Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, to meet on Thursday, February 12, 1998, at 9:00 a.m. for a hearing on ``Adoption and Foster Care Reforms in D.C.''

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 12, 1998, at 10:00 AM (or immediately following) the 9:30 AM hearing) on S. 1422--FCC Satellite Carrier Oversight.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 12, 1998, at 9:30 AM on the nomination of Winter Horton to be a member of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 12, 1998, at 10:00 A.M. in open session, to receive testimony on the Defense Authorization request for fiscal year 1999 and the future years defense plan.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 12, 1998 at 2:00 pm to hold a hearing.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I spent the month of January attending town meetings throughout the State of Colorado. That is one of the things, when I go back to my State, that I spend a lot of time doing-- visiting the counties and visiting with the people of Colorado. Over the years, we continue to have the issue of taxes brought up in the town meetings--probably more so now than at any time that I can recall since having town meetings. The American people simply want to have their tax system reformed, particularly those in Colorado. They want lower taxes, they want a simpler tax system, and they want less intrusive means of collecting those taxes. Last year, Congress enacted modest tax relief, but it was only a first step. It's time to move forward with more aggressive tax reform. Today, I am introducing legislation that will do four things: It will continue to reduce the capital gains tax to a top rate of 14 percent. It will restore the one-year holding period for capital gains treatment. It will index capital gains and, thereby, eliminate the taxation of gains that are due solely to inflation. And then, finally, it will eliminate the estate tax. These changes will provide important tax relief for families and businesses, and continue to ensure that our economy remains the most competitive in the world. Mr. President, the new year has certainly brought good news concerning the Federal budget. But let's be honest. The budget is balancing because of the hard work of the American people, not because of any bold action by the Federal Government. Economic performance in recent years has exceeded all expectations. The result is that the American people have been sending greater and greater amounts of their earnings to Washington. The budget is balancing because of an explosion in tax receipts, not because of any restraint in spending. In fact, the budget continues to grow at a healthy pace. Federal spending in 1998 is estimated to be 4.3 percent above the 1997 level--well in excess of inflation. Many would like this to continue. The President assured us in a previous State of the Union Address that, ``the era of big Government is over.'' But it is clear that he is now proposing a new era of big Government. I favor a different course. We should not squander the people's surplus on more Government. Instead, we should begin to pay down the debt and reform the tax system. We should put American families ahead of the insatiable appetite of Washington, DC, for more Government spending. Despite last year's budget bill, taxes remain higher than they have ever been. Tax freedom day--the day to which the average American works to pay the combined Federal, State, and local tax burden--is May 9, which is the latest it has ever been. A reduction in the Federal debt and a reasonable level of taxation should be the twin objectives of Congress as we enter the next century. Our job is to ensure that the bridge to the 21st century does not become a toll bridge. Mr. President, let me begin with a discussion of capital gains taxes. I call the capital gains tax the ``growth tax.'' Nearly all Americans own capital, and they experience a tax on that capital when they sell the stocks, or a small business, or a farm. Mr. President, let's look at how this capital gains, or growth tax, hits ordinary working Americans. Stock ownership has doubled in the last 7 years, to the point where 43 percent of all adult Americans own stock. Obviously, with those numbers, stock ownership is not just confined to the wealthy; it is spread throughout society. Today, half of the investors are women, and half are noncollege graduates. Stocks are typically held for retirement, education expenses, and other long- term goals. This is precisely the type of saving and investing that we need in our economy. Mr. President, I can't leave this topic without talking about small business owners and farmers. There is no clearer area where the ``growth tax'' makes no sense. Millions of American families put their lives into building small businesses and farms. Often, those businesses or farms are sold to finance a decent retirement. But this can only occur after Uncle Sam gets his cut of one-third or more of all the gains. Simply put, low taxation makes it less costly to take the risks that are critical in a capitalist economy. I am proposing that we enact a maximum capital gains tax of 14 percent, with those in the lowest tax bracket paying only 7 percent. Last year's reduction of the capital gains rate was a big plus, but it came with a price--the holding period required to qualify for the lower tax was extended from 12 months to 18 months. The holding period change is a poor attempt by the Government to micromanage the economy. This is the type of Government management that has so clearly failed in Asia. A market economy functions best when capital flows freely, unencumbered by Government distortions. The holding period for long-term capital gains treatment has been 12 months for years, and it should stay that way. Mr. President, an additional mistake that Congress made in last year's bill was a failure to include indexing. The real ``growth tax'' is often much higher than 20 percent. This is because our Tax Code does not protect Americans from taxation on capital gains that result from inflation. This is one of the most unfair aspects of the growth tax. Government policies contribute to inflation, and Government turns around and taxes its citizens on that inflation. For this reason, I fought hard to see that indexing was included last year. I offered an amendment to the tax bill that would have added indexing. The amendment was carefully structured to avoid any revenue loss. Obviously, I was disappointed with the defeat of this amendment. I presume that this was due largely to the President's opposition to indexing and his veto threat. Despite this, we got a strong vote, and I promised that I would be back. I have included indexing in this bill, and I fully intend to offer this at each opportunity. Some have dismissed indexing as ``too costly,'' but for me this is an issue of fundamental fairness. It is wrong for the Federal Government to tax citizens on inflation. Since I mentioned the issue of cost, let me make a few points on this. I have long maintained that a capital gains tax cut will increase revenue. In the short run, it encourages the sale of assets that would not otherwise occur. This obviously increases revenue. In the long run, a rate cut facilitates a higher level of economic growth. This also results in greater tax revenue. Unfortunately, during last year's tax debate, we continued to operate under revenue models that forecast a loss to the government from the capital gains rate cut. I hope we can soon put this notion to rest for good. It is already apparent that capital gains revenues will be coming into the Treasury at a considerably higher level than forecast last year when we were talking about capital gains. 