Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me make a few comments in response to the gentleman's comments from West Virginia. First of all, we are just eliminating an unnecessary bureaucracy. We have had an opportunity to reauthorize this Under Secretary position and the Congress refused to do that. So we are not talking about reducing the ability for us to compete on the international market. These functions are already performed and can easily be performed by the International Trade Administration. Under the ITA there is a Trade Advocacy, Trade Law Enforcement, Trade Development, an International Economic Policy, and U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service offices. Wayne Berman, a former Assistant Secretary and Counselor to the Secretary of Commerce Department, asserted that the Technology Department should be terminated immediately. He assured the committee no harm would come to the core programs under the Commerce Department's jurisdiction, and in fact the agencies would probably perform its core functions better at less cost. As I pointed out last year, the Department of Commerce seems particularly bureaucratic. Below the Secretary level there is a Deputy Secretary, an Under Secretary and Administrator, an Under Secretary for International Trade, an Under Secretary for Export Administration, an Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, an Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and Deputy Administrator, an Assistant Secretary for International Economic Policy, an Assistant Secretary for Export Administration, an Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, an Assistant Secretary and Director General for the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service, and the bureaucracy goes on and on and on. I just think that this should be an easy vote for Members of the House. This is an unauthorized program. We should not continue to fund programs that are redundant in nature, continue to fund programs that are unauthorized. If we want to balance the budget, this is one place that we ought to address that concern. It is something that needs to be done for the future of our children and grandchildren. It is one small step for their future.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleague from Kentucky and the Appropriations Committee for their diligence and commitment to reducing government spending. However, we must not pass up an opportunity to eliminate a needless layer of bureaucracy and an unauthorized appropriation of $5 million for the Commerce Department's Under Secretary for Technology. Both the Authorization Committee and the Budget Committee have now recommended that the Under Secretary for Technology be terminated. The Budget Committee has accurately labeled this a redundant bureaucracy. Mr. Chairman, we are never going to balance this budget unless we stop funding unauthorized and redundant programs. This amendment is supported by the Citizens for a Sound Economy, the National Taxpayers Union, and the Citizens Against Government Waste. In fact, Citizens Against Government Waste will be including this vote in its deficit reduction vote rating. Last year, this amendment nearly passed. This year there is no reason for it not to pass. When I offered the amendment in 1995, opponents argued that the appropriations bill was the wrong vehicle to make these changes and that the authorizing process would be the proper place to review this issue. Well, the authorization process has been completed, and this office was not reauthorized by the Science Committee in H.R. 3322, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act, approved by the House on May 30, 1996. Not one Member voted for funding this office in the authorization legislation when it passed the House. If the Appropriations Committee is against this amendment, then I ask why you were not fighting for this office on the House floor on May 30. By the Department of Commerce's own description, the Technology Administration leads the Department's advanced civilian technology strategy. We do not need a central command and control office to direct the private sector's commercialization of technology. This industrial policy office is especially no longer needed in light of Chairman Rogers' amendment earlier to close out the Advanced Technology Program. The Under Secretary for Technology is nothing more than another layer of bureaucracy. It is time to end this needless bureaucracy. The Federal Government should not be attempting to pick winners and losers in the area of technology, the marketplace can do this quite well. Let us follow through on our commitment to end corporate subsidies and excess government regulation. I do not believe Microsoft or Netscape or any other technology company needs another bureaucrat to keep them competitive. If Congress is determined to spend this $5 million, or a portion thereof, it would certainly be preferable to spend it directly on research programs, rather than on a 47-person Federal bureaucracy. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and end this unauthorized $5 million appropriation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to salute several outstanding young women who have been honored with the Girl Scout Gold Award by Girl Scouts-Mountain Prairie Council in Colorado. They are Christine Myers of Troop 61; Tiffany Beck and Denise Johnson of Troop 320; Molly Phelan of Troop 642; and Stephanie Rabourn. They were honored recently for earning the highest achievement award in U.S. Girl Scouting. The Girl Scout Gold Award symbolizes outstanding accomplishments in the areas of leadership, community service, career planning, and personal development. The award can be earned by girls aged 14-17, or in grades 9-12. Girl Scouts of the U.S.A., an organization serving over 2.5 million girls, has awarded more than 20,000 Girl Scout Gold Awards to senior Girl Scouts since the inception of the program in 1980. To receive the award, a Girl Scout must earn four interest project patches, the Career Exploration Pin, the Senior Girl Scout Leadership Award, and the Senior Girl Scout Challenge, as well as design and implement a Girl Scout Gold Award project. A plan for fulfilling these requirements is created by the Senior Girl Scout and is carried out through close cooperation between the girl and an adult Girl Scout volunteer. As members of Girl Scouts-Mountain Prairie Council, these young women began working toward the Girl Scout Gold Award in 1995. Christine completed her project in areas of organizing a book drive, Tiffany and Denise completed their projects in areas of planning and running a day camp, Molly completed her project in areas of drinking and driving, and Stephanie completed her project in areas of setting up a program that helps Hispanic children who are having difficulties with their schoolwork. I believe that these young women should receive public recognition due them for their significant service to the community and the country.