Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I yield the remainder of my time. Is there any reason to ask for the yeas and nays? Is the floor manager ready for the yeas and nays?

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I would like to begin by commending the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, in fact, the entire Budget Committee, Senator Lautenberg, the ranking member of the committee, for their hard work and diligence in crafting the budget resolution. While I am pleased that we have a budget resolution before the Senate, I believe that this document is not without faults and that improvements can be made. The people of Colorado elected me on the premise that I would utilize all the tools at my disposal to balance the budget. This is a promise that I made to my constituents and a commitment that I do not take lightly. In this light, I am pleased that the current budget debate is focused on not ``if'' we are going to balance the budget, but ``how'' are we going to balance the budget. I believe that this is in and of itself a moral victory for those of us who preach fiscal responsibility. Yet, we must now begin the process of balancing the budget by 2002. The framework provided within the budget resolution is an excellent starting point on which we can improve. The sense-of-the-Senate amendment talks about what we are going to be doing 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. I am a veterinarian. I am not an economist. But I do know that the document before us today must be able to account for a future that is not necessarily as rosy. On the sense-of-the-Senate resolution, we are talking about the years that are following after 2002. Let us say that we have eliminated the deficit. Then what is the next step in the Congress? We need to begin to address the problem of the debt. This amendment is a resolution that was adopted on the House side. It says that in order to continue to move forward on the fiscal soundness of this country, we need to begin to pay down the debt, and we do that by spending less than what we bring in in revenues. The amount that I suggested in the sense-of-the-Senate resolution is to spend 1 percent less than what comes in in revenues. For example, if we have 5 percent in revenue that comes in in any one of the years, then we would spend out 4 percent. One percent would be moved toward paying down the debt. If the Congress, both the House and the Senate, will commit themselves to this type of plan to pay down the debt, we can balance the budget and pay down the debt by the year 2023. The debate so far in both the House and the Senate has been concerning deficits that have been accumulating, and now we must move toward paying those down. I am comfortable that the direction of deficit spending is moving down. But once we eliminate deficit spending, then I think we have to begin to look at paying down the debt. The debt is reflected in this budget by the interest that we are paying on the debt, which is running somewhere around $245 billion a year, about 15 percent of our total budget. That is almost as much as what we pay for defense. So we put ourselves at considerable liability as we move through the years after 2002 because we do not know what the interest rates are going to be. We do not know whether they are going to be 2 percent, or 6 percent, and heaven forbid if they ever get into the double-digit inflation rates and interest rates that we had in the late 1970's. The purpose of this amendment is to begin to pay down that total debt so we don't have that unknown liability that this country will be facing year after year. The sense-of-the-Senate resolution is to point out to the Senate that there is a potential problem. So I am asking that this amendment be adopted so that we can begin considering a plan that says that we will begin paying down the debt by spending 1 percent per year less than comes in in revenues, which would eliminate our debt around the year 2023, which would indeed put this country on a very sound fiscal and financial basis. I yield the floor. Mr. SMITH of Oregon addressed the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. ALLARD. I do have an amendment at the desk, but I understand that Senator Dodd is going to offer an amendment before me.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the Mesa Monument Striders have held a road race inside the beautiful landscape of Colorado National Monument since 1993. Over the past 4 years, participation in the race has soared. This year, 250 Rim Rock Run participants will be shut out of the park in an effort by the National Park Service to snuff out a Colorado legacy. Yesterday, Deputy Regional Director, Robert Reynolds, upheld the ruling of the park's superintendent to prohibit the race--all in the name of traffic congestion. But this is a 2 hour race held on an early Sunday morning in November. This is a slap in the face to the State of Colorado and the spirit of recreation which national parks were established for. I have watched the culmination of this dispute evolve from an irrational rejection of a race permit to a national dispute over the unjustified actions of a bureaucracy that refuses to listen to the voice of the people. The people of western Colorado have bent over backwards to reach a compromise with the park's superintendent. Countless meetings have been held offering rescheduled times and dates or proposals to scale down the size of the race. The sheriff's department has committed their entire force to the security and coordination of the run. The local paper has arranged for a shuttle service to alleviate traffic inconveniences. It is clear to me that no amount of effort to compromise will sway the park service's decision to forbid the race. Well, I will not stand for this decision. I am requesting to meet with the acting director of the Park Service to demand a justification for this ludicrous ruling. Next month, this same Park Service is sponsoring the closure of a 13 mile stretch of George Washington Parkway for a road race right here in our Nation's Capital. This might inconvenience a few thousand drivers, but I don't see any Park Service officials challenging the legitimacy of this popular race. If this is the precedent we want to set for holding an event in a national park, then let's just call off the hundreds of events already planned this year in all national parks. This controversy is only the latest example of public land managers consistently trying to restrict public access to lands which were set aside for the public to use and enjoy. It is not an isolated case. I am convinced that this fight in Colorado is only symptomatic of a much larger problem. This is not finished. I will continue to fight this outrageous ruling until someone listens. Closing a national monument road for a few hours to accommodate a simple 23-mile road race should not provoke this kind of controversy. Yet, the Park Service seems determined to continue the controversy by ignoring the runners, the local paper and the community. When will our National Park Service understand that they need to work with the people and not ignore them, especially when we have a community that is willing to do its fair share? I yield back the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chair. I rise in support of H.R. 1122, otherwise referred to as the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997. As we have just heard from the previous comments, there are strongly held views on