Lowering the penalty for crack to make it equal to powder cocaine penalties goes against our Nation's conviction to send a strong message to drug dealers: If you sell drugs, you are going to have to face serious consequences. The Powder Cocaine Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Act increases the mandatory penalties for dealing powder cocaine to 50 grams receiving a 5-year minimum sentence, bringing it closer to crack's stiff sentence of 5 grams for a minimum of 5 years. The disparity ratio of powder to crack cocaine will be a 10-to-1 ratio under our bill instead of the 100-to-1 ratio. This is the same number ratio recommended, by the way, by the commission and by the administration. This correction goes a long way in reforming the unjust disparity that we see now. Critics of current law remind us that cocaine dealers carry powder cocaine, leaving customers the risk of converting to crack. The very core of the drug crisis in the United States begins with the arrogance of drug traffickers who have found a way to ``work the system.'' Our bill will destroy the ease drug dealers now enjoy as they choose to traffic their drug in powder form alone. No longer will the penalty price for dealing powder be a bargain for drug traffickers. The safe option for dealing cocaine will no longer exist. During the 1980s, Congress legislated steep consequences for crack cocaine. The crack epidemic was plaguing our Nation with high crime rates and unprecedented statistics of addiction, and it warranted several drastic legal reforms. We saw the destruction wrought on entire communities by this cheap and highly addictive form of cocaine and realized that tough penalties were needed to restrict its availability. These tougher sentences were needed, but the problem we are seeing today is that powder cocaine sentences were set before the crack epidemic began. They don't reflect the influence powder has had on crime and drug trafficking. It is time to admit that the penalty for powder cocaine must change. The notion that powder cocaine is not dangerous is simply false. A Rocky Mountain News reporter was killed 2 years ago when an heir to one of Colorado's largest fortunes, high on powder cocaine, plowed his sports car into the reporter's car. Ask the wife and son of this young reporter if they think the penalty for powder cocaine should be 100 times less than that of crack. Law enforcement officials, including drug enforcement detectives in both Denver and Washington, DC, have encouraged me to pursue passage of this legislation. The National Headquarters for the Fraternal Order of Police issued a statement several weeks ago saying: The current disparities in the sentencing are unjust and do not provide law enforcement with the tools they need to restrict the sale of powder cocaine. The overwhelming majority of violent crime in this country is drug related. We need to do more to get and keep dealers of drugs, whatever the form, off the streets. Your bill will help us do it. The U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado, Henry Solano, supports this legislative concept saying: The law enforcement community learned years ago that the strong sentences meted out to crack cocaine dealers has had a significant deterrent effect on the production and distribution of crack. Senator Allard's proposed penalty for powder cocaine will likewise restrict the flow of powder cocaine in this country. In light of the numerous proposals introduced to correct this problem, I encourage my colleagues to contemplate the alternatives and consider how justice is served in this matter. Maintaining the current ratio is allowing a wrongful disparity in penalties to continue. It is time to act to correct this injustice. I encourage my colleagues to support the powder cocaine mandatory minimum sentence bill. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Michigan. Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, first of all, I thank my good friend, the Senator from Michigan, for his very hard work on this particular issue. He was working on the issue before I was elected to the Senate and is recognized for his efforts to try to control the use of illegal drugs. His national reputation precedes my meeting him here in the Senate, so the question is, How did I get involved in this particular issue? I got involved in this issue because I do hold a lot of town meetings in the State of Colorado, the State which I represent. In the inner-city areas of the Denver metropolitan area, the issue of discrepancy sentencing between powder cocaine and crack cocaine was brought up by the minority communities. There were a few members who felt the crack cocaine penalties should be less. But, by far, the majority of members in those meetings felt we needed to make tougher powder cocaine penalties because the crack cocaine penalties were working. I also heard some concern from within the judiciary of the State of Colorado about the discrepancy between crack and powder cocaine. So that is how I got involved in the issue. Then I had introduced some legislation to deal with this issue. I had an opportunity to sit down with the Senator from Michigan and we have worked out a provision in a new bill that I think is the right answer. It does toughen the penalties on powder cocaine, brings it more in line with crack cocaine. It is a position I support. It is a position I believe the voters of Colorado and the people of Colorado, even in the minority communities, do support. Mr. President, today I rise to address one of the most longstanding and racially sensitive disputes in the criminal justice system. Senators Abraham, Hatch, Feinstein, Kyl, and I are introducing a bill to lessen the disparity between criminal penalties of selling crack and powder cocaine. Under current law, a seller of 5 grams of crack cocaine receives the same mandatory 5-year prison term as a seller of 500 grams of powder cocaine. I believe this is inexcusable. The disparity between penalties has been scrutinized by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Congress, and the Clinton administration for the last several years. Recommendations by the administration and U.S. Sentencing Commission have called for lessening the penalties