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, as Congress continues to research and debate the impacts of gaming, I believe that this report, published by Colorado's Office of State Planning and Budgeting, may be a helpful resource for members. Issue Brief: Gaming Impacts the Colorado Economy Demands on Colorado's general fund, the tax money that pays the state's bills, increase each year, primarily from the areas of K-12 education, higher education, human services, public safety and capital construction. The state coffers are filled by a variety of taxes and fees, including individual and corporate income taxes, sales and use taxes, insurance and excise taxes, and interest earnings. State lawmakers and government budget officers try to stretch the general fund as far as possible to maximize services, and they also look for creative ways to raise additional revenues. The gaming industry has been tapped in many states, including Colorado, and each year it contributes a larger amount to the general fund. How this industry began and has grown illustrate clearly that gaming, when allowed to expand even under tightly controlled regulations, is an ongoing source of state revenue. During the last five fiscal years, revenues from the gaming industry have steadily increased, demonstrating a trend expected to continue. Identifying a new revenue source Movies about the Old West have left most viewers with vivid impressions of raucous poker games in dusty, smoke-filled saloons. Slick gun-totin' professional gamblers were often paired with innocent greenhorns fresh off the trail. Saloon proprietors were only to glad to help empty their pockets of any money, providing liquor by the bottle, a room and a bath, entertainment, and, of course, gambling. Gradually, after statehood was attained, Colorado citizens had a state constitution and volumes of statutes as the basis for their legal systems. Permissive attitudes that had existed in the wide-open towns gave way to tighter control. Opinions regarding gambling obviously changed, because prohibitions against such activities were written into the criminal code in 1913. The legislative declaration states, ``the policy of the general assembly, recognizing the close relationship between professional gambling and other organized crime, (is) to restrain all persons from seeking profit from gambling activities in this state . . . from patronizing such activities . . . to safeguard the public against the evils inducted by common gamblers and common gambling houses . . . '' (Source: Colorado Revised Statutes, 18-10-101) Prohibiting gambling was thereby deemed good public policy, holding firm until 1949 when the Colorado Racing Commission was created. In recent years, the gaming industry has been expanded into other areas--bingo and raffle, lottery and lotto, and limited stakes gaming. In fiscal year 1995, the four gaming sources provided nearly $152 million in revenue. racing Members of the General assembly began to relax the prohibitions against gaming in 1949 when the Colorado Racing Commission was established. A portion of the legislative declaration reads, ``. . . for the purpose of promoting racing and the recreational, entertainment, and commercial benefits to be derived therefrom; to raise revenue for the general fund . . .'' (Source: Colorado Revised Statutes, 12- 60-100.2) The Racing Commission and the Division of Racing Events are located within the Department of Revenue. The commission's five members are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the state Senate. They serve staggered terms and represent designated geographical areas and political parties. In addition, the statute specifies that one of the five members must be a practicing veterinarian and two must have racing industry experience. Duties of the commissioners range from promoting the health and safety of the animals to setting racing calendars. They also oversee the division's professional staff, which includes veterinarians, security personnel and other racing officials. The commissioners license racetrack owners and operators and hold them to rigid safety standards for spectators and sanitation guidelines for animals. In 1995, Colorado had seven tracks with approved race dates. Four of the tracks feature greyhounds, one is a major horse track, and the remaining two are fair circuit horse tracks. The dog tracks operate in either the north or the south circuit, located either above or below ``a latitudinal line drawn through the location of the Douglas County courthouse in the town of Castle Rock as of June 6, 1991.'' [Colorado Revised Statutes, 12-60-701(2)(a)] In-state and out-of-state simulcast racing is legal in Colorado, and off- track betting (OTB) is also available in four licensed locations, three in the Denver area and one in Black Hawk. No one under age 18 is allowed to purchase or redeem any pari- mutuel ticket. During the 1995 racing season, 322,614 people visited Colorado's horse tracks, with an average daily attendance, including off-track betting, of 1,204. Total attendance at the dog tracks was 1,190,237 during the same period, with a daily average, including off-track betting, of 1,653. In 1995, the gross amount wagered, known as the ``handle,'' was just over $257 million, with the average daily handle hitting $260,232, a 21.6% increase over 1994's average daily handle. Occupational licenses and other fees added another $130,095. Colorado's general fund has received over $8 million in revenues from racing in each of the last five fiscal years, with the largest portion coming from the dog tracks. The table that follows shows the state's income in calendar year 1995 for the horse and dog race tracks. bingo and raffle Colorado voters adopted a constitutional amendment in the 1958 general election permitting ``games of chance,'' commonly known as bingo and raffle, effective January 1, 1959. Regulatory authority for this additional gaming area was assigned to the Secretary of State. Bingo and raffle games are reserved specifically for fund- raising activities by charitable or non-profit organizations. Religious, fraternal, educational and veterans' groups clear enough profit from these games of chance to fund extra- curricular activities and athletic efforts for youth groups and to subsidize targeted projects of churches and community organizations. After purchasing operating licenses, which must be renewed annually, and ensuring that their members have completed the necessary instructional courses, the groups can rent or lease commercial bingo facilities and conduct their games. Licensees are also permitted to sell pull tabs, sometimes called pickles or jar raffles. These are sealed tickets sold to players who then open them, hoping to reveal cash amounts that then become their winnings. Licenses must be purchased by the landlords or owners of the bingo halls ($525/renewable annually), and these individuals are prohibited from any involvement in managing or operating the games. The same license fees are paid by the suppliers and manufacturers of equipment necessary to conduct the games, including the bingo cards or sheets, raffle tickets and pulltabs. Agents for manufacturers or suppliers pay a $125 fee and must renew annually. Additionally, manufacturers and suppliers are charged 1.1% of their gross equipment sales quarterly. Bingo and raffle licensees pay 0.3% of their gross receipts quarterly. In any calendar year a licensee may conduct bingo games on a maximum of 105 occasions. The largest cash prize or value for any single bingo game cannot exceed $250, and the aggregate amount of all prizes on any one occasion is limited to $1,500. Only volunteers from the sponsoring charities can ``work'' at the bingo halls, and any remuneration is illegal. The volunteer workers, while conducting the games, are not allowed to play bingo themselves, and no under age 14 is permitted to assist. Participants must be 18 or older to play bingo or purchase pulltabs. The gross amount wagered on bingo and raffle games in 1995 was nearly $221 million. State revenues from the tax on proceeds amounted to almost $1.3 million in fiscal year 1994- 95, while license