both sides of the abortion issue. I see this every day in my discussions with Coloradans, and I realize that this debate will continue for a long time. The people of my home State of Colorado know that personally I am pro-life and as a State Senator I had a strong pro-life voting record. I maintained that strong stance in my 6 years in the House of Representatives, and I intend to continue to vote my conscience on the issue of abortion during my tenure in the Senate. But what we have before us today is not an issue that breaks down between the pro-choice camp versus the pro-life camp. Even people in the pro- choice camp believe that there are certain reasonable restrictions that should be placed on abortion. A good example is the restriction that we place on public funding of abortions. Each year pro-life people come together with pro-choice individuals to include the Hyde amendment language in the Labor, HHS appropriations bill so that Medicaid money will not be used to fund abortions. Partial-birth abortions should be viewed in a similar light to the public funding issue. Mr. President, in my comments I have just used the term partial-birth abortion, and I refer to the bill itself to see how ``partial-birth abortion'' is defined in the bill. It is defined in this section, and I quote: The term ``partial-birth abortion'' means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers-- In other words, the baby is in the birth canal-- a living fetus or baby before killing the fetus and completing the delivery. So this is a procedure where the baby is in the birth canal and then whoever is doing the procedure kills the baby and then finishes the delivery. Many pro-choice people agree that the partial-birth abortion procedure should be banned, and a general consensus seems to be forming that this is a brutal procedure which should not be tolerated in a civilized society. The reason for this apparent consensus is that it is a medically unnecessary, barbaric procedure. In fact, the front page of today's Washington Times notes that the American Medical Association's board of trustees has determined that there are no situations in which a partial-birth abortion is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion--the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion. It seems likely that President Clinton will bow to political pressures from the extremes in the pro-choice camp and veto this bill. The House passed this bill H.R. 1122 by a veto-proof margin of 295 to 136. In the Senate we will likely need 67 votes in order to ban this procedure. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation so that we can ban this brutal procedure. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am proud to announce on behalf of the State of Colorado that today the Senate will have the opportunity to approve House Resolution 25 to allow the placement of the statue of Jack Swigert in National Statuary Hall. Coloradans chose astronaut Jack Swigert as the second State statue to be placed in the U.S. Capitol. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982 representing the Sixth Congressional District. Unfortunately, his successful campaign was beset by his battle with bone-marrow cancer. The cancer spread quickly but he insisted on traveling from Colorado to Washington despite his failing health. The Representative-elect died only days before the swearing in ceremony. Mr. Swigert is well known as one of the astronauts on the famous Apollo 13 mission. The details of the mission are familiar to many; the suspenseful story of the astronauts' journey was recently depicted in a major movie. The ship and crew of Apollo suffered several complications and disasters, including an oxygen tank explosion that threatened the lives of the crew. It was the relentless determination and competence demonstrated by Jack Swigert and the other crew members that made it possible for the return of the spacecraft to Earth. Jack Swigert was born in Denver. He began flying while he was in high school and dedicated himself to becoming a pilot. After graduating from the University of Colorado at Boulder he joined the Air Force and served as a pilot during the Korean war. His strong desire to become an astronaut inspired him to return to school after twice being rejected by NASA's space program. He was admitted to the program at NASA on his third try. The statue of Jack Swigert will join the statue commemorating Colorado native Dr. Florence Rena Sabin. Dr. Sabin broke many barriers for women in the field of medicine. She entered medical school in 1893 and pursued a career in medical teaching and research. At a time when women were not considered eligible for the medical teaching profession, she became the first woman to attain the position of full professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. She also was the first woman to be invited to join the Rockefeller Institute. Upon returning to Colorado, Dr. Sabin was appointed to a subcommittee on public health and helped to draft legislation reorganizing the State health department. At the age of 76, Dr. Sabin took on the duties of manager of the Department of Health and Welfare of Denver and continued to implement public health legislation. The passage of House Concurrent Resolution 25 will mark the triumphant end to a 10-year effort to honor Mr. Swigert. The striking statue, which was cast by the Lundeen brothers in my hometown of Loveland, CO, will be provided entirely by private funding. Jack Swigert's close friends remember him for his humbling tenacity and courage. I remain in awe of his achievements and spirit, and I am pleased that this statue will join Dr. Sabin in representing the State of Colorado to everyone who visits the Capitol.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 25, which was received from the House.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H. Con. Res. 25 be agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to fully restore the home office tax deduction. This legislation is necessary because a recent Supreme Court decision and subsequent IRS regulations have made it impossible for many small business entrepreneurs to use the home office tax deduction. During my service in the House of Representatives I introduced this legislation in both the 103d and 104th Congresses. We made great progress in the 104th, and even included a full home office tax deduction in the Contract With America tax legislation. Unfortunately, that tax legislation was vetoed. However, by the end of the last Congress we were able to reach agreement with the President on a number of small business tax changes, and among them was a restoration of the tax deduction for home space used for the storage of product samples. This year we should finish the job and restore the full home office tax deduction. Increasingly, it is the little guy who gets squeezed by the tax system. While large corporations can rent space and deduct office and virtually all other expenses, many taxpayers who work out of their home are no longer able to deduct their office expenses. Traditionally, the Tax Code has permitted individuals who operate businesses within their homes to deduct a portion of the expenses related to that home. However, over the past 20 years Congress, the courts, and the IRS have reduced the scope and usefulness of the deduction. The most serious blow came in 1993 when the Supreme Court's ruling in the Soliman decision effectively eliminated the home office deduction for most