for crack dealers, bringing them closer to the lax penalties applied to powder offenders. Our legislation rejects the administration's harmful solution. Lowering the penalty for crack to make it equal to powder cocaine penalties goes against our Nation's conviction to send a strong message to drug dealers: If you sell drugs, you are going to have to face serious consequences. The Powder Cocaine Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Act increases the mandatory penalties for dealing powder cocaine to 50 grams receiving a 5-year minimum sentence, bringing it closer to crack's stiff sentence of 5 grams for a minimum of 5 years. The disparity ratio of powder to crack cocaine will be a 10-to-1 ratio under our bill instead of the 100-to-1 ratio. This is the same number ratio recommended, by the way, by the commission and by the administration. This correction goes a long way in reforming the unjust disparity that we see now. Critics of current law remind us that cocaine dealers carry powder cocaine, leaving customers the risk of converting to crack. The very core of the drug crisis in the United States begins with the arrogance of drug traffickers who have found a way to ``work the system.'' Our bill will destroy the ease drug dealers now enjoy as they choose to traffic their drug in powder form alone. No longer will the penalty price for dealing powder be a bargain for drug traffickers. The safe option for dealing cocaine will no longer exist. During the 1980s, Congress legislated steep consequences for crack cocaine. The crack epidemic was plaguing our Nation with high crime rates and unprecedented statistics of addiction, and it warranted several drastic legal reforms. We saw the destruction wrought on entire communities by this cheap and highly addictive form of cocaine and realized that tough penalties were needed to restrict its availability. These tougher sentences were needed, but the problem we are seeing today is that powder cocaine sentences were set before the crack epidemic began. They don't reflect the influence powder has had on crime and drug trafficking. It is time to admit that the penalty for powder cocaine must change. The notion that powder cocaine is not dangerous is simply false. A Rocky Mountain News reporter was killed 2 years ago when an heir to one of Colorado's largest fortunes, high on powder cocaine, plowed his sports car into the reporter's car. Ask the wife and son of this young reporter if they think the penalty for powder cocaine should be 100 times less than that of crack. Law enforcement officials, including drug enforcement detectives in both Denver and Washington, DC, have encouraged me to pursue passage of this legislation. The National Headquarters for the Fraternal Order of Police issued a statement several weeks ago saying: The current disparities in the sentencing are unjust and do not provide law enforcement with the tools they need to restrict the sale of powder cocaine. The overwhelming majority of violent crime in this country is drug related. We need to do more to get and keep dealers of drugs, whatever the form, off the streets. Your bill will help us do it. The U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado, Henry Solano, supports this legislative concept saying: The law enforcement community learned years ago that the strong sentences meted out to crack cocaine dealers has had a significant deterrent effect on the production and distribution of crack. Senator Allard's proposed penalty for powder cocaine will likewise restrict the flow of powder cocaine in this country. In light of the numerous proposals introduced to correct this problem, I encourage my colleagues to contemplate the alternatives and consider how justice is served in this matter. Maintaining the current ratio is allowing a wrongful disparity in penalties to continue. It is time to act to correct this injustice. I encourage my colleagues to support the powder cocaine mandatory minimum sentence bill. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Michigan. Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I believe NATO expansion is in the best interest of the United States. Also, expanding NATO will be in the interest of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary and for that matter--world peace. The United States' security is intrinsically tied to the security of all of Europe. An enlarged NATO will only extend the influence of peace and prosperity to these three deserving countries. Also, as Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary continue to grow and flourish, their acceptance into the NATO Alliance will only further integrate Western values and will lock in the practices of democracy. Locking democracy into this region is in the United States interest and we should never shirk from our responsibility and duty to see that democracy is spread throughout the world. While many foreign policy issues don't make the headlines and gather press, I do want to add to the record three opinion editorials from a few Colorado newspapers. I ask unanimous consent that an April 21st, 1998 editorial from the Daily Sentinel, a paper from Grand Junction Colorado, an April 28th, 1998 editorial from the Denver Post, and an April 5th, 1998 editorial from the Rocky Mountain News be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

