Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I am glad to yield.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from West Virginia, as well as the Senator from Nevada, and in a moment I will recognize the Senator from Florida to comment, too. I want to invite all of you to join the veterinary caucus with all the favorable comments we are getting here. Before I yield to the Senator from Florida, I want to respond that Senator Gregg has a dog by the name of Wags, and Wags comes down the hallway and frequently comes into my office to say hello. We visit with him a little bit. If your dog is ever visiting you in your office, bring him down. We love dogs and would like to have an opportunity to get to know Senator Byrd's dog. I yield to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. That will be fine. I am happy to wait until the Senator finishes.

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I thank the chairman for giving me an opportunity to respond. I rise to respond to the comments from my dear friend and colleague from Oregon and also reemphasize what my colleague from Idaho had talked about in regard to Gale Norton as Secretary of the Interior. I agree with my colleague from Idaho that Gale Norton will be a listener. Even more than just listening, she is going to understand. The reason she is going to be able to understand is because she has a broad background of experience. She started out her career actually working here in Washington, DC. She worked in the Department of Agriculture. Then she went over to the Department of the Interior and worked there as associate solicitor. Then she went back to the State of Colorado and was elected attorney general of the State of Colorado. She has been able to see issues from the Federal perspective, and she understands the responsibility the Federal Government takes on many of these issues. She understands many of these issues from a State perspective because she has had to be a spokesman for the State of Colorado, the citizens of Colorado, as various issues concerning the environment have come forward. Not only that, she has also served in the private sector. So as an American or as a Coloradan, she has had to deal with various laws that have been passed by the Congress, signed by the President, and she has had to live with those laws. I have always believed that if you have walked in the shoes of somebody who has had to live with the laws of this country, you have a better, balanced understanding of what is needed. Gale Norton has had a good record on the environment. It started early on when she was associate solicitor with the Department of the Interior--and she mentioned this in her testimony before the committee--where she pointed to helping prevent the California condor from becoming extinct as one of her greatest accomplishments. That was part of her responsibilities as associate solicitor. She also worked in the State of Colorado to clean up a number of Superfund sites we have there. In Leadville, we had a Superfund site. She worked to clean that up. She worked hard to get started with cleanup of Rocky Flats, another Superfund site in Colorado. She worked hard to get things moving as far as the Rocky Mountain arsenal was concerned. She has a good record for cleaning up the environment. Her record has been misrepresented as far as the Summitville mine. I will take a few moments to talk about that because my colleague from Oregon mentioned that in his comments. The problem at the Summitville mine in Colorado--I might add, this has been a real catastrophe on the environment, and I have been very concerned about the fact that the cleanup of the Summitville mine has not been progressing along satisfactorily--started in the 1980s. At that time we had a Democrat Governor in the State of Colorado, and we had a Democrat who was attorney general for the State of Colorado when they first began to deal with the problem. Gale Norton, then, was elected as attorney general in the State of Colorado just as the problem of the Summitville mine began to bubble up in a public manner. Now, today, this Summitville mine problem is beginning to be resolved in a real, meaningful way. There has been a settlement, and the company has agreed to pay $30 million in cleanup of the site. Those of us who have lived in the State of Colorado understand the hard work she has done in trying to clean up the Summitville mine. It is not only myself, but the Denver Post, for example, has written an article in support of Gale Norton and characterized the Summitville mine issue as a false blame toward Gale Norton. I ask unanimous consent that that editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I wanted to take a few moments to respond to the comments and accusations leveled against Gale Norton because I really believe she has a deep concern about our environment. She comes from the State of Colorado. We call it colorful Colorado. She wants to keep Colorado that way, and certainly I think she will be very responsible. She will do a good job as Secretary of the Interior. She has a great background and the intellect to do the right thing for America. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. ALLARD. This appeared in the Denver Post on January 11. The headline is ``The Blame for Summitville.'' It makes two cogent points that I want to bring to the attention of the Members of the Senate. One of the paragraphs says: In fact, Norton barely had been in office a year when the Summitville crisis broke in 1992. The fiasco's roots instead had taken hold under the policies of a conservative Republican legislature, and on the watch of a moderate Democratic Governor and attorney general, Roy Romer and Duane Woodard. The article points out that ``EPA's own record isn't spotless, as the Feds squandered enormous sums accomplishing very little.'' Gale Norton pursued this issue after getting into office. She reached in and tried to protect the assets of a company that was filing bankruptcy so as to get out of the responsibility of having to clean up that mine. She yanked them out of the bankruptcy proceedings and continued to hold them responsible. The individual who followed Gale Norton as attorney general for the State of Colorado is Ken Salazar. He is a Democrat. Ken Salazar made a public statement in defense of the work of Gale Norton as attorney general for the State of Colorado as it applied to the Summitville mine. He starts out his public statement by saying: I believe former Colorado Attorney General Gale Norton knows the environmental issues of Colorado and the West, is smart, and has a passion for public service. She should be given a chance to serve as Secretary of the Interior. It goes on to say: In the past few days, former Attorney General Norton has been unfairly criticized concerning two issues: Her support for the environmental self-audit laws of Colorado, and her role in the Summitville Mine environmental case in the Alamosa River watershed in southern Colorado. I point out that Ken Salazar grew up in that area close to the Summitville mine. He is familiar with the area and also with the case because he had to follow up on the work that the attorney general, Gale Norton, had started, and now the present attorney general, Salazar, is wrapping that up. In his statement, he goes on: Concerning the Summitville mine matter, the State of Colorado has been vigilant and aggressive in pursuing those responsible for the release of pollution from the Summitville Mine. Former Attorney General Gale Norton supported the efforts to recover the proceeds from bankruptcy, and in 1996 she also joined with the United States of America in the lawsuit to recover expenses and natural resource damages from those involved in the Summitville mine. So it is definitely an unfair accusation, as viewed by many of us in Colorado, Democrats and Republicans. I also ask unanimous consent that the statement by Attorney General Salazar be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to immediately eliminate the estate tax. I fundamentally oppose the estate tax. I call it the ``death tax.'' This unfair tax has been a concern of mine for some time now. Congress has clearly demonstrated its support for easing this burden. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 gradually increases the exemption. Last year, Congress decided that further action was needed and passed a bill that would have eliminated the federal estate tax. Unfortunately, President Clinton chose to veto that bill. I look forward to the opportunity to work with the new Administration to repeal this unfair tax by passing my bill. The United States has one of the highest estate taxes in the world. While income tax rates have declined in recent decades, estate taxes have remained high. Today, the death tax is imposed on estates with assets of more than $675,000. The rates begin at 37% and very rapidly rise to 55%. Some estates even pay a marginal rate of 60%. This issue really hits home for me. Family farms and small businesses are two of the groups most affected by the estate tax. I grew up on my family's farm in Colorado, and I owned a small business before I came to Washington. So, I truly understand the concerns of those who live in fear of the impact that this tax will have on their legacy to their children. The estate tax has resulted in the loss of family farms and family businesses across the nation. Many people work their entire lives to build a business that they can pass on to their children. When these hard-working businessmen and farmers pass away, their families are often forced to sell off the business to pay the estate tax. I see this as an affront to those who try to pass on the fruits of their lives' work to their children. The people affected by this tax are not necessarily wealthy. Many small business people are cash poor, but asset rich. For example, the owner of a small restaurant might have $800,000 of assets, but not much cash on hand. Her children will still have to pay an excessive tax on the assets. The beer wholesaler, who has invested all of his revenue in trucks and storage, might have more than $675,000 in assets. That does not make him a cash-wealthy man. Yet, he is still subject to this so- called ``tax on the wealthy.'' The death tax also impacts employment and the economy. When a family- owned farm or a small business closes, the workers lose their jobs. Conversely, leaving resources in the economy can create jobs. A recent George Mason study found that if the estate tax were phased out over five years, the economy would create 198,895 more jobs, and grow by an additional $509 billion over a ten-year period. Additionally, the estate tax is a disincentive for Americans to save their earnings. The government has created a number of tax breaks and other incentives for those who save their money: 401(k)s and IRAs--to name a few. Yet, the estate tax sends a contradictory message. Basically, it says, ``If you don't spend all your savings by the time you die, the government will penalize you.'' This tax is no small penalty, either. We are talking about some very high tax rates. The death tax also represents an unjust double taxation. The savings were taxed initially when they were earned. Then, when the saver passes away, the government comes