taxpayers. Under the Supreme Court's new interpretation of ``principal place of business'' a taxpayer who maintains a home office, but also performs important business related work outside the home is not likely to pass IRS scrutiny. This change effectively denies the deduction to taxpayers who work out of their home but also spend time on the road. Those impacted include sales representatives, caterers, teachers, computer repairers, doctors, veterinarians, house painters, consultants, personal trainers, and many more. Even though these taxpayers may have no office other than their home, the work they perform will often deny them a deduction. According to the IRS, 1.6 million taxpayers claimed a home office tax deduction in 1991. While not all of these taxpayers were affected by the Court's decision, many were. Clearly, any taxpayers who operate a business out of their home must review their tax situation. There are many reasons why a broad home office tax deduction is important. The deduction is pro-family. It helps taxpayers pursue careers that enable them to spend more time with their children. The deduction helps cut down on commuting and saves energy. The deduction recognizes the advances of technology--computer and telecommunciations advances mean that more and more individuals will be able to work for themselves and maintain a home office. The deduction is a boost to women and minorities who are increasingly starting their own businesses. In fact, over 32 percent of all proprietorships are now owned by women entrepreneurs, and Commerce Department data reveal that 55 percent of these women business owners operate their firms from their home. In addition, there are now well over 1 million minority-owned small businesses and a good number of these are operated out of the home. Finally, the home office tax deduction helps our economy. It benefits small businesses and entrepeneurs who develop new ideas, and create jobs. Many of America's most important businesses originated out of a home. Small business is increasingly the engine which drives our economy. With large firms downsizing, entrepeneurs must pick up the slack. The importance of this trend is demonstrated by the job shift that occurred during the slow recovery from the most recent recession. During the period of October 1991 to September 1992 large businesses cut 400,000 jobs while small business created 178,000 new jobs. During the boom years of the 1980's, the vast majority of the 20 million new jobs created were in the small business sector. It is critical that recent assaults on the home office tax deduction be reversed. That is why I plan to work hard to see that this change in law is enacted as soon as possible.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to fully restore the home office tax deduction. This legislation is necessary because a recent Supreme Court decision and subsequent IRS regulations have made it impossible for many small business entrepreneurs to use the home office tax deduction. During my service in the House of Representatives I introduced this legislation in both the 103d and 104th Congresses. We made great progress in the 104th, and even included a full home office tax deduction in the Contract With America tax legislation. Unfortunately, that tax legislation was vetoed. However, by the end of the last Congress we were able to reach agreement with the President on a number of small business tax changes, and among them was a restoration of the tax deduction for home space used for the storage of product samples. This year we should finish the job and restore the full home office tax deduction. Increasingly, it is the little guy who gets squeezed by the tax system. While large corporations can rent space and deduct office and virtually all other expenses, many taxpayers who work out of their home are no longer able to deduct their office expenses. Traditionally, the Tax Code has permitted individuals who operate businesses within their homes to deduct a portion of the expenses related to that home. However, over the past 20 years Congress, the courts, and the IRS have reduced the scope and usefulness of the deduction. The most serious blow came in 1993 when the Supreme Court's ruling in the Soliman decision effectively eliminated the home office deduction for most taxpayers. Under the Supreme Court's new interpretation of ``principal place of business'' a taxpayer who maintains a home office, but also performs important business related work outside the home is not likely to pass IRS scrutiny. This change effectively denies the deduction to taxpayers who work out of their home but also spend time on the road. Those impacted include sales representatives, caterers, teachers, computer repairers, doctors, veterinarians, house painters, consultants, personal trainers, and many more. Even though these taxpayers may have no office other than their home, the work they perform will often deny them a deduction. According to the IRS, 1.6 million taxpayers claimed a home office tax deduction in 1991. While not all of these taxpayers were affected by the Court's decision, many were. Clearly, any taxpayers who operate a business out of their home must review their tax situation. There are many reasons why a broad home office tax deduction is important. The deduction is pro-family. It helps taxpayers pursue careers that enable them to spend more time with their children. The deduction helps cut down on commuting and saves energy. The deduction recognizes the advances of technology--computer and telecommunciations advances mean that more and more individuals will be able to work for themselves and maintain a home office. The deduction is a boost to women and minorities who are increasingly starting their own businesses. In fact, over 32 percent of all proprietorships are now owned by women entrepreneurs, and Commerce Department data reveal that 55 percent of these women business owners operate their firms from their home. In addition, there are now well over 1 million minority-owned small businesses and a good number of these are operated out of the home. Finally, the home office tax deduction helps our economy. It benefits small businesses and entrepeneurs who develop new ideas, and create jobs. Many of America's most important businesses originated out of a home. Small business is increasingly the engine which drives our economy. With large firms downsizing, entrepeneurs must pick up the slack. The importance of this trend is demonstrated by the job shift that occurred during the slow recovery from the most recent recession. During the period of October 1991 to September 1992 large businesses cut 400,000 jobs while small business created 178,000 new jobs. During the boom years of the 1980's, the vast majority of the 20 million new jobs created were in the small business sector. It is critical that recent assaults on the home office tax deduction be reversed. That is why I plan to work hard to see that this change in law is enacted as soon as possible.