1998 capital gains revenues could be as much as 50% higher than previously forecast. Even state governments will benefit from the rate cut. Earlier this month, analysts for the Colorado Legislature forecast that the capital gains tax changes would result in an additional $38 million this year for the Colorado state budget. Obviously, the impact at the federal level will be many times greater. estate tax elimination The final provision in this tax bill is the elimination of the estate tax. Frankly, the estate tax makes no sense. While the tax raises only 1 percent of federal revenues, it destroys family businesses and farms. The estate tax is double taxation. At the time of a person's death, much of their farm, business, and life savings has already been subjected to federal, state, and local tax. These same assets are taxed again under the estate tax. The estate tax fails to distinguish between cash and non-liquid assets. Family businesses are often asset-rich, and cash poor. But the value of all assets must be included in the taxable estate. This can force liquidations, and family businesses can see their livelihood eliminated in order to pay a tax of up to 55 percent. Yes. That is right--up to 55 percent. This practice threatens the stability of our families and communities while inhibiting growth and economic development. The National Center for Policy Analysis reports that a 1995 survey by Travis Research Associates found that 51 percent of family businesses would have difficulty surviving the estate tax, 14 percent of business owners said it would be impossible to survive, 30 percent said they would have to sell part or all of their business. This is supported by a 1995 Family Business Survey conducted by Matthew Greenwald and Associates which found that 33% of family businesses anticipate having to liquidate or sell part of their business to pay the estate tax. Recently, the accounting firm Price Waterhouse calculated the taxable components of 1995 estates. While 21% of assets were corporate stock and bonds, and another 21% were mutual fund assets, fully 32% of gross estates consisted of ``business assets'' such as stock in closely held businesses, interests in non-corporate businesses and farms, and interests in limited partnerships. In larger estates this portion rose to 55%. Clearly, a substantial portion of taxable estates consists of family businesses. The recent tax bill increased the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million. However, this is done very gradually and does not reach the $1 million level until 2006. The bill also increased the exemption amount for a qualified family owned business to $1.3 million. While both actions are a good first step, they barely compensate for the effects of inflation. The $600,000 exemption level was last set in 1987, just to keep pace with inflation the exemption should have risen to $850,000 by 1997. Incremental improvements help, but we need more substantial reform. It is time to eliminate this tax entirely. This action has been taken in countries such as Australia and Canada. Unfortunately, the United States retains what are arguably the highest estate taxes in the world. Among industrial nations, only Japan has a higher rate than the U.S. But Japan's 70% top rate applies only to inheritance of $16 million or more. The U.S. top rate of 55% kicks in on estates of $3 million or more. France, the United Kingdom, and Ireland all have top rates of 40%, and the average top rate of OECD countries is only 29%. Repeal of the estate tax would benefit the economy. George Mason University Professor Richard Wagner estimates that within seven years of elimination of the estate tax the output of the country would be increased by $79 billion per year, resulting in up to 228,000 new jobs. Under the current system, the energy that could go into greater productivity is expended by selling off businesses, dividing resources and preparing for the absorption of an estate by the government. Those businesses that survive the estate tax often do so by purchasing expensive insurance. A 1995 Gallup survey of family firms found that 23% of the owners of companies valued at over $10 million pay $50,000 or more per year in insurance premiums on policies designed to help them pay the eventual tax bill. The same survey found that family firms estimated they had spent on average over $33,000 on lawyers, accountants and financial planners in order to prepare for the estate tax. Ironically, the estate tax is often justified on the grounds that it helps to equalize wealth. But this effect is greatly exaggerated. A 1995 study published by the Rand Corporation found that for the very wealthiest Americans, only 7.5% of their wealth is attributable to inheritance--the other 92.5% is from earnings. Mr. President, it is time to repeal this outdated tax. We must insist that no more American families lose their business because of the estate tax. We must ensure that when a family is coping with all the inevitable costs of passing a business from one generation to the next, the Federal Government is not there as an added burden. Mr. President, it is my hope that by introducing this tax legislation and placing these proposals on the table we can begin to debate significant tax relief for 1998. Each of these changes: a lower capital gains rate, indexing, and repeal of the estate tax, are consistent with long-term tax reform. And each of them can be enacted this year.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Allard and Mr. Enzi pertaining to the introduction of S. 1608 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to go into morning business for a period of 45 minutes, that my comments be placed at the appropriate place in the Record, and that Senator Enzi's comments follow my comments.