fees added $171,000. (Source: Secretary of State, Licensing and Elections Division) lottery and lotto To generate more revenue for ever-increasing expenses, states began sponsoring lotteries in the mid-1960s, with the first in New Hampshire in 1964. More and more states jumped on the bandwagon, and by the end of the 1970s there were 14 state-sponsored lotteries, primarily in New England and other eastern states. This total has since grown to 37 states and the District of Columbia. Lottery proceeds are often earmarked for a variety of state purposes, with 17 states using the funds for education. Others use lottery proceeds to help fund economic development, tourism, property tax relief and senior citizen programs, while Nebraska dedicates a portion of its proceeds to its Compulsive Gamblers Assistance Fund. Only 15 states do not designate lottery revenue for specific purposes. Colorado added its state-supervised lottery effective January 1, 1981, after a constitutional amendment was passed in the 1980 general election. The amendment stated: ``Unless otherwise provided by statute, all proceeds from the lottery, after deduction of prizes and expenses, shall be allocated to the conservation trust fund of the state for distribution to municipalities and counties for park, recreation, and open space purposes.'' (Source: Colorado Constitution, Section 13, Article XII) The Lottery Division was placed in the Department of Revenue, and its governing board is charged with operating and overseeing all aspects of Colorado's lottery. Serving staggered terms, the five Lottery Commission members are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the state Senate. One of the members must be a law enforcement officer, one an attorney, and one a certified public accountant; and each of these must have five years of experience in his or her field. The commission meets monthly, or more often if necessary, and members are compensated $100 plus expenses for each meeting attended. Headquarters for the division's operations are located in Pueblo. There was reluctance by some public officials to having a lottery at all, so it was written into the statutes that the division will terminate on July 1, 1999, unless the General Assembly decides to continue it. To aid the legislators in making this decision, the state auditor will complete a thorough analysis of the lottery by January 15, 1999. The areas to be evaluated include comparing lottery collections and the actual revenue derived, determining whether organized crime related to gambling has increased, and analyzing the competitive effect of the lottery on other forms of legal gambling. In addition, the auditor is charged with deciding if the division adequately protects the public with regard to investigating complaints and assessing the performance of lottery equipment contractors and licensed sales agents. The constitutional amendment gave authority to the General Assembly to establish the lottery, so it fell to the legislators to draft the enabling legislation (Colorado Revised Statutes, 24-35-202). While the lawmakers were drawing up the lottery statutes, they were also grappling with a critical need for additional prison space. According to the amendment, the lottery's net proceeds were to go to the Conservation Trust Fund ``unless otherwise provided by statute,'' so the General Assembly determined that lottery proceeds were an appropriate source of revenue for correctional facilities. Instead of all of the proceeds going for local parks, recreational facilities and open space, a large percentage was diverted to build more prison space and to reimburse counties for housing inmates for whom the state had no space. The Distribution of Lottery Proceeds chart shows that the dollars going to capital construction for prisons were significant, while those for the Conservation Trust Fund and the Division of Parks and Recreation were held down until the early 1990s. Adding electronic lotto games was seen as a way to generate more money for correctional facilities, and in the mid-80s legislators began to discuss adding lotto. One of the major objections to this plan was that this money was for prison construction only, and there was no funding mechanism in place to operate the new prisons. Nevertheless, lotto was added to the division in 1988, with its proceeds targeted for correctional facilities. In 1991, an additional game, keno, was added. Having the lottery proceeds siphoned off for prison needs instigated supporters of what came to be known as Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) to sponsor a ballot initiative in the 1992 general election. It stated that lottery proceeds . . . ``. . . shall be guaranteed and permanently dedicated to the preservation, protection, enhancement and management of the state's wildlife, park, river, trail and open space heritage . . .'' (Source: Colorado Constitution, Article XXVIL, Section 1) Colorado voters passed the constitutional amendment, which established the State Board of the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund. The board is comprised of twelve public members, two each from the state's six congressional districts, a representative from the State Board of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, one from the Colorado Wildlife Commission, and the Executive Director of the Department of Natural Resources. The public members are to reflect Colorado's gender, ethnic and racial diversity, and they serve staggered four-year terms. They are appointed by the Governor with the state Senate's consent. The GOCO board is responsible for administering the trust fund, conducting public hearings to obtain comments on grant proposals and overseeing the professional staff. The constitutional amendment stipulated that prison construction projects then receiving funding from lottery proceeds would be weaned from that source over a five-year span. Beginning in 1999, allocation of lottery proceeds will be at the percentages spelled out in the amendment: 40% to the Conservation Trust Fund, 10% to the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, and 50% to the Great Outdoor Colorado Trust Fund. The GOCO portion is capped at $35 million, adjusted for 1992 inflation, and any amount over that will be added to the State's general funds. (Colorado Constitution, Article XXVI Section 3) GOCO's share will be distributed equally to four area; the Division of Wildlife, the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, competitive grants to non-profit land conservation organizations, and competitive, matching grants to local governments. Distribution to the GOCO Fund began in 1992-93 with $10.9 million, and by 1994-95, GOCO's portion has grown to $23 million. In 1995, lottery and lotto generated $100.6 million for the state, two-thirds of the total gaming revenues. Lottery and lotto tickets can be purchased by anyone over 18 at licensed outlets, found primarily at convenience and grocery stores. There are just under 2,600 outlets in the state, and they are especially busy Wednesdays and Staturdays, when the winning numbers for the lotto jackpot are drawn. The largest non-lotto prize to date has been $8,350,000, won by a Grand Junction man in 1986, while lotto's largest jackpot, $27 million, was won by a Boulder woman in 1992. limited gaming In the 1990 general election Colorado voters approved a constitutional amendment (Colorado Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 9) that legalized limited gaming in the state beginning October 1, 1991. A primary focus for the limited gaming proceeds was