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a line-item veto constitutional amendment. This action is particularly timely in light of the decision by a Federal district court judge which declared the recently enacted statutory line-item veto, or more accurately, enhanced rescission authority, to be unconstitutional. This judge's decision may be overturned, or Congress may be able to modify the language in a way that satisfies the courts. Baring either of these, a line-item veto can only be provided by amending the Constitution. Fortunately, Congress provided for expedited judicial review of the constitutionality of the 1996 Line Item Veto legislation, and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in the case next month, and to render a decision by July. Prior to my election to the Senate I served in the House of Representatives. In that body I introduced a constitutional line-item veto on several occasions. This was motivated by my view that the greatest threat to our economy is the continued deficits which Congress piles on top of the accumulated $5.3 trillion national debt. Obviously, the budget system that we have in place is not working. We need a balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto. Last year, Congress gave the President what is generally referred to as expanded rescission authority. The Republican Congress committed to give this authority to whoever was elected President in 1996, Democrat or Republican. It was immaterial to us, our objective was to provide a bi-partisan tool to help eliminate wasteful spending beginning on January 1, 1997. Last year's legislation was an expansion of the very limited rescission authority granted to the President in 1974 under the Impoundment Control Act. Under that earlier statute, the President could indicate items in the budget that he wanted to rescind, but he was required to obtain the support of both Houses of Congress in order for the rescission to actually be enacted. The budget history of the past two decades demonstrates better than I could why this is akin to the fox guarding the henhouse. The Line-Item Veto Act reversed this burden and required the Congress to disapprove any rescissions identified by the President within 30 days. If this deadline was not met, then the item was eliminated. This new authority permitted three types of rescissions. First, discretionary appropriations could be rescinded. Discretionary spending is about one-third of the budget and is where most of what is considered pork barrel spending occurs. Second, the law permitted the rescission of any new item of entitlement spending. While currently existing entitlements would be exempt, any new item could be stricken--entitlements constitute the remaining two-thirds of the budget and is certainly the fastest growing portion of the budget. Finally, certain limited tax benefits could be rescinded. These limited tax provisions were generally defined as provisions that provided a federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to 100 or fewer beneficiaries. The judge who ruled the line item veto statute unconstitutional focused on the fact that the cancellation or rescission authority under the statue exists only after the President signs a bill. He has up to 5 days after signature to identify these rescissions. The judge concluded that this was an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional power. I find this reasoning puzzling since the statute was crafted in a manner that Congress believed to be consistent with past Supreme Court decisions concerning Congressional delegation of authority. The statute also provides nearly identical authority to the impoundment authority held by all Presidents from George Washington up through 1974 when Congress voted to deny this authority to future presidents. Obviously, we will hear the final word on this in July. One thing however, is certain. The authority given to the President last year was different from that authority held by 43 state governors. In the states the governor has the explicit authority to line item veto provisions in a bill as part of the actual bill-signing process. I believe it is time that we take the approach of the states. In order to do this we must enact a Constitutional Amendment. Under article I, section 7 of the Constitution, the President's veto authority has been interpreted to mean that he must sign or veto an entire piece of legislation--he cannot pick and choose. This language reads: ``Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, . . .'' this section then proceeds to outline the procedures by which Congress may override this veto with a two-thirds vote of both houses. The amendment that I am introducing today amends this language as it pertains to appropriations bills. It specifically provides that the President shall have the power to disapprove any appropriation of an appropriations bill at the time the President approves the bill. This change will make explicit that the President is no longer confined to either vetoing or signing an entire bill, but that he may choose to single out certain appropriations for veto and still sign a portion of the bill. I noted earlier that 43 state governors have some type of line item veto. This is consistent with the approach taken in most state constitutions of providing a greater level of detail concerning the budget process than is contained in the U.S. Constitution. In my view, the line item veto has been an important factor in the more responsible budgeting that occurs at the state level. Colorado is one of the states that gives line item veto authority to the governor. That power, along with a balanced budget requirement in the state constitution, has worked well and insured that Colorado has been governed in a fiscally responsible manner regardless of who served in the legislature or in the governor's office. Mr. President, I look forward to further discussion on this important issue. I realize that the Supreme Court may overturn the lower court decision and declare the line item veto statute constitutional. However, in my mind, this is no substitute for moving ahead on a constitutional amendment. It is time to eliminate the uncertainly, and provide for explicit line item veto authority for the President.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for yielding to me. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the motion to strike condition 33, relating to effective verification. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I believe I have a responsibility to ensure that this treaty can be effectively verified by the intelligence community. If the CWC cannot be verified to ensure that it will, in fact, eliminate the scourge of chemical weapons, then what is the point of ratifying it? In fact, the CWC may well make things worse, not better, Some signatory countries like China and Iran will use the technology-sharing provisions of titles X and XI, combined with the cloak of international respectability they gain by joining the CWC, to advance their CW programs and exports. Condition 33 of the resolution of ratification seeks to address the verifiability problem, by requiring the President to certify to the Congress that the CWC is effectively verifiable before submitting the U.S. instrument of ratification. Mr. President, we have all heard what the intelligence community said about the verifiability of the CWC in its National Intelligence Estimate of August 1993, but I think this judgment is worth repeating: The capability of the Intelligence Community to monitor compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is severely limited and likely to remain so for the rest of this decade. If that judgment has changed, the President should be able to provide the necessary certification. But as we well know, and as the Acting Director of the CIA George Tenet has confirmed on several occasions, that judgment has not changed. With all the assets at our disposal, the intelligence community still cannot