Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, recently, the Rocky Mountain News reported on a new program in Colorado, the Community Entrepreneurial Program, which provides small business loans to inner city Denver entrepreneurs. The Community Entrepreneurial Program uses private and nonprofit funds, not government money, to fund these micro-loans. It is part of an international effort to set up small businesses around the world, Enterprise Development International, headquartered in Arlington, VA. As we continue to find ways to help people help themselves, this program is leading the way in helping individuals with the initiative and drive to start a small business. To quote Wil Armstrong, a Denver business leader who is very active in the Community Entrepreneurial Program, ``We're backing one little business at a time, trying to make a difference for just one person or one family at a time.'' I ask unanimous consent that the Rocky Mountain News story be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise to make a few comments concerning estate tax reform. There are a number of things I support in the House tax bill. I am pleased to see cuts in the capital gains tax, and I am pleased to see tax relief for families with children. However, I am very concerned with the proposed adjustment of the estate tax. The estate tax has seen a significant change since 1981, and the current $600,000 exemption has never been adjusted for inflation. If it had been adjusted, it would be worth $840,000 today. The recommended adjustment in the House bill would not even keep pace with inflation and would not ease the substantial economic burden placed on family businesses and farms. The proposed Senate version is better but still needs improvement. It raises the exemption to $1 million to all estates by 2008 and would exempt an additional $1 million on family farm and business assets. At the time of a person's death, their farm or business has already been subjected to Federal, State, and local tax. The estate tax is a double tax. The estate tax not only places a burden on assets that have already been taxed but it does not discriminate between cash funds and the nonliquid assets and property that make daily activities possible for a family business or farm. These asset-rich, cash-poor businesses can have their livelihood eliminated in order to pay a tax of up to 55 percent--up to 55 percent--of market value of the property left to them. Ironically, the estate tax raises only 1 percent of the Federal Government's revenue but helps to prevent up to 75 percent of family businesses from being passed to a second generation. This practice threatens the stability of our families and communities while inhibiting growth and economic development. I strongly support estate tax relief. The current estate and gift tax system poses a great threat to family-owned businesses and farms. I am a cosponsor of legislation to increase unified credit and to index it for inflation. I am also a cosponsor of legislation to eliminate the estate tax entirely. Repeal of the estate tax would benefit the economy. George Mason University Professor Richard Wagner has stated that the elimination of the estate tax would enhance the output of the country by $79.2 billion--I repeat, by $79.2 billion--and would create up to 228,000 jobs. Unfortunately, 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. The current system leads to the views of an Arizona citrus farmer who said of his family business, ``Instead of an inheritance, it's an albatross.'' We must insist that no more American families lose their businesses because of the estate tax. We must assure that when a family is coping with all the inevitable transition costs of passing a business from one generation to the next, the Federal Government is not there as an added burden. The working people of the United States deserve better. Until we accomplish total repeal, I will be working to reduce the burden of this tax. I believe the exemption should be dramatically increased and that the current 17 rates should be reduced to one low, flat rate. The estate tax should then be effectively abolished for family businesses and farms for as long as the assets remain in the family. No family business or farm should ever have to be liquidated just to pay the estate tax. I look forward to working with the Senate Finance Committee to reform this outdated and punitive tax system. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for 7 minutes under morning business, and following that, extend 10 minutes to my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, under morning business.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today, I would like to comment on this historic anniversary that we have reached. Today marks the 30th anniversary of the end of the Six-Day War, and the reunification of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. It is not only a landmark for the people of Israel, and for Jews around the world, but for people of all faiths and all nationalities. The 19 years that East Jerusalem was under the control of Jordan saw Jews and Israelis denied the chance to visit the holy sites in the eastern side. The dividing walls and the barbed wire have now come down. When Jerusalem was reunited, Israel opened the city up to all faiths, and that practice continues. Jews, Christians, and Muslims now mingle freely in the entire city. Reunification did come at a great cost--the price paid was the Six- Day War. Israel launched a preemptive strike against the Arab troops massed against her, and was successful. It ended the dividing of Jerusalem, but it did not end the gunfire. There is still turmoil in Israel. However, although the Mideast peace process is by no means over, we have perhaps reached a point, as described by Churchill, at the end of the beginning. The recognition and continuation of Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel is crucial to the ongoing peace process. The United States Congress has recognized this fact, and