to be historical preservation statewide, and much of the basic framework was outlined in the amendment. Responsibility for setting up a commission to operate and oversee gaming activities was assigned to the General Assembly. In their enabling legislation, the lawmakers stated, ``Public confidence and trust can be maintained only by strict regulation of all persons, locations, practices, associations, and activities related to the operation of licensed gaming establishments and the manufacture or distribution of gaming devices and equipment.'' (Source: Colorado Revised Statutes, 12-47.1-102) ``Limited gaming'' was defined as using slot machines or playing card games (blackjack or poker) with a maximum single bet of five dollars. The activity is restricted to just three sites in the state: Central City, Black Hawk and Cripple Creek. Two additional casinos are located in the southwestern part of the state on Indian reservation land belonging to the Ute Mountain Ute and the Southern Ute Tribes. While Colorado has a compact with the two tribes pertaining to gaming activities, their casinos are subject to taxation nor are they required to report their revenues to the state. In the three mountain towns, however, gaming is so tightly controlled that even the casino structures must conform to pre-World War I designs so that their architectural styles fit in with the existing buildings. Gaming establishments are confined to the commercial districts of the three towns and cannot operate between 2:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. The Limited Gaming Control Commission in the Division of Gaming falls under the aegis of the Department of Revenue. Commission members are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the state Senate. The five members cannot include more than three from one political party, and no two members can live in the same congressional district, which means that five of Colorado's six congressional districts have a representative on the commission. The commission must include a law enforcement officer, a practicing attorney with experience in regulatory law, a certified public accountant or public accountant with corporate finance experience, a management-level business person, and a registered voter who is not employed in any of the preceding professions. Members serve staggered four-year terms and are compensated in a similar manner as the Lottery Commission, though there is a maximum limit of $10,000 per member per year. Five types of licenses, which must be renewed annually, are issued by the commission. Slot machine manufacturers, distributors and operators pay $1,000 per license, while the cost for a retail gaming license is $250. A person in charge of all gaming activities at a casino, known as a key employee, pays $150 for an initial license, $100 for a renewal. Support employees pay $100 for original licenses, $75 for renewals. In addition to overseeing gaming activities, the commission is required to set the gaming tax rate on an annual basis. Currently in effect is a four-tiered system under which the licensees pay percentages of their adjusted gross proceeds into the Limited Gaming Fund. From that fund, the state Treasurer pays all commission expenses and all costs of running the Division of Gaming. No state general fund-money is used to finance any portion of limited gaming, and other than keeping a required balance in the account, the Treasurer distributes the remainder in the fund at the end of each fiscal year. Distribution of the Limited Gaming Fund is established by the General Assembly (Colorado Revised Statutes, 12-47.1- 701). In addition, the General Assembly has the discretion to further designate portions from the general funds's 50% share. For fiscal year 1994-95, the lawmakers allocated portions to the Tourism Promotion Fund, the Municipal Impact Fund, the Contiguous County Fund and the Colorado Department of Transportation. There had been concern that local government entities were ill-equipped to handle the projected increase in crime and traffic control. Some citizens worried that their towns would struggle to deliver some of the most basic necessities, including an adequate water supply, even with the increased money coming their way. The Contiguous County Impact Fund is a response to the increased governmental services associated with gaming, including additional law enforcement and social services. Money is distributed to the eight counties immediately surrounding Gilpin and Teller Counties and also to the three counties in southwest Colorado bordering the Indian gaming areas. Lawmakers have set aside 2.4% from the general fund allotment for the state Highway Fund beginning in fiscal year 1995-96 and continuing each year thereafter. This fund transfer is to help offset the increased cost of road maintenance due to limited gaming. The amount earmarked for the state Historical Fund is apportioned in a 20/80 split, with 20% going to the three towns in proportion to their gaming revenues and 80% to other historical preservation and restoration projects throughout the state. (Source Colorado Division of Gaming, Gaming in Colorado--Factbook & 1995 Abstract) looking ahead Every year during the legislative session, state lawmakers consider new bills related to the gaming industry. In the 1996 session these proposals ran the gamut from prohibiting anyone under 21 from being in gaming areas to establishing a Compulsive Gambling Prevention Program. One bill authorizes the use of portable, hand-held electronic bingo minders that will aid persons with disabilities. A bill expanding simulcast coverage of horse races to additional off-track betting sites became law, while one establishing a fee, payable by owners of racing animals, to cover random drug testing of the animals did not. This function is currently being provided by the Department of Revenue at a cost in 1994-95 of nearly $300,000 from the general fund. A resolution was proposed to earmark $7 million or at least 25% of GOCO's annual lottery proceeds for construction and maintenance of highway rest areas. This resolution was not adopted by the lawmakers, nor was another that would have increased the maximum allowable bet in limited gaming establishments from $5 to $100. It would also have permitted additional games, including craps, roulette and baccarat. Similar measures will likely be introduced in future years. Immediately after limited gaming began in the three mountain towns, numerous other communities tried to gain approval to expand this revenue source to their towns. As yet, none has been successful, but the debate continues over the merits of this seemingly ``easy'' source of money. Some critics question whether the historical significance of the gaming towns is being gradually obscured. If this is so, is the revenue brought in a worthwhile tradeoff? An editorial in the April 14, 1996, Rocky Mountain News was less than enthusiastic about the expansion of and dependence on gambling as a public revenue source. It stated, ``the main reason for this growth is that states and communities have locked onto gambling as a quick-fix * * * at a time of widespread anti-tax sentiment.'' It also pointed out that the poor gamble more than the affluent, citing a Maryland study which showed people with annual incomes over $50,000 spent $2.57 a week on lottery tickets, while those earning less than $10,000 spent $7.30. While some may think using gambling as a revenue source is questionable public policy, an article in the April 16, 1996, issue of The Denver Post pointed out that, according to a recent survey, Colorado residents visit casinos twice as often as the national average. With the popularity of the gaming industry growing so quickly, the article predicts that casinos will pass spectator sports this year and become second only to movies as a form of entertainment in the United States. Pros and cons of the gaming industry are argued in many forums, and a consensus opinion will possibly never be achieved. It is apparent, though, that those empowered to implement gaming in Colorado have done so with a great deal of regulatory control. As the industry continues to develop, it appears certain that all of the interested parties will be monitoring it closely.