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I have, of course, from time to time addressed the Senate at this point in the day because I am introducing a piece of legislation called The American Debt Repayment Act. I think this is an important piece of legislation, and it certainly is very timely when we take into consideration that Congress now has the President's budget before us for consideration. Recently the President submitted to Congress what he claims to be a balanced budget for the fiscal year 1999. I would like to welcome him to the ball game of talking about a balanced budget. Since I was elected as a Member of Congress in 1990, I have fought to balance the budget using real numbers. In fact, I was a member of the House Budget Committee that passed the first balanced budget in over 25 years only to see this detailed, responsible plan vetoed by the President. As happy as I am that the administration has come close to realizing what the Republican led Congress has known all along, that we can balance the budget while maintaining responsible spending habits, I am deeply concerned that all progress could be lost if we do not diffuse the ticking time bomb of the Federal debt. The Federal debt now stands at over $5.4 trillion. That is almost $20,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. If we do not begin a procedure for paying down the debt and funding the Social Security trust fund, entitlement programs will consume the entire Federal budget by the time the baby boomers retire. This is of great concern to me, and we cannot be shortsighted in dealing with the future of our children and grandchildren. The news, however, is not all bad. As I said, the President has submitted a budget that balances on paper beginning with the fiscal year 1999. While the reality could be different, this is still 4 years ahead of the 2002 timetable that was laid out by previous Congresses. Balancing the budget is clearly not the end but, rather, is only the beginning. From the outset, many of us have realized that once the budget is balanced, the Federal Government has the responsibility to retire the Federal debt. Included in the balanced budget agreement of 1997 was an amendment of mine, and it expressed the sense of the Congress that the President submit a plan to pay down the debt when he submitted his budget. He did not follow this congressional guideline and that is one of the reasons why I feel I must come to the floor today and introduce the American Debt Repayment Act with my good friend from Wyoming, Senator Enzi. It is clear that now is the time to begin that process and commit to retiring the Federal debt. Let's talk a little bit about what I call the debt tax. The debt tax is the amount of hard-earned tax dollars that Americans send to Washington to pay the interest on the debt. With the Federal budget in balance, we can begin to pay down the debt and decrease the annual gross interest payments of $355 billion. I repeat that, $355 billion is what we are paying in gross interest. This is $355 billion that could be spent on any number of programs, or more beneficially, in my view, tax relief for American families. In real terms, American families are paying an annual debt tax of about $5,300 to pay interest on the debt. As any consumer knows, the interest on unpaid debt compounds quickly, which is exactly what has been happening to our country. We need to relieve our citizens of this burdensome tax. Now, there are reports that we might actually realize a surplus before the fiscal year 1999. While I am not ready to take it to the bank yet, I believe that is exactly what we should do with any surplus, take it to the bank and retire the Federal debt. The Congressional Budget Office is predicting a $5 billion deficit for fiscal year 1998. That is down from a forecast of $120 billion at the beginning of the year. I believe that we can and should deliver a balanced budget to the American people beginning with this fiscal year. I am a realist and understand that we cannot retire the Federal debt immediately. What we can do is create a plan by which we pay down the debt over a set number of years. I have such a plan. My legislation, the American Debt Repayment Act, seeks to amortize and pay off the debt in the year 2028. That is as simple as it gets. My plan puts the Federal Government on a 30-year mortgage to pay its creditors and place our country on sound financial ground. Let me share some of the numbers. If we assume a 4.5 percent growth in revenues and similar growth in Federal spending, we could retire the Federal debt in the year 2028 by maintaining a balanced budget and by amortizing the debt payments just like you would pay a home mortgage. Just as important, this plan does not break our promise to the American people under the balanced budget agreement. By doing so we save over 3.7 trillion tax dollars in interest payments and free at least that much for tax relief or programs. In fact, if we stick to baseline outlays we will be able to provide over $370 billion in tax relief or program spending through the year 2007 while sticking to the American Debt Repayment Act to pay off the debt. I would like to take an opportunity to refer to my chart that I have on the floor where I have placed for the Members to see an amortization schedule on how we are going to pay off this huge debt Americans are faced with today, which is about $5.5 trillion. If we start paying down on the debt in fiscal year 1999, we have a $11.6 billion payment that we start out with and each year we increase the amount we pay down on the debt by $11.6 billion. If we continue that plan, by the year 2028 we have no debt. And what we have saved the American people over that same period of time, and I have it in red here, is $3.7 trillion. By paying down the debt, we have saved the American people in interest savings more than $3.7 trillion. By the year 2014 the savings in interest payments could be applied directly to the $11.6 billion to continue to pay down the debt. So this is a very realistic plan. It is a very simple plan. It is less than 1 percent of our total budget that we have in the fiscal year, our total budget being somewhere around $1.7 trillion. It is a plan that I think the Senate should adopt. It is called the American Debt Repayment Act. My hope is that we can set an example for the country as well as the House and send over to the President a plan that will balance the budget by 2028. In the end, we will realize tremendous benefits from paying down the debt. It is well-known that the United States economy performs well when Government follows sound budgetary policies. I believe that enacting a plan to retire the debt can only foster economic growth and stability. Many of my colleagues have come to the floor to discuss reduction plans, and for the most part we all agree on the necessity to do so. But the problem with plans that call for one-half or one-third of any surplus to repay the debt is that any President or Congress can produce a budget without a dime of surplus even though revenues continue to increase. I