through a series of actions has sought to insure that an undivided Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel. Senate Concurrent Resolution 106, in 1990, declared that Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital and called for Israel and the Palestinians to undertake peace negotiations. This war later cited by Prime Minister Rabin as having helped bring participants of the Declaration of Principals on Interim Self- Government Arrangements to the negotiating table. In 1995, the Jerusalem Embassy Act stated as a matter of U.S. Policy that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital. We now celebrate the 30th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, and affirm our desire for that ancient city to remain reunited eternally. I ask, too, that Jerusalem eternally remain a symbol of freedom where all religions can share in visiting the holy city and be a model for religious tolerance and freedom throughout the globe.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to begin by congratulating the people of the Dakotas and Minnesota for their hard work and perserverance through this ordeal. Their resolve speaks volumes about the American spirit, and the American work ethic. I am also pleased with the work of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. These civil servants have helped those Americans affected by natural disasters through one of the worst times of their lives. But Mr. President, I am concerned with the way disaster relief has been handled by Congress and the President. What has come to be known as the disaster relief bill, is, in reality, nothing of the sort. Yes, there is disaster relief included in this bill, but there are a number of other provisions as well. Two of these provisions are well known to the American public, and they happen to be two provisions that I favor, and I believe a clear majority of Coloradans favor as well. The most important is the Government Shutdown Prevention Act also known as a continuing resolution. The Government Shutdown Prevention Act would allow the President and Congress to continue good faith budget negotiations without the specter of another Government shutdown. Without this, if the President and Congress cannot agree on funding levels by the end of the fiscal year, the Federal Government will shut down. If this happens, retirement checks, social security payments, Government contracts could all be delayed, national parks would be closed, veterans services would be suspended, and Federal employees would be sent home with pay, a waste of valuable tax dollars. The President objects to the inclusion of the Government Shutdown Prevention Act and vetoed disaster relief, holding those victims of natural disasters hostage, because he did not want to live up to the commitment he made during his State of the Union Address. Since the President has objected to riders unrelated to disaster aid, let's look at what is included in his idea of a clean bill minus what he considers to be unrelated riders. His version of a clean bill includes: Assistance to Ukraine; Language concerning buy-American products; $140 million for the Health Education Assistance Loans Program; $650,000 for the National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education to pay salaries and expenses; $33.5 million for the Botanic Garden to pay salaries and expenses; $1.6 million for the Coast Guard to cover operating expenses relating to the TWA flight 800 crash; $650,000 to implement the Cost of Higher Education Review Act of 1997; and changes to the Welfare Reform Act; And of most concern to me: $3.5 million for Housing and Urban Development implementation in New York; and $500,000 for a parking garage in Kentucky. Many of my colleagues have discussed these issues time and time again, and while many of these projects might be worthwhile, they have nothing to do with disaster relief. But the President overlooks each one of these, and finds fault in preventing the Government from shutting down. I ask the President to stop playing games with the American people by claiming that the Shutdown Prevention Act does not belong in a disaster relief bill when there are multiple unrelated riders, to which he does not object, included in the same bill. I am told that a clean disaster relief bill would be in the area of $3.3 billion. With or without the Shutdown Prevention Act, this is not a clean bill, let us stop playing political games with America. The President vetoed the bill because of extraneous provisions, mainly the Government Shutdown Prevention Act. Because this provision is not included, and because of the other provisions unrelated to disaster relief included, I must vote no. A clean bill would not have these additional provisions and I hope that my colleagues can agree that extraneous means extra, no matter whose projects they are. I yield my time.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for yielding. In my view, we have had a longstanding problem in the Congress with emergency appropriations, supplemental appropriations, or so-called disaster bills. The problem has been--and truly there has been a disaster such as in North Dakota and Minnesota with the Red River flooding, and that is legitimate. But then built on top of that is a lot of spending that has nothing to do with the emergency nature of this piece of legislation. I went on ahead and supported this supplemental appropriations bill even though I had some concerns about the amount of spending that was in the bill. In my view, the truly emergency provisions that are in there run in the dollar range from $2.5 to $4 billion. The bill is an $8.6 billion bill. The only thing that made me go ahead and support this particular piece of legislation is a provision in there that said that we would not shut down the Federal Government. I felt it was an appropriate bill. I did not particularly like all the spending that was in there, but I wanted to get something moving ahead so that we could take care of the needs of the people in North