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the 20th anniversary of the Long's Peak Scottish Highland Festival which will be celebrated September 5-8 in Estes Park, CO. In the past, I have had the honor of participating in this event which highlights the contributions and ethnic cultural roots of the Celtic people of the United States. I would like to commend the festival committee on its ability to orchestrate one of the largest and most diversified events in North America. Not only does the Long's Peak Scottish Highland Festival celebrate the long-term alliance of the United Sates, Canada, and Great Britain, it exemplifies the attributes of hard work and perseverance. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to congratulate the Long's Peak Scottish Highland Festival on 20 very fine years, and to honor one of the largest events of its king in North America by recognizing September 5-8, 1996, as ``20 Years of Celtic Tradition Week.''

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Colorado Avalanche on their Stanley Cup championship. Colorado has had a long and illustrious history with all of its professional sports teams, yet the Avs are the first to bring home the top prize. While it has been almost 14 years since Colorado has had an NHL team, we are now able to appreciate Joe Sakic putting the biscuit in the basket and Patrick Roy's sterling defense in the net. Coloradans closely associate themselves with the fortunes of our professional sports franchises, but it was the new kid on the block, the Avalanche, who overwhelmed the best team in NHL history, the Detroit Red Wings, for a shot at the NHL's most coveted prize. Marc Crawford and his Avalanche did not disappoint their frenzied fans at home. After hard fought victories in games one and three of the championship series, Uwe Krupp scored the final goal in the third overtime of the fourth game to complete a sweep of the Florida Panthers and bring the hardware home. Mr. Speaker, since the Colorado Rockies hockey club left for New Jersey in 1982, NHL fans in Colorado have had little to celebrate. I can happily say that NHL hockey has returned to Colorado with a vengeance. With a team this young and talented, we look forward to many more championship seasons from the Colorado Avalanche.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation to rollback the 1993 4.3 cent per gallon tax hike. I voted against this tax hike 3 years ago, and I support its repeal today. The average American family now pays 38 percent of its income in Federal, State, and local taxes. This is more than families spend on food, clothing and shelter combined. The Federal tax on a gallon of gas is now 18.3 cents and the average State tax is another 20 cents. The tax now constitutes nearly one-third of the price of gasoline. This hurts the poor and the middle-class particularly hard since gasoline constitutes a significant portion of their consumption. I think it is time for relief. Traditionally, the gas tax went into the Highway Trust fund in order to construct and repair highways. This is not the case with the 1993 increase, it is undedicated revenue sent to Washington for more spending. Some argue that we should not cut the gas tax if it would increase the deficit. I agree, that is why I will insist that any tax repeal be offset with a reduction in Government spending or subsidies. Unlike past Congresses, this Congress is willing to reduce spending. In 1995 and 1996 over $40 billion was trimmed from the appropriations bills that Congress controls. I have always felt that the budget should be balanced through spending reduction, not tax increases. Higher taxes simply permit Congress to continue the growth in Federal spending. It is time we downsize the Federal Government, and a reduction in the gas tax is a small but important step in that direction. Our next step should be to make this repeal permanent.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Chairman Kasich for his leadership on this budget. Once again, the Budget Committee is leading the way in downsizing the Federal Government. This budget shifts power, money, and influence out of Washington and back to the people. It keeps us on the path to balance and ensures that Congress will continue to make the tough choices necessary for deficit reduction. This budget will eliminate deficits entirely by 2002. We can then begin the very difficult task of reducing the $6 trillion debt that we will have built up by that time. Let us not forget, even when we end deficits we still have a huge bill to pay from past congressional excess. A balanced budget is about much more than numbers. It means higher wages and more jobs. This results from the lower interest rates and the greater saving and investment that become possible when Congress exercises the necessary discipline. This Congress has been responsible for a reduction of $40 billion in discretionary spending in 1995-96. We have already begun to see the fruits of that labor with lower interest rates. This means everything from lower mortgages to more affordable college loans for millions of American families. One thing that I have learned in the past year and a half is that achieving a balanced budget is going to be a long hard battle. We are going to fight that battle, and we are going to win that battle. But the tremendous struggle to get to this point proves why we need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, this is a budget for our children. It is time we start thinking about them and put an end to deficits. There is no free lunch; if we do not pay the bills today, our children will pay them tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to join me in strong support of this budget. As I stated in the Budget Committee, I have two recommendations for improvement as this budget works its way through the process. First, our welfare reform savings are too modest. While we reduce the growth of welfare programs, these programs continue to grow and they continue to be subject to excess Federal control. I recommend that we freeze welfare spending and then block grant all funding to the States. This would save the taxpayers far more through 2002. It would also permit the States total freedom to reform welfare. The States could require work, job training, and education, they could limit the time on welfare, and they could include a cap or other reforms designed to end welfare and move ablebodied recipients from dependency to work. The States are where the true reforms are occurring with welfare. Unfortunately, States that now propose dramatic welfare reform must come to the Federal Government and beg for waivers. This is wrong; States should be free to design their own reforms. The second recommendation I make is that we use a portion of these additional welfare savings to make the proposed reduction in the Federal gas tax permanent. State and Federal gas taxes now total over 40 cents a gallon. This is a tremendous burden on the middle class and working poor; it also hits particularly hard in the high mileage States out west. Repealing the 1993 increase would save taxpayers in my State of Colorado $70 million a year. Working families deserve welfare reform and they deserve tax relief.