believe that any money left over after $11.6 billion has been committed to the debt should go to tax cuts, and I will fight against tax cuts for any extra spending. As I indicated earlier under my plan we can pay down the debt and lessen the tax burden on the American family. Mr. President, the Federal Government has not reduced its debt burden since 1959. We did not have a deficit in 1969, but it has been way back to 1959 since there has been any effort to reduce the debt burden. We have a historic opportunity to begin the process of retiring the Federal debt. We must eliminate the debt tax by retiring the Federal debt and restoring financial security to the trust funds and the American people. The American Debt Repayment Act is the only real plan to retire the national debt. This plan puts forth real numbers with a set payment and a balanced budget requirement to retire the Federal debt. So long as the Federal Government carries a $5.4 trillion debt, we cannot tell our children and our grandchildren that we have provided for their future. By enacting my and Senator Enzi's plan, we can maintain responsible spending levels within the Federal Government while providing for future generations. Again, I thank my friend from Wyoming and look forward to the Senate's action on this plan. I yield the floor. Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator for his very fine statement and yield the remainder of my time. I thank the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I have, of course, from time to time addressed the Senate at this point in the day because I am introducing a piece of legislation called The American Debt Repayment Act. I think this is an important piece of legislation, and it certainly is very timely when we take into consideration that Congress now has the President's budget before us for consideration. Recently the President submitted to Congress what he claims to be a balanced budget for the fiscal year 1999. I would like to welcome him to the ball game of talking about a balanced budget. Since I was elected as a Member of Congress in 1990, I have fought to balance the budget using real numbers. In fact, I was a member of the House Budget Committee that passed the first balanced budget in over 25 years only to see this detailed, responsible plan vetoed by the President. As happy as I am that the administration has come close to realizing what the Republican led Congress has known all along, that we can balance the budget while maintaining responsible spending habits, I am deeply concerned that all progress could be lost if we do not diffuse the ticking time bomb of the Federal debt. The Federal debt now stands at over $5.4 trillion. That is almost $20,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. If we do not begin a procedure for paying down the debt and funding the Social Security trust fund, entitlement programs will consume the entire Federal budget by the time the baby boomers retire. This is of great concern to me, and we cannot be shortsighted in dealing with the future of our children and grandchildren. The news, however, is not all bad. As I said, the President has submitted a budget that balances on paper beginning with the fiscal year 1999. While the reality could be different, this is still 4 years ahead of the 2002 timetable that was laid out by previous Congresses. Balancing the budget is clearly not the end but, rather, is only the beginning. From the outset, many of us have realized that once the budget is balanced, the Federal Government has the responsibility to retire the Federal debt. Included in the balanced budget agreement of 1997 was an amendment of mine, and it expressed the sense of the Congress that the President submit a plan to pay down the debt when he submitted his budget. He did not follow this congressional guideline and that is one of the reasons why I feel I must come to the floor today and introduce the American Debt Repayment Act with my good friend from Wyoming, Senator Enzi. It is clear that now is the time to begin that process and commit to retiring the Federal debt. Let's talk a little bit about what I call the debt tax. The debt tax is the amount of hard-earned tax dollars that Americans send to Washington to pay the interest on the debt. With the Federal budget in balance, we can begin to pay down the debt and decrease the annual gross interest payments of $355 billion. I repeat that, $355 billion is what we are paying in gross interest. This is $355 billion that could be spent on any number of programs, or more beneficially, in my view, tax relief for American families. In real terms, American families are paying an annual debt tax of about $5,300 to pay interest on the debt. As any consumer knows, the interest on unpaid debt compounds quickly, which is exactly what has been happening to our country. We need to relieve our citizens of this burdensome tax. Now, there are reports that we might actually realize a surplus before the fiscal year 1999. While I am not ready to take it to the bank yet, I believe that is exactly what we should do with any surplus, take it to the bank and retire the Federal debt. The Congressional Budget Office is predicting a $5 billion deficit for fiscal year 1998. That is down from a forecast of $120 billion at the beginning of the year. I believe that we can and should deliver a balanced budget to the American people beginning with this fiscal year. I am a realist and understand that we cannot retire the Federal debt immediately. What we can do is create a plan by which we pay down the debt over a set number of years. I have such a plan. My legislation, the American Debt Repayment Act, seeks to amortize and pay off the debt in the year 2028. That is as simple as it gets. My plan puts the Federal Government on a 30-year mortgage to pay its creditors and place our country on sound financial ground. Let me share some of the numbers. If we assume a 4.5 percent growth in revenues and similar growth in Federal spending, we could retire the Federal debt in the year 2028 by maintaining a balanced budget and by amortizing the debt payments just like you would pay a home mortgage. Just as important, this plan does not break our promise to the American people under the balanced budget agreement. By doing so we save over 3.7 trillion tax dollars in interest payments and free at least that much for tax relief or programs. In fact, if we stick to baseline outlays we will be able to provide over $370 billion in tax relief or program spending through the year 2007 while sticking to the American Debt Repayment Act to pay off the debt. I would like to take an opportunity to refer to my chart that I have on the floor where I have placed for the Members to see an amortization schedule on how we are going to pay off this huge debt Americans are faced with today, which is about $5.5 trillion. If we