Dakota and Minnesota. Mr. President, I am disappointed that the President chose to put politics ahead of people. I kept this need to take care of those people in mind, even though I was not entirely happy with the bill. I am disappointed he took such a narrow view. By vetoing the 1997 supplemental appropriations and rescissions bill, he has actually delayed its progress after the Congress has moved ahead. This bill would have provided funding for future disaster relief needs and ensured that we would not face a disaster of another Government shutdown. Now, the majority was accused by the minority of being ``hard headed and cold hearted'' for not submitting the bill to the President sooner. I cannot imagine how outraged they must be now that the President has vetoed the bill. I hope that those who promised to tie up the Senate until this bill is passed are now willing to fight just as hard to override this veto, thereby providing funding for disaster relief and ensuring that there will not be another Government shutdown. Let's be clear, this bill is not about holding up money for the flood victims, as some have suggested. Flood victims are currently receiving disaster relief from FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. To date, FEMA has already allocated over $150 million to victims of the flood. Almost $40 million in housing assistance checks have been issued to more than 21,000 flood victims. In addition, the Small Business Administration has approved more than $75 million in disaster loans. In short, the flood victims are being cared for. This bill replenishes funds for FEMA and ensures stability for future disaster funding. Just as importantly, this bill is about preventing another disaster, the manmade disaster of a Government shutdown. This seems to be nothing more than a political move by the President designed to ensure that he can shut down the Government again, just as he did before when we were trying to balance the budget. This is the same strategy we have seen from the President before. He impedes, stalls, and ultimately vetoes any compromise we reach, playing political games with public safety, and the productivity of our Federal employees. He then tries to get political mileage out of it by blaming the majority in Congress. When an agreement is finally reached, I have no doubt he will take credit for that, too. I find it ironic that the President said during his State of the Union Address that the Federal Government should never be shut down again. Why, then, does he now veto a bill that does exactly that: Ensure that the Government won't be shut down again? The continuing resolution portion of this bill has ensured that Congress and the President will be allowed to continue budget negotiations in good faith without harming the taxpayers or Federal employees and their families. The President needs to put partisan politics aside and focus on what is good for our country. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, June 9, 1997, at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing on: ``Conserving Judicial Resources: considering the appropriate allocation of judgeships in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits.''

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, my understanding is that we are in morning business with up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon because I would like to talk a little bit about the relationship of the citizens of this country to their Government, in this particular case, to the Internal Revenue Service. There is a real burden on most enforcement agencies. When they accuse somebody of a crime, they have the burden of showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was actually committed by that particular individual. That type of burden doesn't exist with the Internal Revenue Service; for whatever reason, your name may come up for an audit, maybe because of some type of a filing that you did in your income tax form that sets off the computer alarms, whatever system that they have. That is one of the reasons why I am pushing legislation for a home office exemption. Many times, an audit by the Internal Revenue Service is an indication that you are using part of your home for business, and because of that, you are going to claim a deduction for part of the costs of your home because you are running your business out of that home. The Internal Revenue Service frequently approaches taxpayers and says, ``Look, we think there is a violation.'' The burden is upon that individual to prove they are innocent. So, obviously, the individuals have a great responsibility to keep good records and account for all their expenditures, and whatnot, so that they can justify whatever it is they are doing in the way of business which may allow them a tax deduction, for example. On the other hand, I think the agents for the Internal Revenue Service have a particularly awesome responsibility because of the added powers that we grant to them. I just share with this body that I have held more than 56 town meetings since the first of the year and have been very busy in talking to the people of Colorado--I represent the State of Colorado--and hearing about their concerns. It is not surprising that the most frequent issue that came up in the town meetings was related to taxes. People wanted capital gains reduction; they wanted inheritance tax reduction. But along with all this concern, they talked about their relationship with the Internal Revenue Service. A lot of them felt there was abuse of power by the Internal Revenue Service. There was a decision made last week by U.S. District Judge William Downes which I think highlights another case of taxpayer abuse by the Internal Revenue Service. Carole Ward was awarded $250,000 in punitive damages by the Federal Government from the Internal Revenue Service for wrongfully publicizing information about her. After auditing Ward's children's clothing stores--these were young adults, children who decided to go into business for themselves--after