verify compliance with this treaty. The Senate has already discussed the classified aspects of our intelligence and verification capabilities in considerable detail in closed session, and I cannot add anything to that debate now. What I would like to do, is provide an example of the way in which a determined proliferator can evade, and deflect, what is perhaps the most extensive scrutiny ever imposed on an unoccupied nation in peacetime. I am referring, of course, to Iraq. Iraq is exhibit A for a number of propositions. First, Iraq is the very model of a rogue state. It is a country that has not only developed chemical and biological weapons [CBW], and come within a hair's breadth of producing a nuclear device, but has actually used chemical weapons against Iran, and against its own citizens. Second, as a nonsignatory to the CWC, Iraq is an example of those countries that will not be constrained by the CWC, and will proceed apace with the production of chemical weapons. Third, and this is the point I wish to focus on, Iraq is the most current example of the effectiveness--or the lack thereof--of even the most intrusive international monitoring. Treaty supporters point to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons [OPCW]--and especially the ability of OPCW inspectors to carry out challenger inspections of suspected violations--as a means of effective verification. Yet the intelligence community concludes, in an unclassified excerpt from the 1993 NIE, that: The key provision of the monitoring regime--challenge inspections at undeclared sites--can be thwarted by a nation determined to preserve a small, secret program by using the delays and managed access rules allowed by the convention. Acting CIA Director Tenet reiterated that judgment in a letter to Senator Kyl, dated March 26, 1997. In the 6 years since the end of the Persian Gulf war, weapons inspectors from the U.N. Special Commission [UNSCOM] have combed Iraq in search of nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile production and storage sites--inspectors armed with powers far greater than those of OPCW inspectors, I might add. Despite this extraordinary level of scrutiny, Iraq is believed to retain: chemical weapon precursors and production equipment, and possibly large quantities of deadly VX agent and munitions; BW cultures, production equipment, agent and weapons. These stocks can be used to create a large stockpile in a matter of days; and an operational SCUD missile capability, including support vehicles, launchers, fuel, operational missiles, and, most alarming of all, possible chemical or biological warheads. Last, Iraq retains nuclear weapons blueprints, machine-tools, and know-how; is believed to be continuing its nuclear weapons design work; and probably has the ability to create a nuclear weapon--if it obtains fissile materials--with very little warning. Mr. President, I am not reciting this information in order to criticize UNSCOM. I commend Ambassador Rolf Ekeus, and the dedicated UNSCOM inspectors, for their persistence in the face of determined Iraqi resistance and intimidation. But if these are the results of 6 years of international monitoring of Iraq--a pariah country, defeated in war, and subjected to massive invasions of its national sovereignty--then I wonder what the OPCW inspectors, with their far more limited powers, can realistically hope to accomplish in other countries? As a final note, I should remind my colleagues that before the gulf war, Iraq was a member in good standing of the International Atomic Energy Commission, or IAEA, subject to all the usual IAEA inspections and safeguards. Yet Saddam Hussein was within months of having a nuclear weapons capability on August 2, 1990, when he invaded Kuwait. Had Saddam waited until he had a nuclear device, Kuwait might yet be the 19th province of Iraq--and tens of thousands of people, including thousands of American soldiers, might have died. Mr. President, I believe that our experience with Iraq demonstrates the intractable problems posed by the verification of the CWC. Supporters of the treaty say, ``But we have learned from our experience with Iraq, and we will do better next time.'' I cannot join them in that optimistic conclusion. If the President of the United States cannot certify that this treaty can be effectively verified, as defined in condition 33, then the Senate should not ratify this treaty. I oppose the motion to strike condition 33.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I rise as a cosponsor and supporter of S. 495, The Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat Reduction Act of 1997. This bill will truly provide the United States the tools it needs and deserves from chemical and biological weapons. It is a comprehensive domestic and international plan to reduce the threat of chemical and biological weapons use, setting forth practical, realistic, and achievable nonproliferation measures to combat the very real dangers posed by these weapons. Because of the horrible nature of these weapons, the United States has dismantled its biological weapons program and is now unilaterally destroying its entire stockpile of chemical weapons. This bill reinforces our commitment to finish the job. S. 495 contains many provisions that will improve our ability to protect our citizens and military against these deadly weapons. The bill imposes criminal, as well as civil, penalties for the development, production, stockpiling, and transfer of chemical and biological weapons. Penalties range from civil action of up to $100,000 per violation to the death penalty on individuals who use chemical weapons which cause death to another. Also, the export privileges of violators can be revoked as well. And, it preserves the system of multilateral export controls on biological and chemical materials and technologies, better known as the Australia group. For our Armed Services, it strengthens U.S. biological and chemical defense programs and it preserves the military's ability to use riot control agents, such as tear gas. It also requires the President to review the policy of negative security assurance to widen U.S. options to respond with nuclear weapons against such an attack by a nonnuclear weapons state. For foreign countries who use biological or chemical weapons in war or against its own citizens, mandatory 3-year sanctions are imposed as listed in the bill. Plus, it calls an international conference to strengthen the existing 1925 Geneva Protocol. Lastly, it requires Russian cooperation in disarmament of CW/BW weapons in return for continued U.S. assistance for dismantling these weapons of mass destruction. This applies only to CW/BW destruction and not to any other Russian assistance, such as the Nunn-Lugar programs. I hope all my colleagues support S. 495. It toughens our domestic laws on those who use these weapons. For all the talk about chemical weapons, little has been done domestically to punish users of these horrible weapons. This bill will do just that. Support this bill and let's make it known that we will not tolerate the use of these weapons against American citizens or any other people.