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2967, a bill to extend the authorization of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act [UMTRCA] through 1998. This bill is sound environmental cleanup legislation, and it marks the final chapter of the cold war. The mill tailings date back to the Manhattan project of 1942 and the national security purchases of uranium by the Federal Government from 1947 to 1970. During this period, there were no environmental cleanup standards for mill sites, nor were any standards enacted into law until the 1970's. The United States and the free world benefited from this program; therefore, it is just that the Federal Government pay for its share of cleanup costs. Of particular note is the environmental reclamation project at Uravan on Colorado's western slope. The mill tailings date back to Madam Curie's radium research at the turn of the century. In 1942, as part of the war effort, the Manhattan Army Engineering District contracted with UMETCO Minerals Corp. for uranium produced at the site. Today, UMETCO is in the process of restoring the environment to its former natural beauty. This has been a true success story for the Department of Energy, State of Colorado, local government entities, and UMETCO. The accomplishments of this project clearly demonstrate that the public and private sector can work together to preserve the environment. In closing, I would also like to point out that the UMTRCA legislation is fiscally responsible. In Colorado, $100,000,000 will be saved by keeping the Cheney disposal facility near Grand Junction open so that the mill tailings that are uncovered in future road and nearby utility repair work can be disposed of in the future. Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is effective in preserving the environment and should be promptly enacted into law. I commend my good friend from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] on this sound environmental legislation which takes into account the needs of Colorado communities and the budgetary constraints of the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, with the political season winding into high gear, Republicans and Democrats are facing off over another highly- charged issue: raising the minimum wage. As the rhetoric and accusations fly, let's not lose sight of the real goal at hand: to put more money in our workers' paychecks. Some people think we can do that by boosting the minimum wage by 90 cents in 2 years. I think we can raise take-home pay by reducing the tax burden on our citizens in a number of ways, foremost by balancing our national budget. Another boost would be the $500-per-child tax credit. The effects of raising the minimum wage have been analyzed by countless economists, and the results vary widely, often according to the political leaning of the experts. We have to ask ourselves what risks are we willing to take, and do the benefits outweigh them? After looking over different estimates and analyses, I am concerned that raising the minimum wage will have more negative effects. I know firsthand the effects of raising the wage. When I owned my veterinary clinic, I had to let go of a part-time worker when the wage was increased. I know other small business owners will not be able to maintain their current levels of employment if the wage is raised. Instead of earning an extra $36 a week, some workers will be laid off and end up earning nothing, or have their hours cut and earn less. Raising the wage is also likely to force owners and managers to raise wages at other levels as well. Unless they keep salaries proportionate, owners may sow worker discontent and salary inequity. Raising everyone's salary, however, could lead to an inflationary spiral, and offset the gains made by increasing the bottom wage. A number of people in the service industry are likely to be laid off as well. Instead of paying people the minimum wage to pump gas, for example, we now rely on self-service. I can see this happening in other industries as well, such as cleaning and lawn care, and even such simple jobs as washing animals in a pet hospital. Although small businesses and the private sector are going to be hit by a minimum wage increase, they are not the only ones who will feel the effects. One reliable study estimates that State and local governments will have to pay an additional $1 billion from 1996 to 2000 in salaries if the increase is approved. Unless Federal assistance is provided to offset these added expenditures, Congress will be forcing another unfunded mandate on the States in violation of a new law. Who makes minimum wage? In 1994, roughly 4.8 million workers were paid at or below $4.25 an hour. All these workers were over 16, and 63 percent of them were over 20. Of these, 58 percent were women and 47 percent of them held full-time jobs. Today, about 12 million people make less than $5.15 an hour. In fact, a vast majority of economists agree that the Democrat plan to raise the minimum wage will hurt the people most in need: low-skilled workers, women, and inner-city residents. Historically, we can see how raising the minimum wage affects the economy and unemployment. In the past 20 years, the minimum wage has been increased nine times, each time phased in over 2 years. During every 2-year period the wage was increased since 1973, unemployment also increased. This happened regardless of whether the economy was growing or shrinking. The only exception was in 1977-79, when the economy grew at a rate of 5.6 percent. We are looking at a 21-percent increase in the minimum wage over 2 years now. The economy's annual rate of growth was 2.8 percent in the first quarter of 1996, and 2 percent for all of 1995. That kind of growth doesn't appear strong enough to support such a high wage increase without causing more unemployment. On the surface, raising the minimum wage might look like a nice thing to do for those workers at the bottom of the pay scale. But only on the surface. The potential effects on the economy overall, not to mention on the people we are purporting to help, could be devastating. Instead of trying to score easy political points, we should institute policies that will have a lasting, positive effect on everyone in the economy. Balancing the budget would have the most profound lasting effect, by lowering interest rates on homes, cars, and credit cards. Furthermore, we can also approve the $500 per child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, adoption tax credits, and reduce the Federal gas tax. That's the kind of relief we need, and the kind of relief President Clinton has vetoed.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to compliment the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], for carrying this valuable piece of legislation forward. I appreciate his hard work on behalf of ski country.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1527) to amend the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 to clarify the authorities and duties of the Secretary of Agriculture in issuing ski area permits on National Forest System lands and to withdraw lands within ski area permit boundaries from the operation of the mining and mineral leasing laws, as amended.