start paying down on the debt in fiscal year 1999, we have a $11.6 billion payment that we start out with and each year we increase the amount we pay down on the debt by $11.6 billion. If we continue that plan, by the year 2028 we have no debt. And what we have saved the American people over that same period of time, and I have it in red here, is $3.7 trillion. By paying down the debt, we have saved the American people in interest savings more than $3.7 trillion. By the year 2014 the savings in interest payments could be applied directly to the $11.6 billion to continue to pay down the debt. So this is a very realistic plan. It is a very simple plan. It is less than 1 percent of our total budget that we have in the fiscal year, our total budget being somewhere around $1.7 trillion. It is a plan that I think the Senate should adopt. It is called the American Debt Repayment Act. My hope is that we can set an example for the country as well as the House and send over to the President a plan that will balance the budget by 2028. In the end, we will realize tremendous benefits from paying down the debt. It is well-known that the United States economy performs well when Government follows sound budgetary policies. I believe that enacting a plan to retire the debt can only foster economic growth and stability. Many of my colleagues have come to the floor to discuss reduction plans, and for the most part we all agree on the necessity to do so. But the problem with plans that call for one-half or one-third of any surplus to repay the debt is that any President or Congress can produce a budget without a dime of surplus even though revenues continue to increase. I believe that any money left over after $11.6 billion has been committed to the debt should go to tax cuts, and I will fight against tax cuts for any extra spending. As I indicated earlier under my plan we can pay down the debt and lessen the tax burden on the American family. Mr. President, the Federal Government has not reduced its debt burden since 1959. We did not have a deficit in 1969, but it has been way back to 1959 since there has been any effort to reduce the debt burden. We have a historic opportunity to begin the process of retiring the Federal debt. We must eliminate the debt tax by retiring the Federal debt and restoring financial security to the trust funds and the American people. The American Debt Repayment Act is the only real plan to retire the national debt. This plan puts forth real numbers with a set payment and a balanced budget requirement to retire the Federal debt. So long as the Federal Government carries a $5.4 trillion debt, we cannot tell our children and our grandchildren that we have provided for their future. By enacting my and Senator Enzi's plan, we can maintain responsible spending levels within the Federal Government while providing for future generations. Again, I thank my friend from Wyoming and look forward to the Senate's action on this plan. I yield the floor. Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator for his very fine statement and yield the remainder of my time. I thank the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to add my vocal support to S. 1575, the bill to rename Washington National Airport the ``Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.'' Last year, I was the first co-sponsor of this measure. At the time, I thought I had just beat the rush, and that I would be merely the first of a long list of co-sponsors. I though that surely, if every Member of this chamber was aware of the debt they and their country owe to Ronald Reagan, this bill would have 99 co-sponsors. Instead, I was surprised that only 35 others have co-sponsored Senator Coverdell's bill. I was surprised when I learned that this bill is encountering serious opposition. And I will be more than surprised if this bill does not pass. I will be shocked and I will be saddened. It is not often we are able to consider a bill so simple and so right as this one. Ronald Reagan can truthfully be called one of the greatest living Americans. President Reagan's most important contribution to his country was the leadership he provided during the West's long struggle with totalitarian communism. When he called the Soviet Union an `evil empire' media pundits scorned him. Today, we all know that he was right. But President Reagan provided far more than rhetoric in the struggle against communism. In 1980, America was dangerously weak and demoralized. President Reagan understood this and he directed the strengthening of all aspects of our military, coordinating our efforts with other members of the Western alliance. From the point when Ronald Reagan entered the White House, no additional territory fell to the Communists. From that point forward the tide began to turn. On all fronts, the Reagan administration backed the forces of freedom. Reagan supported Solidarity in Poland, he backed the freedom fighters in Afghanistan, Grenada was liberated, and he helped democratic struggles throughout Latin America. The Soviet Union was everywhere confronted by a Western alliance that had finally awakened to the dangers of appeasement. The alliance was greatly strengthened by the friendship and support of President Reagan's close friend and ally, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Together they thwarted Communism and made the Kremlin and its puppet states aware that the free world intended to remain free. The West won the cold war, and Ronald Reagan deserves much of the credit. President Reagan's second great triumph was his economic plan. He was the first modern President to directly challenge the notion that more government was good. In his view, Government does not solve problems, it subsidizes them. While this view is widely held today, it was ridiculed throughout the 1960's and 1970's. During those years, Reagan was nearly alone in his struggle against the endless growth of government. But he never altered his message. Unlike other politicians, he stood firm, and gradually the country moved his way. He stopped the slow socialist slide of our Nation, and instead implemented policies that provided the catalyst for the unparalleled financial and economic security and freedom we now enjoy. The Reagan program of lower taxes and less regulation was a tremendous success. In the early Reagan years all income taxes were cut across-the-board by 25 percent. The decade to follow witnessed the longest peacetime economic expansion in the history of our Nation. All income groups experienced significant income gains from 1980 to 1989. Twenty million new jobs were created, and the vast majority were high- paying professional, production, and technical jobs. In the late 1970's inflation was as high as 18 percent, and interest rates rose to 21 percent. The Reagan economic program brought both of these down dramatically. The 1970's