Mr. ALLARD. Let me highlight a few comments from these editorials. The Daily Sentinel writes, Adding Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic to NATO rewards three countries for their efforts against communism during the Cold War. More importantly, expanding the western alliance to include the three former Soviet bloc captive nations not only is in the best interests of NATO and the United States, but it unequivocally proclaims to the rest of the world that the fate of Central Europe will no longer be in the hands of whatever despots come along, be they Nazis, Communists or something else. The Denver Post states, The Post believes adding these three nations will contribute to stability in Eastern Europe and thus to world peace. . . . Any student of the 20th century has to admire the freedom-loving spirit displayed by the Hungarians, Poles, and Czechs, often against great odds. . . . their current governments are stable and they are worthy partners of NATO. Lastly, from the Rocky Mountain News, NATO enlargement is the Western world's way to show that the Cold War is over and that we welcome these countries to freedom. The new threats we face can only be met by forming new alliance to ensure that these democracies do not fall prey to nationalistic or terrorist regimes. The Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary know life without freedom and now deserve freedom and security that only NATO can provide. For me this sums up many of the reasons why I believe adding these three countries to NATO will strengthen, stabilize, and promote peace for the United States and Europe. I urge my colleagues to support this NATO expansion. Exhibit 1 [From the Daily Sentinel, Apr. 21, 1998] Congress Should OK Expansion of NATO Sometime very soon, perhaps by the end of the week, the Senate will vote on whether to ratify a treaty that would allow Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary to join NATO. It should vote decisively to allow the expansion. Much has been said about the fact that the expansion will offend Russia because it will appear that NATO is expanding to the Russian doorstep. Clinton administration officials attempting to defuse that argument have declared that NATO is a peaceful alliance ``not arrayed against Russia'' or anyone else. Such statements are, of course, necessary to deal with global politics. And they are misleading. NATO's purpose is to protect its western European members and the United States against outside aggression, including the possibility of a reawakened Russian bear decades down the road. It's true that the Cold War is over but it's equally true that NATO was founded primarily to stem the expansionist proclivities of Soviet Russia. Moreover, the three nations in question all challenged Soviet domination during that period, and each paid a heavy price in some form of Soviet retaliation--Hungary during the 1950s, Czechoslovakia in the 1960s and Poland in the 1980s. In discussing the NATO expansion, few people note that rejecting the membership of these three countries would be an even greater offense to them than their inclusion in NATO would be to Russia. Additionally, while Russia is no longer communist, there is still reason to be suspicious of its expansionist tendencies which have gone on almost continuously since the days of Peter the Great. Two of the leading candidates to succeed Boris Yeltsin as president are nationalists who have hinted at trying to reassert Russian control over some of the old Soviet states which are now independent nations. Adding Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic to NATO rewards three countries for their efforts against communism during the Cold War. More importantly, expanding the western alliance to include the three former Soviet bloc captive nations not only is in the best interests of NATO and the United States, but it unequivocally proclaims to the rest of the world that the fate of Central Europe will no longer be in the hands of whatever despots come along, be they Nazis, Communists or something else.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a great American company, one that will be celebrating its 125th Anniversary next month. The success of Coors Brewing Company is a great American story. When Adolph Coors arrived in this country in 1868, he did not speak English, but he did know how to brew a great beer. From 1873 until today, Coors has made its reputation on the lasting values of its founder. The American values tradition, commitment, quality, and innovation have long been a part of this history. Holding steadfast to these values has helped Coors grow from a tiny local brewery in Golden, Colorado into a world-class competitor producing more than 20 million barrels of beer each year. Today, Coors' familiar products are sold not only across the United States, but in 45 foreign countries as well. Through the years, Coors has been at the forefront of responsible community involvement, and today it is recognized as a leader in corporate citizenship. That is why Business Ethics magazine recently placed Coors in the top ten of its ``The 100 Best Corporate Citizens.'' Coors also has been cited numerous times for its outstanding record in attracting, hiring, and promoting minority Americans. It is what you would expect, given Coors' record of investing hundreds of millions of dollars in economic development and other programs designed to strengthen Hispanic and African-American communities. When you do business in Colorado, respect for the environment is, of course, a must. Coors is a leader in this area as well. Coors launched the aluminum recycling revolution back in 1959 when it began offering a penny for every returned can. Since 1990, the Coors Pure Water 2000 program has provided more than $2.5 million to support more than 700 environmental programs across the nation. One of its most noteworthy accomplishments has been in developing and promoting effective programs to discourage abuse of its products. Coors has a record of encouraging responsible consumption of its products by adults--and only adults. Over the years, millions of dollars have been devoted to community-based education and prevention programs. Coors' ``21 means 21'' message has been one of the elements responsible for the steady decline in underage drinking and drunk driving that we in the United States have been fortunate to see in the recent years. Coors has set the standard for responsible advertising, and has led the industry with policies to ensure that its ads encourage moderation, and are directed only to those over the age of 21. We all know of the controversies that can befall consumer products of all kinds during the highly politicized times in which we live today. But the record amassed by Coors over the past 125 years is reassuring. It is good to know there are still people and companies dedicated to doing the right thing. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in a toast to the thousands of Coors employees in Colorado, Tennessee, Virginia, and at Coors distributorships in every state of the nation: Congratulations on a job well done!