along and takes a second cut. There is no good reason for the current system--other than the government's desire to make a profit at the already trying time of the death of a dear one. The current death tax law has a greater effect on the lower end of the scale than the higher. Wealthy people can afford lawyers and planners to help them plan their estate. Those at the lower end of the estate tax scale are often unable to afford sophisticated estate planning. So the current law also makes the tax somewhat regressive, which is not fair. Planning and compliance with the estate tax can consume substantial resources. In 1995, the Gallup organization surveyed family firms. Twenty-three percent of owners of companies valued over $10 million said that they pay more than $50,000 per year in insurance premiums on policies to help them pay the eventual bill. To plan for the estate tax, the firms also spent an average of $33,000 on lawyers, accountants and financial planners, over a period of several years. This is money that could have been better spent to expand the business and create new jobs--rather than dealing with the death tax. The estate tax only raises one percent of federal revenue, yet it costs farms, businesses and jobs. No American family should lose their farm or business because of the federal government. I support full repeal of the federal estate tax. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill, as well as an article that I recently wrote, be entered into the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to immediately eliminate the estate tax. I fundamentally oppose the estate tax. I call it the ``death tax.'' This unfair tax has been a concern of mine for some time now. Congress has clearly demonstrated its support for easing this burden. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 gradually increases the exemption. Last year, Congress decided that further action was needed and passed a bill that would have eliminated the federal estate tax. Unfortunately, President Clinton chose to veto that bill. I look forward to the opportunity to work with the new Administration to repeal this unfair tax by passing my bill. The United States has one of the highest estate taxes in the world. While income tax rates have declined in recent decades, estate taxes have remained high. Today, the death tax is imposed on estates with assets of more than $675,000. The rates begin at 37% and very rapidly rise to 55%. Some estates even pay a marginal rate of 60%. This issue really hits home for me. Family farms and small businesses are two of the groups most affected by the estate tax. I grew up on my family's farm in Colorado, and I owned a small business before I came to Washington. So, I truly understand the concerns of those who live in fear of the impact that this tax will have on their legacy to their children. The estate tax has resulted in the loss of family farms and family businesses across the nation. Many people work their entire lives to build a business that they can pass on to their children. When these hard-working businessmen and farmers pass away, their families are often forced to sell off the business to pay the estate tax. I see this as an affront to those who try to pass on the fruits of their lives' work to their children. The people affected by this tax are not necessarily wealthy. Many small business people are cash poor, but asset rich. For example, the owner of a small restaurant might have $800,000 of assets, but not much cash on hand. Her children will still have to pay an excessive tax on the assets. The beer wholesaler, who has invested all of his revenue in trucks and storage, might have more than $675,000 in assets. That does not make him a cash-wealthy man. Yet, he is still subject to this so- called ``tax on the wealthy.'' The death tax also impacts employment and the economy. When a family- owned farm or a small business closes, the workers lose their jobs. Conversely, leaving resources in the economy can create jobs. A recent George Mason study found that if the estate tax were phased out over five years, the economy would create 198,895 more jobs, and grow by an additional $509 billion over a ten-year period. Additionally, the estate tax is a disincentive for Americans to save their earnings. The government has created a number of tax breaks and other incentives for those who save their money: 401(k)s and IRAs--to name a few. Yet, the estate tax sends a contradictory message. Basically, it says, ``If you don't spend all your savings by the time you die, the government will penalize you.'' This tax is no small penalty, either. We are talking about some very high tax rates. The death tax also represents an unjust double taxation. The savings were taxed initially when they were earned. Then, when the saver passes away, the government comes along and takes a second cut. There is no good reason for the current system--other than the government's desire to make a profit at the already trying time of the death of a dear one. The current death tax law has a greater effect on the lower end of the scale than the higher. Wealthy people can afford lawyers and planners to help them plan their estate. Those at the lower end of the estate tax scale are often unable to afford sophisticated estate planning. So the current law also makes the tax somewhat regressive, which is not fair. Planning and compliance with the estate tax can consume substantial resources. In 1995, the Gallup organization surveyed family firms. Twenty-three percent of owners of companies valued over $10 million said that they pay more than $50,000 per year in insurance premiums on policies to help them pay the eventual bill. To plan for the estate tax, the firms also spent an average of $33,000 on lawyers, accountants and financial planners, over a period of several years. This is money that could have been better spent to expand the business and create new jobs--rather than dealing with the death tax. The estate tax only raises one percent of federal revenue, yet it costs farms, businesses and jobs. No American family should lose their farm or business because of the federal government. I support full repeal of the federal estate tax. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill, as well as an article that I recently wrote, be entered into the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, on December 7, 2000, the Senate approved H.R. 5640, the American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000. I earlier introduced S. 3274, the Senate companion to this legislation. Title IV of H.R. 5640 included several technical corrections to the Homeowners Protection Act of 1998. These technical corrections have no specific effective date attached to them. In my view, it is the expectation of Congress that lenders impacted by those technical corrections should have a reasonable period of time to make systems changes and conform administrative processes to the new law. This flexibility is important because the Homeowners Protection Act of 1998 does not authorize a Federal agency to provide implementing regulations.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the wonderful tree currently gracing the West lawn of this Capitol is from Colorado. I have had the pleasure of working towards getting this tree to DC for 2\1/2\ years, and I wanted to share with my colleagues a little about my home state's gift to the nation. The Millennium Holiday Tree is a gift from the entire state of Colorado to our nation. It is a celebration of all that is Colorado: natural beauty, many cultures, cities and rural communities, and our rich history. The Colorado tree will be shining through early January 2001. The Millennium Holiday Tree is a native Colorado Blue Spruce which stands 65' tall and was projected to be 77 years old at the time of cutting. It was grown on the Pike National Forest near the community of Woodland Park. The tree was selected from this area because it is in the shadow of Pikes Peak, often referred to as ``America's Mountain''. The Colorado State Forest Service is growing seedlings from the ``grandma'' tree. Seedlings from the Millennium Holiday Tree will be replanted at the cutting site. The Governor and Francis Owens were among the first to receive a Holiday Tree seedling for their support of this project. Hundreds of seedlings will also be planted in memorial forests around the state as part of Holiday Tree celebrations. Colorado school children made over 4,000 ornaments for the tree. They each depict the theme: ``Valuing the Past--Looking to the Future''. Each county had the opportunity to supply 100 ornaments for the Millennium Holiday Tree and the companion trees. Through the many community events, we celebrated the richness of Colorado. Each reflected the wide range of cultural and historical influences present in our communities--Native American, Hispanics, pioneers, and others. Local celebrations were encouraged in each of Colorado's 64 counties and at each of the 10 stops along the Tree route. Santa Fe Trail communities in Kansas and Missouri joined the celebrations too, including one in St. Louis at a National Park Service historic site. After the cutting ceremony on November 20th, the tree was moved indoors where the limbs were drawn up and secured for the long journey. A 65-foot trailer, designed to look like a historic Conestoga pioneer wagon, hauled the tree. Organizers used an experimental shrink wrap method to keep the tree fresh and secure from weather damage. The tree traveled caravan-style here to our nation's Capitol following the Santa Fe Trail, a historic trade route through Colorado, Kansas and Missouri. My friend and our colleague from Colorado, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, actually drove the tree carrying truck all the way out here. He told me he had a great time, and I believe him. Sixty four smaller companion trees, one from each county, traveled with the Millennium Holiday Tree and were placed in various government offices throughout DC. This entire project was made possible through generous financial and in-kind support from the many sponsors. Volunteers, donations, and sponsorships made it all possible. Unused surpluses from this project will be set aside for a rural endowment fund. The year 2000 will be the 31st year a tree has been provided by the U.S. Forest Service and its partners. And I want to especially thank Dr. Raitano and Bill Nelson for their incredible work on this. They ``parented'' the project for years and it is due to their efforts it all turned out so well.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now be in a period of morning business with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. We don't expect votes, but we simply can't rule them out.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the following nominations be discharged from the Foreign Relations Committee and, further, the Senate proceed en bloc to their consideration: Jay T. Snyder and Larry Carp. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Negotiations are continuing on the remaining appropriations bills. It is hoped that all contentious issues can be resolved as early as the close of business this week. Therefore, Senators should be prepared for votes throughout the week.