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will reform the relationship between central cities and their outlying areas in terms of distribution of highway funds. This issue was brought to my attention by one county in my State and they were quickly joined by several others who feel they have been treated unfairly in their MPO. The current law governing MPO's is the 1991 Intermodal Service Transportation and Efficiency Act. This legislation established the planning powers of MPO's and also set standards for membership and qualifications for leaving MPO's. A number of counties in my State have indicated they are unhappy in their particular MPO and would like to leave. However, current law prohibits this. One case in particular that has been brought to my attention is Douglas County's experience since 1991. Douglas County is directly south of Denver and is the fastest growing county in the Nation. Furthermore, they are a linkage county connecting Denver and Colorado Springs, which makes Douglas County's transportation needs tremendous. To meet these needs they have attempted to work with their MPO to receive an equitable share of funds. Douglas County has demonstrated that these attempts have failed, while they are 5.27 percent of their MPO, over the years their funding has been .35 percent for the fiscal year 1993-1995 cycle, 1.2 percent for the fiscal year 1995-1997 cycle, and .4 percent of the fiscal year 1997-1999 cycle. Clearly, there is a problem with how these funds are being distributed. This issue cannot be dismissed as a one county problem either. In the Denver regional county of governments MPO [DRCOG], with the exception of Denver County, I have received letters from every county supporting the legislation I am introducing today. This legislation would lower the barrier for disaffected parties that would like to create their own MPO or join an adjacent MPO. This legislation eliminates the 75 percent of the effected population threshold to leave necessary in current law, and lowers that to 50 percent. Furthermore, it would eliminate the central city veto authority. This legislation will have no effect on those who are content with their MPO. Nor will this legislation have any impact on central cities that have worked with their MPO members equitably. It will only impact those areas where counties are being held in a relationship they feel is unfair. It's my hope that in future deliberations on transportation matters we can address and resolve this issue.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few remarks concerning April 15. That is today. As all Americans are no doubt aware, today is tax day. Millions of Americans spent this past weekend finalizing their returns. Today those returns are due. However, while the returns and taxes are due today, the tax burden continues. According to the Tax Foundation, the average American family now must work until May 9 in order to pay local, State, and Federal taxes. April 15 may be tax return day, but May 9 is tax freedom day. The Tax Foundation also reports that Federal, State, and local taxes now cost a typical two-earner family more than that family spends on food, clothing, transportation, and housing combined. It is no wonder that most families require more than one income. As families work through their tax returns, many were no doubt struck by the complexity of the tax system. Earlier this year, Money magazine revealed the results of its annual report on tax complexity. The magazine commissioned 45 tax professionals, many of them CPA's, to complete the tax return of a hypothetical and prosperous American family. While this hypothetical family certainly had more tax issues to deal with than the typical family, the issues raised were not unique and should have been very familiar to tax professionals. The results reported in the Money article were astounding. No two preparers came up with the same result, and the fluctuation in the level of the taxes was striking. There were literally tens of thousands of dollars of differences between the calculations of some of the preparers. Nearly $14 billion is spent by the Internal Revenue Service and other Federal agencies to enforce the tax laws each year. There are 136,000 employees of the Internal Revenue Service. There are 17,000 pages of Internal Revenue Service laws. There are 480 tax forms published by the Internal Revenue Service, and there are an estimated 8 billion pages of forms and instructions sent out by the Internal Revenue Service every year. I think these statistics make the case for tax reform. There are certainly a number of reforms that need to be made at the Internal Revenue Service. However, Congress is the principal entity responsible for the Tax Code. Congress should scrap the current tax system and start fresh with a simple and fair system. I support taking this action now. However, if our leadership determines we cannot reach agreement with the President on comprehensive tax reform, then we should at a minimum reduce taxes this year. This should be done by a reduction in the capital gains tax by at least half the current rate for all individuals, eliminate the estate taxes, and a reduction in the family tax burden. This action should be done as a part of the budget and should not be delayed. Before I close, I would like to mention a necessary tax change in health care. This concerns medical savings accounts. Last year, Congress made the tax changes necessary to make medical savings accounts available for up to 750,000 individuals. Medical savings accounts allow companies to give the funds currently set aside for health benefits directly to their employees. These employees are then empowered to purchase their own health plans and set aside funds for future medical expenses. MSA's, or medical savings accounts, are an important counterweight to Government and health care bureaucracies. They put greater power in the hands of individuals and families. The changes made last year have proven popular and demand for medical savings accounts is high. But even before Congress provided the full deductibility for MSA's, many employers offered them successfully for years. Last year, I opposed the artificial cap on medical savings accounts, and today I am introducing legislation that would make medical savings accounts available to all taxpayers. This will foster the type of empowerment and competition that we need in health care. It will also increase health care coverage for the self-employed and, thus, those in transition from one job to another. Medical savings accounts are the ultimate form of health care portability. Medical savings accounts provide a superior alternative to a further expansion of Government-run health care. Americans want health care choice and competition, not more bureaucracy. I invite all my Senate colleagues to cosponsor this MSA extension legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing, The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Amendments Act of 1997. This legislation, if enacted, would change who controls the bulk of the money from the trust fund, and the purposes for which the money can be spent. The legislation is simple, it mandates that 85 percent of the money in the trust fund must be allocated to the States. It's my view that since the States are responsible for the bulk of underground storage tank enforcement and cleanup, they should have greater control over the dollars. This legislation also broadens the purposes for which trust fund dollars can be spent. Under this legislation States would have the authority to use the funds to meet the greater demand for cleanup. There has been some concern expressed about how trust fund money has been targeted up to this point. For example, since inception of the program only 1 percent of the money has been used for actual cleanup of orphan tanks. The other 99 percent has gone to administration and enforcement. I think there should be some discussion on whether this money can be spent with greater environmental benefit. Instead of targeting 99 percent to administration and enforcement, perhaps it would be a better idea to help owners and operators who need financial assistance to handle their problem. Since the money for assistance would come from a dedicated tax, and not the general fund, why not get as big an environmental bang for the buck as possible. By taking this action we may also be able to have more appropriated out of the trust fund every year. As some may be aware, only a small portion of the $1.5 billion in the trust fund is appropriated every year. If we can show that the money being appropriated is directly cleaning up tanks, we can certainly make a better claim for those dollars. Finally, I understand that EPA and some Members have concerns with this legislation. I think that working with Chairman Smith and Chairman Chafee, and their staffs, we can craft legislation that will be signed into law.