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I encourage my colleagues to support legislation which will open doors to education opportunities for parents and children throughout our nation. Education savings accounts are a sensible step toward solving the education crisis in America by allowing families to save their own money to pay for their child's educational needs. This bill would empower parents with the financial tools to provide for all the needs they recognize in their children--needs that teachers or administrators should not be trusted to address in the same way that a parent can. These accounts would provide families the ability to save for extra fees, tutoring, home computers, S.A.T. preparation, transportation costs, or in cases of violent incidents, would allow a family to consider another public or private school. This kind of tax relief is especially important for parents who are working two jobs with no extra time to help with homework, or those who do not feel adequate in their own knowledge to tutor their children. As parents, I know that my wife and I were the best judges of our children's needs because we truly cared about their future. And as all parents realize, I knew that I was in the best position to address those needs. As a small businessman, I would have welcomed an opportunity to accrue tax-free interest to help pay for more opportunities in education for my children. Far too many parents find that their hopes to provide the best education for their children are crushed as they realize the costs involved in accomplishing this task. Contrary to popular myth, 75% of the children who would benefit from this bill are public school students. The new estimates released by the Joint Tax Committee appear to disprove the claim that public school revenues would be reduced by A+ accounts. The Joint Tax Committee estimates that by the year 2000, 14 million students will be able to benefit from this bill, with 90 percent of those families earning between $15,000 and $100,000 a year. This savings is not reserved for the wealthy but instead lifts the burden from our nation's hard working lower and middle class families. This bill is good for families--it's good for schools--especially public schools. Since parents would be spending their own money, it fuels parental involvement in their children's education. And because it gives them increased resources that can be used for education at their own child's school, it encourages parental involvement in the schools as well. Tax-free savings accounts may not fix our nation's education system, but they will give parents an opportunity to make a difference for their own children and their own community's school. Our tax code has always encouraged various deductions and credits for investment in physical capital, but why have we never encouraged investments in human capital? Education for our children is the most worthwhile investment we have--one that we should protect and foster growth. This bill is a positive step towards reform and choice in our public school system. Why anyone would vote against tax relief for America's families and improving education for all of our nation's children at the same time is difficult for me to understand. I thank the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell, for introducing this bill. I believe that the working families in our states will thank us for handing them an opportunity to invest in their own children.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I want to just briefly explain what my amendment does. Right now, the total debt that we are facing in this country is $5.6 trillion. The interest that we pay on that total debt is more than the entire defense budget, and I believe we need a plan to pay down that total debt. My amendment proposes such a plan. It takes the surplus that is reflected in the budget proposal that is before us here on the floor of the Senate today, and takes those first 5 years and allocates them towards that debt pay-down plan. It says that after the 5 years that are reflected in the budget plan, then we dedicate $11.7 billion a year towards paying down the debt. If we will do that, we can pay down the debt in 30 years and save more than $3.7 trillion in interest. The $11.7 billion which we set aside after the 5 years which is reflected in this budget, that is less than 1 percent of the total budget. I am here to ask the Senate to join me in putting in place a plan to pay down the total debt. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to have an opportunity to summarize my remarks. I ask that my opposition yield back the remainder of their time so I can summarize my comments. Apparently, they don't want to do that. I will briefly make comments so that we can move along. First of all, we heard many arguments about voting against the balanced budget amendment. Those who voted against the balanced budget amendment said that we should not tie down the hands of the Senate, the Senate should have the discipline in order not to go into deficit spending. My argument has been that the Senate--I have always supported it because I never felt the Senate, although well-intentioned, would ever allow that to happen. We are asking for a simple amendment to pay down the debt, and one of the arguments made against this is that it may raise a point of order if the Senate goes into deficit spending. Most of us, I think, in this Chamber agree that we should not have deficit spending. So it points out again how very important it is to have these types of plans before us if we really are serious about eliminating deficit spending and pay down the debt. If we want a secure economy and we want to make sure that our children and grandchildren have a secure future and we want to continue to see economic growth, the way we do that is to make a commitment to pay down the debt. So I am here to ask for an aye vote on the Allard amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have 2 minutes remaining on our time.