auditing the Ward's children's clothing stores, the Internal Revenue Service seized the stores and demanded $325,000 in back taxes. The Internal Revenue Service agents told passersby that Ward was involved in drug dealing. Judge Downes was very harsh on the Internal Revenue Service, saying, ``This court gives notice to the Internal Revenue Service that reprehensible abuse of authority by one of its employees cannot and will not be tolerated.'' He went on to describe the behavior of some Internal Revenue Service agents as grossly negligent and they acted with reckless disregard for a law meant to assure Americans that their tax matters are handled with confidentiality. While the vast majority of Internal Revenue Service agents and employees are dedicated public servants who work hard to serve the public, it only takes one incident such as this to continue the undermining of public confidence with the Internal Revenue Service. Now, Carole Ward had the courage to go into the public arena and fight the Internal Revenue Service, but many American taxpayers are intimidated from responding when the IRS abuses take place. I am hopeful that last week's Federal court decision will prompt the Internal Revenue Service to recommit itself to serving the public responsibly and to weed out those agents and employees who abuse their power. I hope they think about their relationship with the taxpayers, not one to make criminals out of taxpayer citizens in this country, but to assist them in filling out their forms and meeting the requirements of the law. Again, I encourage all employees of the Internal Revenue Service to look at their added responsibilities and their added responsibility in relation to dealing with the taxpayers and make sure that everybody pays their fair share of taxes and nothing more. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I commend the work of Federal District Court Judge Richard Matsch, the judge in the Oklahoma City bombing case tried in Denver, CO, as well as the prosecution team led by Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Hartzler. I do not want to do anything that might prejudice the legal process and sentencing phase of this trial. However, on behalf of all of Colorado, I would like to recognize the outstanding work done thus far. Prior to the trial, I took some time out and Judge Matsch took me through the Federal district court and explained to me the security measures that they had taken and explained to me how he wanted to proceed with the trial. I was very impressed with the forethought that had gone into making the proper setting for this very important trial in Denver, CO. I realize that the success of something like this is not one man. I realize that a lot of very dedicated people had a role in the progress of this particular trial. But I believe that Judge Matsch has distinguished himself as a jurist and deserves our praise for overseeing the proceedings in this very high-profile case which brought justice for the victims and survivors of the worst act of terrorism ever to hit U.S. soil. Confidence in our legal system has been renewed, thanks to the very tight ship run by Judge Matsch, who took a commonsense approach toward the courtroom. Judge Matsch appropriately protected the jurors in his courtroom from distraction and allowed the completely intact jury to reach a unanimous verdict in less than 6 weeks. Judge Matsch did a good job because he focused on what was important and not television reaction, prime-time interviews, or book deals. Instead, Judge Matsch focused on justice--justice for the victims of the bombing, justice for their survivors, and justice to the defendant. I hope that this commonsense approach is a model for future high- profile cases, and that Judge Matsch does an equally fine job during the sentencing portion of this trial. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, if the Senator from New Jersey will yield, I agree to a voice vote and ask for a voice vote.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the comments made on the floor about our economy and what happens if we go through an economic downturn. First of all, I think the biggest burden that the farmers and small businesspeople and the average American family has to deal with in today's world is this huge Federal debt that we are facing. When you look at the amount of interest that we are paying on that debt and the potential liability to the budget, I believe--and this is a fundamental difference being discussed here on the floor of the Senate--but I happen to believe that the most important thing we can do to help our economy, to help the farmers of this country, to help the small businesses and help the homeowner, to help the family businessperson, is to get that burden off their shoulders. If you are born today, you are born with a $20,000 debt which each individual in America burdens. How did we get to this point? We got to this point because of the very arguments we just heard on how we need to continue to spend more and more believing that it is going to help our economy. But inevitably we are going to have to pay the price. If we do not make the decisions today, the tough decisions today, we are going to have to make them tomorrow. If we do not make those tough decisions, then our children and grandchildren are going to have to pay the price. And I think that is unforgivable. I think it is morally wrong to pass those tough decisions off to the next generation. I happen to feel that this is an important amendment because it is holding the Congress accountable, both the House and the Senate. I am saying that if revenues do not measure up, we reduce spending. We have some flexibility in there to protect the most needed programs. I think it is a commonsense amendment. I think it holds true to the agreement generally and the fact that we will hold our priorities together that were agreed upon between the President and the Congress. I think it is a good amendment, and I ask for an aye vote.

Mr. ALLARD. How much time remains?