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1527, legislation to amend the process by which the Forest Service calculates the charges for ski areas on National Forest Service lands. This is a good bill which simplifies 40 pages of complex Government regulations and procedures, reduces costs on the private sector, and generates additional revenue for the Treasury. Mr. Speaker, there are 143 ski areas located on Forest Service land around the country. While these ski areas represent only one-tenth of 1 percent of the land managed by the Forest Service, tens of millions of persons enjoy skiing at such internationally renown sites as Vail, Steamboat Springs, Aspen, Jackson Hole, Mammoth, and Sugarbush every year. For that reason, it is important that we establish sound policy in the management of our ski areas, which ensures continuation of this strong public-private partnership. As ski area operations have evolved over the years into complex multi-season resorts, the existing graduate rate fee system for calculating ski area permittee fees has become increasingly complex. For example, the Forest Service has now instituted such practices as levying a charge on facilities and services on private lands which the Forest Service claims are related to the ski area. In 1986, Congress recognized that the existing system for calculating fees that ski area operators pay to the Federal Government was outdated and directed the Forest Service to develop a new fee system. Unfortunately, in the 10 years since Congress directed the Forest Service to establish a new fee system, the agency has provided no new recommendation to Congress. The Forest Service has spent a substantial amount of money studying new ways to calculate fees, but at this point has nothing new to suggest. Last September, the Forest Service announced that they were prepared to scrap all their previous work and start a new study. Instead of further studies, what this legislation presents is a new and simplified approach for calculating ski area permittee fees. Just as importantly, CBO has estimated that this legislation will actually increase revenues to the Treasury. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a win-win-win: A win for the administration, who will see administrative costs go down. A win for the Treasury, where revenues will go up. And a win for the American public, who enjoys recreational skiing on Forest Service lands, which provide this country with some of the best recreational skiing in the world. I commend the bill to my colleagues and urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3008) to amend the Helium Act to authorize the Secretary to enter into agreements with private parties for the recovery and disposal of helium on Federal lands, and for other purposes.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3008. This legislation demonstrates our commitment to put an end to bloated Government programs by shutting down an inefficient facility which has outlived its need and can't compete with the private sector. I thank my good friend and colleague, Mr. Cox, for his tireless efforts to bring this important bill to the floor. To assure the fiscal responsibility for this closure, this legislation repeals the Secretary of the Interior's authority to borrow under the Helium Act and requires the Secretary to impose fees for helium storage, withdrawal, and transportation services. Specifically this bill will: Get the Federal Government out of the helium business, including sale of the stockpile, and shut down an inefficient helium refinery. Within 18 months, this bill will terminate the helium refining and marketing operations of the former U.S. Bureau of Mines at the Excell plant and the Amarillo plant. Additionally, all proceeds from the sale of these facilities and equipment will be returned to the Treasury. These funds will be applied toward reduction of the debt the Federal Government has incurred by purchasing crude helium for storage and refining since 1960. Second, this bill ensures repayment of this debt. The total helium program debt shall be frozen at the current amount, which is approximately $1.4 billion. Future sales from the crude helium stockpile must be sold at a price determined by dividing this debt by the approximately 32 billion cubic feet of helium currently stored in the Cliffside Field. That value will be the minimum bid per thousand cubic feet for crude helium that the private distributors must pay to access this supply. Revenue received from the private sector as the result of crude helium sales will be returned to the Treasury to complete debt repayment. And finally, this legislation protects our domestic helium industry from undue disruption by the Federal Government. By recognizing the current market surplus, the bill allows flexibility in commencement of the sale of the stockpile, so as to minimize market disruption. Sales may begin as late as 2005 but the bill requires that the stockpile be eliminated by 2015. Coincidentally, this is when many experts believe the current surplus of helium may no longer exist. Thus the Federal Government should receive a higher price for the commodity than the minimum established floor bid. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Livingston. He has done the best job he can in negotiations with the Senate and the White House. There is no question that this bill constitutes progress in the battle to reduce the deficit. With this and the other appropriations bills, budget authority is $23 billion below last year's level. This is an improvement over normal congressional spending patterns. I will vote for this bill, but I want to make very clear my view that we should move faster in downsizing the Government. I regard this only as a down payment. With Coloradan and other families struggling under an average tax burden of 38 percent of income, it is clear to me that there is still a great deal of work to be done. Last year when we began balancing the budget, I wanted to do it in 5 years. I also wanted to give the families of Colorado tax relief, and shift money and power out of Washington and back to States and local communities. We were told that this could not be done. We were told we must compromise with the Senate and with the President. So we agreed to a 7 year plan, only to have it vetoed by President Clinton. President Clinton wanted a budget that would never balance. All he was willing to put on the table was a plan that pretends to balance, but puts all the cuts off until after the turn of the century when they will never happen. We got no tax relief for families. Tax Freedom Day remains May 7, the latest day ever. The typical American family now pays more in total taxes than it spends on food, clothing, and shelter combined. I realize the Appropriations Committee has jurisdiction over only the discretionary portions of this bill, but the fact remains that it spends entitlement funds. In fact, in the health portion of this bill, over 75 percent is for mandatory entitlement programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. This House wants to reform these programs. President Clinton has vetoed reform. Medicare is in trouble. Last year the Clinton administration projected that Medicare would go broke in 2002; we now know it will be much sooner, before the year 2000. What have we done? Nothing. Once again, the tough choices are put off to the future. It is true that the deficit is coming down. But it could and should be coming down much faster. Let us not forget, each of these deficits is added on top of a $5 trillion national debt that keeps getting bigger. We should be reforming entitlements, and we should be cutting more in 1996. Much of the deficit reduction that is occurring is due to lower interest rates and lower inflation. In fact, the CBO now tells us that we will save $288 billion over the next 7 years in lower interest payments on items such as the debt and CPI adjustments to entitlements. We should be using this fiscal dividend to get to balance much sooner and put an end to deficits for good. Instead we are spending much of it. This is a testament to the tremendous spending bias of Washington, DC. It is time to dramatically downsize this Government. We need to send the money back home to States, communities, and families. While this bill is a downpayment, I am not ready to declare victory. There is much work to be done.