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to summarize and make sure that any opposition to my amendment has had an opportunity to speak. When they are finished, I would like to make concluding comments, if I might.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the purpose of the Allard amendment, which we did debate last night--I brought it back to continue the debate this evening--is to explain just how easy it is for us to make a commitment to pay down the debt by making some commitment of revenue flow for that sole purpose. I have a chart with a provision called the ``American Debt Repayment Act.'' Basically, what it does is take the budget bill, the 5-year plan we have before us, take the revenues, and say we don't spend it, we save it to pay down the debt, and after 5 years we will take $11.7 billion, less than 1 percent of the total budget allocated over 30 years, and we will eliminate the debt by doing that. The American family today, when they take out their largest loan-- usually to buy a new home--has a 30-year mortgage. I am just saying that we can make a minimal commitment from the budget and we can pay off this debt within 30 years. That is the reason I propose my amendment, because I want this body to make a minimal commitment to paying down the debt. When you do this, several things happen. First of all, there is tremendous savings on interest, some $3.7 trillion in interest over that 30 years that is saved that can be used for other programs, whether it is tax cuts or whether it is additional spending. I am not in favor of additional spending. I think tax cuts is the way to go, but the money is there to do it. We do this with this commitment, and yet when we do that we still let our budget grow traditionally at the rate it has been growing in the past. We are really not making a sacrifice but we are making a commitment, if we pass this Allard amendment, to help pay off the debt. If we pay off the debt in 30 years, that gets us out to year 2027, 2028. If that has a familiar ring, let me remind Members that is the same date that many economists predict Social Security will be bankrupt. So this is a key first step in us being able to address some very serious problems that we are faced with today, and that is a Social Security that is getting ready to go bankrupt, a Medicare system that is even in worse shape than the Social Security system. This frees up revenue to address those kinds of problems. I asked the chairman of the Federal Reserve when he testified before the Banking Committee, Alan Greenspan, if he would comment about paying down the debt. He said he agrees that paying down the debt or eliminating the Federal debt would have several positive impacts on Social Security reform. I will quote his testimony before the Senate Banking Committee on the 25th of February: The notion to pay down the debt creates a very large amount of savings in the system, a very big window to do a lot in the area of Social Security, if you go that direction. In a letter that I received from Alan Greenspan on March 26, 1998, he said: ``Budget surpluses will not by themselves make the current structure of Social Security taxes and benefits viable over the long run. Assuring payment of intended benefits beyond that date will require some statutory adjustments to Social Security receipts and or benefits.'' So he does recognize that there is definitely a correlation between Social Security reform and making a commitment to pay down that debt. I will comment about the impact of paying off the debt on the total economy. Again, I will quote the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, when he testified before the Senate Banking Committee, again on the 25th of February. In regard to the economy he says: ``The means by which you pay off the debt is to run very substantial unified budget surpluses. What happens when you do that is you shift the issue of debt from the public to the private sector. I think there are very major benefits from that occurring.'' So I think there is a lot of support from people who really know about the budget, know about the economy, know about Social Security, about this, and there are a lot of Americans who support the idea we ought to be paying down the debt. I think the Senate ought to show a similar commitment to pay down this huge debt, which is somewhere around $5.6 trillion. I have on the floor with me a colleague, and I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming to talk about paying down the debt.