malaise brought on by high inflation, skyrocketing interest rates, high unemployment, and high taxes was replaced by an economy that fostered opportunity, growth, and optimism. President Reagan rallied our Nation. He reminded each of us of our proud history and heritage. He was never afraid to proclaim his love for America. Most important, he stood up for what he believed. He knew the importance of strength and resolve. The result was the most successful Presidency in decades. As Reagan himself reminded us: History comes and goes, but principles endure and inspire future generations to defend liberty, not as a gift from government, but as a blessing from our creator. I know that the Federal Triangle building will be opening soon. I know that it is named after Reagan. But Ronald Reagan was a man of the people, not of bureaucrats. When he was called ``The Great Communicator'' it was not because of his skill with memos or inter- office correspondence. It was because of his ability to speak with, and for, the average American. Some good can come of the irony in naming the second largest and by far the most expensive federal building in America after Ronald Reagan. We can let the name of the Ronald Reagan building stand as a direct counter to the waste and excess involved in its building. It will also be a constant reminder to the civil service workers inside of President Reagan's belief in a small, responsible and effective government. But again, Reagan was not a man who loved big government. He should not be memorialized solely by a big government building. The Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport--an airport that is used by our government, but more importantly, by our people, and by the free people of the world--should stand as the monument to the Great American President. President Reagan's 87 Birthday is Friday. We need to approve this bill, and present him with a small but well deserved gift from the country he so ably served.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I want to stand up and thank my colleague from Wyoming for having both Joan and I join him and his lovely wife for a great, great basketball game in Laramie, WY. We look forward to a continuation of this rivalry. He is a great sport. I am so pleased that he has agreed to go ahead and wear that tie now for the rest of the week. It makes all of us feel so proud at Colorado State University to see somebody who is such a strong supporter of the University of Wyoming willing to share that win with the rest of the people in Colorado. So we are looking forward to many, many more rivalries in the Western Athletic Conference with the University of Wyoming in Laramie. I want to wish everybody the very best. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 2 minutes.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for yielding me a few moments. One of the strengths of the Republican Party, and one of the reasons I am so proud of the leadership is that they have encouraged us to go back to our States and talk with the citizens in our States and really find out what the problems are. As we are putting together our agenda here for this session, I really feel like this is a grassroots message. It has come from within the States. It has come from our friends and our neighbors and our local elected officials, the people who have to work with the Federal Government on a daily basis. I have gone back to my State and held a lot of town meetings. This particular year, I decided to hold a lot of town meetings in January. I held 40 town meetings in January. The message that came loud and clear to me is the main thing on people's minds is that there is a growing Federal Government that is continuing to interfere in their daily lives. Somehow or other, they feel they are losing control. Local officials in Colorado feel like they are losing control. Small business people feel like they are losing control and are getting too many dictates from Washington. Another thing that has come up in all of my town meetings has been the Tax Code. People are concerned about the tax burden that they have to bear today, particularly from the Federal Government. People want our tax system reformed. They certainly would like to have lower taxes, and they want a simpler and a less intrusive means of collecting those taxes. It strikes me that the two issues of taxes and the growth of Government tend to intertwine with one another. Those two issues, I think, are simply pulled together with this statement: Where the money goes is where the power goes. So people stand up, and say, ``Well, there is too much power in Washington.'' Then they complain the next minute that my request for funds from some program in Washington comes with mandates and strings attached and they begin to realize that there is power related to where that money goes. I think they think that the Federal Government is entirely too powerful. It does claim a huge portion of our economy each year. Let me review just a few numbers to make the case for tax reduction and tax reform which is going to be an important part of our agenda. The tax burden has been steadily rising since 1992. In 1992, the Federal Government claimed 19 percent of the economy. By the end of 1997 this has risen to around 21.4 percent. Remember, this is just the Federal Government. It is not State taxes. It is not local taxes. And if we include all of the State and local taxes and Federal taxes, of course, it is much, much larger. We are just talking about the Federal Government's share. The government at all levels now claims about one-third of the wealth produced each year in our economy--one-third. I think that is really a high number--certainly much more than any of our forefathers ever dreamed as far as the role of the Federal Government in our national economy. According to the Tax Foundation, State, Federal, and local taxes will claim 38 percent of the median two-income family--38 percent. By comparison, in 1965, the burden was 28 percent. It has gone up 10 percent. The tax burden amounts to no more than a typical family will spend on housing, food, and clothing combined. Mr. President, if we really want to help families with child care expenses, education expenses, health expenses, or housing expenses, we should reduce the tax burden. They have more money in their pocket. It gives them additional flexibility to spend it how they feel they should instead of sending it to Washington and then coming down with those mandates. There is much talk in Washington about the budget balancing and the forecast of some excess revenues which are referred to as a ``surplus.'' I certainly hope that this happens. When I was first elected to the United States House of Representatives, I remember our deficits were running around $340 billion a year. That is how much more they were spending a year than they were