Mr. ALLARD. That will be fine.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield the floor, and if the Senator from New Mexico is willing to yield back his time, I will yield back my time.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I again compliment the chairman and ranking member. I know they have worked hard with the best figures they had. I come from a State, the State of Colorado, that has a balanced budget amendment. I have been involved in the legislative body in the State of Colorado when we went through good years and bad years. During those good years, you look back and you build your budget based on what you think is going to happen at some future point in time. The fact is, we do go through economic cycles, and despite the best of intentions and how valid our figures are today, those cycles are unpredictable. I think at one point in time we will have an economic downturn. This Congress needs to be prepared to address those unforeseen circumstances. The point of my amendment addresses when those unforeseen circumstances do happen, when revenues coming in do not meet what was forecast and we have a spending level up here and maybe the revenues are coming in lower than expected, we just bring down the spending level and say that we need to adjust our figures in the baseline so that our budget reflects the change in economic conditions in this country. I think it is a commonsense type of amendment, and I ask the Members of the Senate to vote yes on this amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I think it is important that we move toward our goal, that we continue to eliminate the deficit by 2002. The amendment that I am offering considers that if the revenues do not come in as projected, then there will be an automatic adjustment that would occur through the procedure set forth to hold down spending and keep the deficit from increasing. We all recognize that the economy goes through cycles. As a member of the House Budget Committee several years ago, I felt the figures coming out of the Congressional Budget Office, built on the first 2 or 3 years prior to that, were good numbers. But I have a feeling that we are reaching the top of our economic cycle and that at some point in time we will be forced to address the problem of not meeting our projected revenues. This amendment tries to address that problem. Today, the economy is strong. People have jobs and the stock market is surging. History tells us, however, that this is not always the case. Unfortunately, the budget resolution assumes economic growth over the next 5 years that is unmatched in this country's history. The Congressional Budget Office has provided Congress with a series of revised revenue forecasts, all pointing to future economic growth. In fact, balancing the budget is $629 billion easier now than last year at this time. If these revenues do not materialize, then all of our hard work will be lost to increasing deficits. I do not want this hard work to be lost. That is why I have introduced my amendment today. The concept behind my amendment is simple: Provide a means to reduce spending within this budget agreement if real revenues fall short of those projected. This amendment will decrease discretionary spending in proportion to the revenue shortfall. This would help ensure that the budget remains on the glidepath to balance by the year 2002. I am well aware of the historic nature of this agreement and would like to back the resolution with my undivided support, but I cannot mortgage the future of my children and grandchildren on Congressional Budget Office revenue forecasts. We should make sure that the document before us today has a mechanism to secure deficit forecasts. I do not believe that this change alters the intent of the agreement, but rather enhances its ability to react to changes in the economy, changes we may never see. But we cannot be shortsighted in this matter. If we are going to craft legislation to blueprint the next 5 years, let us be smart enough to realize that we cannot see into the future. Let us be smart enough to include language that allows this agreement to react to future changes. I believe we can and should do more. We should do more in the form of tax relief for the American family, more in the form of tax relief for the family farmer, more in the form of reducing waste and duplication within the Federal Government. But I also believe that we can do more in future budget debates. My amendment is not to serve as a protest, but rather a constructive improvement to a realistic budget compromise. I served on the Budget Committee in the other body and realize how difficult it was even to get to the point where we are today. But this cannot preclude us from holding true to our commitments. This amendment locks in nothing but our commitment to balance the budget. My greatest fear is that reduced future revenues will unravel this agreement, just as we have seen with similar resolutions in the past. This amendment allows for future economic changes and would only strengthen the budget resolution. The people of Colorado sent me to Washington to balance the budget and, in the process, make sure that any budget agreement keeps the Federal budget on a glidepath to balance. I ask that my colleagues hold true to balancing the budget and support this amendment. I yield my time.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I again thank the chairman of the Budget Committee and the ranking member of the Budget Committee for their hard work in putting together this agreement. I still have one overriding concern. I think there are a number of Members in the Senate that share my concern about what happens if the revenues we are projecting do not hold up over the years. Mr. President, I share the concern that as we move through our economic cycles, the projected revenues in this budget agreement may not hold up. So I think it is a very legitimate question for us to ask ourselves, what happens if the revenues do not hold up to this agreement? Potentially, we could find ourselves back at the negotiating table, working hard to reestablish those priorities set up in the original agreement because the revenues were falling short. Mr. President, I ask you bring the Senate to order.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I request order.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.