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, Congress has passed a new Taxpayers' Bill of Rights to help level the playing field between our citizens and the IRS. The Tax Code is long and complicated, and taxpayers make legitimate mistakes on their returns. When folks make honest mistakes, they shouldn't be exposed to what often boils down to bullying and harassment by the IRS. The Taxpayers' Bill of Rights reforms numerous tax collecting operations of the IRS to protect taxpayers. Foremost is the creation of a taxpayer advocate, who must assist taxpayers in resolving and preventing problems with the IRS. The advocate also can require the IRS to meet deadlines in performing tasks for taxpayers. Other important provisions include changes in terminating tax payment plans, waiving interest and penalties, and awarding costs and fees in legal disputes. Many people view the IRS as a massive bureaucracy that acts without proper authority. This important bill makes a number of changes to protect people who have legitimate grievances with the IRS, while ensuring that taxes are collected fairly. This bill was adopted just 1 day after the House unfortunately failed to approve a tax amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The amendment would have required a full two-thirds of the House or Senate vote to approve any legislation that would increase personal, business, or other Federal taxes. Although I am disappointed the amendment failed, I am pleased by the broad support it did receive. Congress has proven time and again that it cannot control its urge to raise taxes. The amendment would have created more accountability and would have forced Congress to work in a more bipartisan manner on tax issues. Passage of the second Taxpayers' Bill of Rights helps take away some of the sting from the failure of the tax amendment.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. Today I am going to vote in favor of S. 735, the Terrorism Prevention Act conference report. As I stated throughout debate on the antiterrorism bill I have had concerns that the bill might be used as a vehicle to expand Federal power over law-abiding citizens. This was my reason for opposing the original House bill, I was concerned that a House-Senate conference would add a number of undesirable Senate provisions. A number of bad ideas were in play, including expansive Federal wiretapping authority, included in the Senate bill, excessive power for certain Federal law enforcement agencies, and excessive spending. I have followed the conference closely, and I am now satisfied that the civil liberties of law-abiding citizens are protected, and that Federal authority is appropriately restricted. The bill focuses on international terrorist organizations, a matter of Federal jurisdiction. I want to strongly commend the death penalty reform measures of this conference agreement. I have always supported and cosponsored legislation to limit frivolous, repetitive appeals of convicted murderers on death row. I also strongly support mandatory victim restitution provisions included in this bill. For far too long we have ignored the rights of victims. This bill helps focus our criminal justice system to where it should be, on swift and certain punishment for criminals and justice for victims.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, all too often we hear speeches on this floor about our troubled youth and problems that teens face. Today I want to share with my colleagues a positive example of a teenager in my district. I want to commend Desiree Jones, a teenager from my district who acted selflessly and who helped save the life of another teenager, in fact, a complete stranger. Last Friday, March 22, 14-year-old Janet Westover, an eighth-grader at Bill Reed Middle School in Loveland, was riding through town when she slumped over and her heart stopped. Her friend flagged down another car in which Desiree Jones was riding. Desiree, a 15-year-old sophomore at Rocky Mountain High school in Fort Collins, stopped to help. She stayed with Janet and helped her until police and paramedics arrived. This kind of action by Desiree Jones merits recognition from this body and gives us all hope.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2854. This is the most market-oriented environmental farmer friendly bill we have ever passed. It balances the needs of producers and the needs of the environment, while providing significant regulatory relief to producers. We reauthorize the Conservation Reserve Program which provides incentives to producers to idle environmentally sensitive land. The new CRP takes into account water quality needs important to midwestern states and soil erosion and wildlife habitat concerns of the Great Plains. The conference committee did a remarkable job of balancing the needs of different regions so we can all claim to be winners. The conference report also provides money for the restoration of the Everglades. The provisions that we included will protect the Everglades and hopefully provide a model for restoration of other environmentally sensitive areas. The conference report also establishes a new account that will provide mandatory money for cost share practices to reduce soil erosion and protect water quality. This program incorporates provisions from the legislation I introduced earlier this year, but expands it to include more money and more practices. It is an important program that will provide tremendous environmental benefits in rural and urban areas. Also, the conference committee included language that will place a moratorium on actions by the Forest Service that have the effect of denying owners of water the use of that water through regulatory action. During the time this moratorium is in effect experts in the fields of public land law and Western water law will study this issue and issue a report on how to avoid the illegal taking of water from agricultural and municipal users. I am happy to have this provision in law, but want to make clear that it in no way recognizes the legality of recent Forest Service actions. The language in the conference report is an attempt to stop the Forest Service from taking actions that run counter to law and allow them to find alternatives to imposing by-pass flows and avoid law suites they would surely lose. Finally, this legislation incorporates other important reforms that we can be proud of, such as; making the USDA loan process more responsible and allowing the Department to more quickly release inventory property. Reform of Conservation Compliance that will allow the Department and the producer to work in a more cooperative manner while reducing regulatory burdens on the producer. This is groundbreaking legislation that I hope all of my colleagues can support.