bringing in that same year. Now they are projecting--the Congressional Budget Office--somewhere around $5 billion. That is quite a change. So I certainly hope that happens. Maybe we can do something here in the Senate to move that along by saying let's look at our budget that we passed last year. Maybe we can do something this year to cut back the $5 billion in spending and actually balance the budget and make sure that it happens. But I think we need to be honest about why the budget numbers look so good. The budget is balancing not because of any tough decisions that we made here in the Congress. But it is balancing because of hard- working Americans out there that are being productive. And the reason that they are being productive, I think, is because they really believe that we are committed to balancing the budget. It holds down costs because interest rates are going down. And when they go to buy a car, or house, or when they are in business for themselves, this means they can invest more in themselves than the community. That is certainly part of it. Another part of it is because I think they believe that Republicans are going to--and they did last session--work for reducing the tax burden so they will have more of that for spending. So the economic performance in the past year and why it has really done so well is because of action here, I think, in the Republican Congress. The American people have been sending greater and greater amounts of their money to Washington. There is no doubt about it. With the budget balancing that we are going to be facing this year, I think we all pretty much agree that it is because of increased tax receipts coming in and not because of restraint in spending or the fact that the budget continues to grow. I think we have to keep that in mind. Federal spending in 1998 is estimated to be around 4.3 percent over our 1997 spending level. It is well in excess of inflation which is a little bit over 2 percent. So I hope that we will keep in mind that we need to make decisions that move the power from Washington back to the local level, and move it back to the pocketbooks of people who are in business for themselves and are making decisions on behalf of their families. So we are going to reduce the role of the Federal Government by cutting taxes. And I am here to say that we need to get on with it. And the sooner we show the American people that we are really serious about cutting taxes I think the better our growth is going to be in this economy and the more we can count on to sustain the economy so it is easier for us to balance the budget and move forward with our daily lives. I thank the Senator from Georgia for yielding me time to comment on taxes and our economy and how my constituents feel about reducing the budget within their daily lives.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the senior Senator from Colorado for yielding. Mr. President, as a fifth generation Coloradan who has rooted for the Broncos since they were first organized in the early 1960's, I want to give my Mile High Salute! A Super Bowl victory has been a long time coming for Broncos fans. Broncos fans have searched for an identity theme from ``Orange Crush'' in honor of one of their best defensive teams to ``the Mile High Salute.'' Many of the themes were lost in time through legal hassles or disappointing seasons. But ``the Mile High Salute'' is here to stay, etched in history with a Super Bowl Victory! Rules limiting the celebration of success on the football field have made it difficult for players and coaches to express their emotions. ``The Mile High Salute'' has become the Broncos symbol of success on the field. I do not believe there is a more honorable and appropriate way of celebrating in the game of football. The salute is honorable. Denver is the Mile High City. The Mile High Salute has come to mean more than success and honor with the Super Bowl Victory. It has come to mean dedication, hard work, exceeding peoples' expectations, team work and unity, and giving the spirit of competition its just reward. It is in this context that I give my Mile High Salute. I want to salute the Green Bay Packers organization. They are a great organization and Wisconsin can be proud of them. They made this Super Bowl one of the best ever. They have a legacy in football that is honored throughout America. I know both my colleagues in the Senate from Wisconsin are avid supporters. My good friend Congressman Scott Klug, who I joined in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1991, got carried away with his enthusiasm for his Green Bay Packers and placed a wager with me. Instead of me providing him with Colorado beef he has the honor of bestowing on me some great Wisconsin cheese. Scott is retiring and I will miss him in the Congress because he has done such a great job in bringing about true reform. America is better because of his leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives. I extend a Mile High Salute to the offensive and defensive Broncos linemen. They truly exemplify the team spirit and exceeded expectations with the smallest line in the National Football League. Known as the ``Orange Hush,'' these are men that have an oath of silence, who routinely arrive an hour early for morning meetings so they can watch extra videotape together, who eat meals together, who dress together in the same locker room area, who study the Bible together, and who, most importantly, show up on game day together. An obvious Mile High Salute goes to both quarterback John Elway and running back Terrell Davis. They recognized that they didn't do it alone even though they have become heroes of the game. John Elway is topping off his marvelous career with a Super Bowl win! Many top NFL quarterbacks never have the opportunity to claim a Super Bowl victory. He will eventually be in the Football Hall of Fame. I know him personally and cannot think of anyone more deserving of such an honor. He is supported by a wonderful wife Janet and family. Fifteen years ago few people in the Denver community could have guessed the impact this young quarterback from Stanford would have on the State of Colorado. Today, John Elway reigns as the king of the comeback and the winningest quarterback in NFL history. He is one of the most recognized figures in American sports. Aside from his considerable athletic accomplishments, Elway has proven himself time and again to be the heart and soul of his team. As important as Elway's role is in Colorado sports, he plays a greater role in the community. Over the years he has worked tirelessly for the charities of Colorado, and the Elway Foundation is responsible for hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations. I think that in the hearts and minds of all Broncos fans this one is indeed for John. Terrell Davis returned to the San Diego area and his high