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would provide for a land exchange between the city of Greeley, the Water Supply and Storage Co., and the Forest Service. This legislation was introduced last year and was passed by the House of Representatives as part of the Presidio package. It's my hope that we can pass this legislation and have it signed into law before the session ends. The city of Greeley and Water Supply and Storage operate eight reservoirs in the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest. Because of the location of the reservoirs they are operated under Forest Service supervision. This supervision has at times been controversial due to disputes concerning whether being located on Forest Service property allows them to divert water in the national forest for purposes other than the benefit of the owners. The legislation I am introducing would benefit Greeley and Water Supply and Storage by allowing them to protect these significant investments. As an additional benefit this legislation would put an end to a bitter dispute between Greeley and the Forest Service. The national forest would also greatly benefit from this legislation. It would receive 708 acres of inholdings within the forest and the wilderness area. This land has been sought by the Forest Service for some time and this exchange would finally allow them to consolidate valuable resources in Colorado. I offered this same bill last year when I was in the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, it was caught up in election year politics, specifically, my election. This year I want to put that behind, and work toward passing this legislation as negotiated over the past several years with Greeley, and with Water Supply and Storage, and with the Forest Service. I believe that as introduced this legislation strikes a balance between protecting the rights of my constituents in Greeley and Thornton and protecting the environment. As currently drafted, Greeley and Thornton have not only agreed to transfer their inholdings, they have also agreed to continue to participate in negotiations with a variety of governmental organizations and environmental groups to designate habitat for the whooping crane. Furthermore, they have agreed to an improved stream flow in the Poudre River as a condition of the exchange and since many westerners would rather part with blood than water, I think they've gone the extra mile. This legislation is win/win for all involved. We should put all the politics behind us, pass the legislation, and move on to matters that are less easily resolved.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended for an additional 30 minutes.

Mr. ALLARD. That is fine. I requested 30 minutes, so that 15 minutes would be allocated to myself and 15 minutes allocated to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, during my campaign for the U.S. Senate, I expressed the themes of balancing the budget, congressional reform, making Government smaller, and moving the power out of Washington and to the States and localities. This is why I am proud to introduce Senate bill 519, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation Termination Act, better known as the OPIC Termination Act. As a Member of the other body during the 104th Congress, I voted to reform the welfare system of this country. I voted to end the subsidies for farmers. And now I believe it is time to end this form of corporate welfare for large companies. I have never believed in give-away programs. Whether you are a farmer or a large corporate owner, you should play by the rules of the free market system. ``Less Government'' should be the motto of this Congress. OPIC is a Government agency which was established in 1969 and is now active in 144 countries. It finances investments for American Fortune 500 companies through direct loans, subsidized loan programs, and insures them against political risk, expropriation and political violence. It entices companies to enter into risky transactions from which private lenders shy away. This private activity may seem to have a good end goal, but the problem is not the end but the means. Basically, this is an insurance program run by the Federal Government for corporations who want to invest in risky political situations. In short, we are running an insurance program for major corporations. What makes this even more problematic is that OPIC does not back this investment with their own finances, but with the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government--in its simplest terms, the U.S. taxpayer. Every loan and loan guarantee that OPIC finances puts the U.S. taxpayer at risk. Today, nearly $25 billion is being risked in the name of the taxpayers of these corporate OPIC loans. Compounding the situation is that these loans and loan guarantees are not safe investments. The Congressional Budget Office supplied a list of the quality of the portfolio at the end of the year, 1995. OPIC has consistently taken risks in operations that are defined with the D- minus credit rating and even an F-double-negative credit rating. As a member of the Banking Committee, I can assure you that if the U.S. taxpayer goes into a bank to get a loan to buy a house and they have an F-double-negative credit rating, the bank will ask you to please leave the building. But the Overseas Private Investment Corporation does it every year, and with the hard-working taxpayers' money, dollars backing these loans. So the same taxpayer who can never have a chance to secure a loan with this rating is securing loans for projects with the same kind of credit rating. The simple fact is subsidies have shown that this portfolio is so risky you cannot even privatize OPIC because no buyer could risk losing billions of dollars if these loans go bad. Proponents of OPIC state that no loan or loan guarantee has gone bad and this is not risky. If this scenario sounds familiar, it is because we have seen it before. In the late 1980's, the same claims were made by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, at least until the crisis hit. One decade and $180 billion in taxpayer bailout dollars later, we found this was not the case. It has been said that if we do not learn from the past, we will ultimately repeat it. If we do repeat history, it will again be the farmer in Sterling, the technician in Denver, and the accountant in Grand Junction who picks up the bill. I have learned from