school alma mater to demonstrate the can do attitude. I personally am amazed at his courage, work ethic, and commitment to winning for the Broncos team. His 157 yards rushing and record three touchdowns in a Super Bowl will be remembered. But this was only the culmination of his best season ever. Davis has grown from a 196th pick in 1995 draft to a Super Bowl MVP and 1,750 yard rusher in 15 regular season games. Davis will long be known by the nickname TD as he averaged one touchdown in every game he played in the 1997-1998 season. I salute the entire Broncos staff, owners, and coaches. Mike Shanahan has done a great job and certainly is deserving of the honor as a winning Super Bowl coach. Coach Shanahan and his staff have done an incredible job of taking what was a 7-9 team in 1994 to a 12-4 team with the heart to persevere through one of the most difficult roads to the Super Bowl with victories in Kansas City and Pittsburgh. The team statistics speak for themselves, the Broncos offense was ranked number one in the League with 367 yards per game and the defense was the top rated unit in the AFC only allowing 292 yards per game. I congratulate Pat Bowlen because I know that good leadership starts at the top. I want to recognize the general manager of the Broncos. John Beake is a good friend and has a great family. He does a great job of representing the Broncos organization. Both he and his wife Marcia need to be recognized for their fight to eliminate drug abuse. Just another example of how the Broncos organization has reached out into the community. I give a Mile High Salute to the fans of the Broncos. They are the best. Many, like my wife Joan, were attending Bronco games when they were playing at the old University of Denver football stadium and wore vertically striped socks. Their enthusiasm has not waned over the years. It is an honor for me to represent everyone in Colorado in the U.S. Senate. It is especially exciting to be here while winning Super Bowl XXXII. While I was interviewed last week about the President's scandals. I stated a number of times that people in Colorado have their priorities straight. They want their Broncos to win the Super Bowl and that's what they're talking about! Joan and I only wish we could be in Colorado helping our friends and neighbors in giving the Broncos and their fans a Mile High Salute.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 2:30 p.m. under the same terms as previously agreed to.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield the floor. Mr. TORRICELLI addressed the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote previously scheduled for 9:40 a.m. today now occur at 10:30 a.m., with the debate time on the nomination beginning at 10:20 a.m., as under the previous order. In addition, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on the motion to proceed to S. 1269 now begin at 9:30 a.m., with the time counting as under the previous order.

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

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, this morning, the Senate will resume legislative session and debate on the motion to proceed to S. 1269, the fast-track legislation, with Senator Roth in control of 3 hours and Senator Dorgan in control of 4 hours. As under the previous order, the Senate will vote on or in relation to the motion to proceed to S. 1269 at no later than 5 p.m. At 10:20 this morning, the Senate will proceed to executive session to debate the nomination of James Gwin to be U.S. district judge for the northern district of Ohio for 10 minutes as under the previous order. A rollcall vote on the nomination will now occur at 10:30 a.m. Following the vote on fast track, the Senate may debate S. 1269 or turn to any of the following items if available: the D.C. appropriations bill, FDA reform conference report, Intelligence authorization conference report, and any additional legislative or executive items that can be cleared for action. Therefore, Members can anticipate rollcall votes throughout today's session of the Senate. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Georgia for yielding. And I compliment him on his leadership, particularly on educational issues. Today, I am here to encourage my colleagues to support legislation which will open doors of educational opportunities to the parents and children throughout our Nation. Education savings accounts are a sensible step toward solving our education crisis in America by allowing families to use their own money--to use their own money--to pay for their child's education needs. This bill would empower parents with financial tools to provide all the needs they recognize in their children, needs that teachers or administrators cannot be trusted to address in the same way that a parent can. These accounts would provide families the ability to save for extra fees that they might incur, have to deal with, when they are sending their children to public schools, fees that may be necessary to pay for computers or maybe they want to go down and buy their own computer to help with their child's education, maybe some tutoring needs within the family, maybe they need to prepare for the SAT. Transportation costs could also be an educational need, particularly in rural areas, or maybe special circumstances that would allow a family to consider some private alternatives as opposed to public education. Handicapped children, for example, I think could really benefit from this because they do have special needs. This encourages the family of the handicapped to meet those special needs and to pay the costs that they may incur and still send them to a public 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, and I am proud of the way they have developed. As all parents realize, I knew that I was in the best position to address their needs. I would have welcomed an opportunity to accrue tax-free interest to help pay for more opportunities in the education of 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 percent of the children who would benefit from this bill are public school students. The new estimates released by the Joint Tax Committee disprove the claim that public school revenues would be reduced by what is referred to as the A-plus accounts. The Joint Tax Committee estimates that by the year 2000, 14 million students would be able to benefit from this bill with 90 percent of those families earning between $15,000 and $100,000 a year. Mr. President, this is an important piece of legislation. It empowers families, and it empowers them to control the education of their family and meet their special needs. So I am absolutely thrilled with the leadership that the Senator from Georgia is showing in this regard. If my time is running out, I yield the remainder of my time back to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I request 5 minutes.