the past, and I do not want my children and grandchildren to suffer through another corporate bailout. Who gets these loans? Coca-Cola, DuPont, Union Carbide, McDonald's, and even two banks, Chase Manhattan and Citicorp. These, and many other large companies with OPIC loans, are not cash-starved companies, but companies with strong bottom lines. I do not believe the Federal Government should be in the business of business, and I do believe these companies can stay strong and survive without OPIC. As in life, if the risk is too high, then maybe you should look elsewhere. What do OPIC loans buy? We, the taxpayers, have developed a soft drink bottling company in Poland and Ghana, a travel agency in Armenia, a magazine in Russia, a lumber mill in Lithuania, an art gallery in Haiti, cable television in Argentina, a hamburger bun bakery and phone book directories in Brazil. Now, there may be some worthwhile projects and successes funded by OPIC, but, again, I do not believe that we need to be risking hard- working taxpayer money on these ventures. Plus, this is a subsidy that does not get built into the cost of a product which may compete against American products that are not subsidized. Also, proponents of OPIC believe that if OPIC does not provide this insurance, then companies will not enter these risky markets. There are certainly private alternatives to OPIC's activities and one is starting investment funds for developing countries. Today, there are hundreds of private developing country investment funds. Portfolio money is flowing into all parts of the developing world. If interested, they are listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Even the proponents cannot deny the existence of those private alternatives or that they may be available at lower cost. However, it seems they know a good deal when they see one. With OPIC selling the full faith and credit of the U.S. taxpayer, foreign governments would be less likely to stick them with the bill. Again, here lies the problem. These subsidized loans to promote trade and investment abroad distort the flow of capital and resources away from the most efficient uses, thus distorting trade and investment abroad. OPIC's impact on U.S. capital and resource markets may be negative due to these distortionary effects of subsidized loans. In layman's terms, OPIC distorts the marketplace, pushing out private investment, and does not allow it to grow. This leads to the question, ``Is this the appropriate role for Government?'' What we are doing with OPIC is investing money in countries involving risky business deals. We are trying to help other countries' government-run corporations make the transition to the private sector. To do that, we run a Government corporation. Thus, we are trying to end other countries' government subsidies by running Government subsidies right here in Washington. This is not moving the power away from Washington, but right into the heart of DC. I am not the only one saying that it is time for OPIC to go. In the other body, Representatives Andrews, Kasich, Sanders, Royce, Condit, DeFazio, Klug, Peterson, Shadegg, Jackson, Pascrell, and Dickey have introduced H.R. 387 eliminating OPIC. Also, the National Taxpayers Union says few other Federal programs combine such undesirable elements as corporate welfare, wasteful spending, unnecessary foreign aid, mismanagement and risk to the American taxpayers as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. Milton Friedman, one of the leading experts of economics from the Chicago School of Economics, said he does not see any redeeming aspects in the existence of OPIC. It is special interest legislation of the worst kind. This leads me to another important reason why OPIC should be eliminated. It seems to me that OPIC may be used as a political slush fund. Whether this is a perception or truth, I believe it is time to end this perception of impropriety. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a story from the Boston Globe dated Sunday, March 30, 1997.

Mr. ALLARD. The headline from above the fold says, ``Trade-trip firms netted $5.5 billion in aid, Donated $2.3 million to Democrats.'' It goes on to state that 27 corporations that sent executives on trade trips with late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown received part of a multibillion-dollar commitment in OPIC loans and guarantees. All but 3 of the 27 OPIC recipients donated to Democratic Party committees, and most of them gave $50,000 to $385,000 during the President's first term. As mentioned in the story, it is very difficult to ascertain whether the OPIC loan influenced giving to the party, or if the donation influenced who received the OPIC assistance, or if there was any impropriety at all. To me, it does not matter. Since the awarding of OPIC assistance is entirely discretionary by the administration in power, it invites and welcomes possible abuse as described in the Boston Globe. OPIC should not exist in the first place, and even the perception that it could be used as a slush fund, whether Republican or Democrats, makes its elimination even more important. With this bill, some proponents of OPIC will describe me as antibusiness or antitrade. I guess to them, getting the Government out of the business of business is antibusiness. I must say that I believe this is a probusiness, anti big Government proposal. I am a free trader. I am a supporter of the GATT and NAFTA, and believe that free trade is the best way to raise the living standards for all Americans. We need to support policies that reduce trade barriers. OPIC does not reduce trade barriers for all companies to compete in the marketplace. It is an income transfer program from U.S. taxpayers to a selected group of businesses, who may have donated or will feel obligated to give to a political party. These subsidies may increase exports for a few selected companies that have the political influence to secure these loans, but it does little to expand the overall economic growth of this country. OPIC loans protect inefficiency and reduce total economic activity, shifting economic resources from taxpayers and unsubsidized businesses to politically connected businesses. Free trade is about getting the Government out of the private sector. The Federal Government can advocate U.S. business and trade without supporting politically connected businesses. Let us push for open markets, not for open political purses. Last, as we are attempting to balance the budget by the year 2002 and reduce Government spending, we must begin to eliminate giveaway programs and corporate welfare. Eliminating OPIC will save $107 million this year and $296 million over the next 5 years. This does not include the money saved if any of OPIC loans or guarantees go bad and have to be bailed out by the taxpayers. We must get all spending under control and all parts of the budget must sacrifice. Balancing our budget will do more to increase economic and job growth than any OPIC loan can offer. Mr. President, this effort is supported by individuals on both the left and the right of the political spectrum. With all the talk by liberals and conservatives about eliminating corporate welfare, I believe it is time we begin to do what we say and it ought to start here with OPIC. OPIC should not exist under a Republican or Democrat President or Congress. I thank you for this time and I ask all my colleagues to support S. 519 and this effort to eliminate the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.