Mr. ALLARD. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in a period of morning business for 1 hour starting at 10 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume postcloture debate on the conference report to accompany the bankruptcy legislation. Under the previous agreement, a vote on final passage of the conference report will occur at 4 p.m. on Thursday. I ask unanimous consent that following the 4 p.m. vote on Thursday, Senator Abraham be recognized for up to 30 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until the hour of 10 a.m. on Wednesday, December 6. I further ask consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 11 a.m., with Senators speaking for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Hagel, 10 to 10:30 a.m.; Senator Durbin or his designee, 10:30 to 11 a.m.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Senate version of the American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000, which is now at the desk. It is S. 3274. I am pleased that this legislation is cosponsored by both the chairman and ranking member of the Banking Committee, Senators Phil Gramm and Paul Sarbanes, as well as the ranking member of the Housing subcommittee, Senator John Kerry. This legislation reflects a bipartisan and bicameral agreement on the housing legislation that should be enacted before the close of this Congress. Also joining as cosponsors are Senators Richard Shelby, Rick Santorum, Rod Grams, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and Daniel Inouye. This legislation is the product of negotiations that have taken place between the House and Senate over the past several months. It has been introduced in the House of Representatives today, and if all goes well, it will be approved by both Houses and delivered to the President within the next several days. In addition to housing provisions, this legislation also includes a number of regulatory relief provisions, banking and housing reporting requirements, and several items related to the Federal Reserve. An explanation of each provision is included in the section-by-section that follows my comments. This legislation includes important home ownership, rural housing, elderly housing, disabled housing, and housing affordability barrier removal provisions. This bill also includes the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act championed by Senator Shelby, provisions dealing with Native American housing sponsored by my Colorado colleague, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and Native Hawaiian provisions sponsored by Senator Daniel Inouye. This legislation also includes the Private Mortgage Insurance Technical Corrections and Clarification Act which clarifies a number of provisions enacted by the 105th Congress to address the issue of private mortgage insurance cancellation and termination. Nearly 2 years ago, I became chairman of the Banking Committee's Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation. My priority during this time has been congressional oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. During the 106th Congress, our subcommittee held 19 hearings. Twelve of these hearings dealt specifically with HUD oversight. I have also made a point to develop a legislative agenda that focuses on innovative approaches to increase the supply of affordable housing. Our subcommittee held a number of hearings to review legislative proposals on affordable housing, manufactured housing, homelessness, elderly and disabled housing, and the Federal Housing Administration mortgage insurance program. While we have not been able to do everything we would like in the 106th Congress, I am pleased that this legislative package I am introducing today reflects significant progress on a number of housing initiatives. On July 26, 2000, I introduced the Local Housing Opportunities Act, S. 2968, which reflects a long-term approach to empower communities and individuals by consolidating and reforming HUD programs. While there is much that remains to be done on this legislation, I am pleased that a number of the provisions included in S. 2968 have been enacted or are included in today's introduced legislation. An extension of the simplified FHA downpayment calculation was included in the fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD appropriations bill, and today's legislation permits Section 8 funds to be used for home ownership downpayment assistance. It allows for the use of Section 8 assistance in grandfamily housing assistance with HOME funds, provides assistance for self-help housing providers, and includes several improvements in the rural housing programs at the Department of Agriculture. I also note that tax legislation is currently pending that includes significant increases in the caps of both the low-income housing tax credit and private activity bond programs. If we do not get this legislation enacted this year, I will continue to work hard with my colleagues to get this done in the 107th Congress. Early in this session of Congress, the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation set out to modernize the standards for manufactured housing. On October 5, 1999, the subcommittee held a comprehensive hearing on the proposed manufactured housing legislation. This legislation worked its way through the Senate in 1999 under the leadership of Senator Shelby. The House included similar legislation in a broader housing bill, and we have now reached agreement between the two Chambers on the compromise legislation. This is a tremendous achievement that will contribute significantly to an increase in the amount of affordable housing in our communities. I know from my work in Colorado that this will have a positive impact on the affordable housing shortage in my State. Today's legislation includes several provisions to encourage the removal of regulatory barriers to affordable housing. While this is largely a State and local issue, there are steps that can be taken at the Federal level to help ensure that government at all levels does not put excessive fees, permits, and regulations in place that drive up the cost of housing. In many cases these barriers move housing beyond the means of working families. I know this is an important issue for homebuilders in Colorado and throughout the Nation. As chairman, I will continue to work with local government and housing advocacy organizations during the 107th Congress to discourage and remove regulatory barriers to affordable housing. It has been my pleasure to work with Senator Rick Santorum on a number of important provisions to improve the Section 202 and Section 811 programs. Today's legislation reflects a compromise we have negotiated on proposals designed to expand housing opportunities for the elderly and persons with disabilities. These provisions reauthorize both programs through fiscal year 2003, permit the refinancing of program loans, permit for-profit limited partnerships, mixed funding sources, and certain commercial activities designed to increase the viability of elderly and disabled housing programs. The legislation also authorizes service coordinators and congregate services for elderly and disabled housing. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section description of the bill, along with the full text of the bill, be printed in the Record. And I thank all my colleagues who have helped to put this legislative package together.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Senate version of the American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000, which is now at the desk. It is S. 3274. I am pleased that this legislation is cosponsored by both the chairman and ranking member of the Banking Committee, Senators Phil Gramm and Paul Sarbanes, as well as the ranking member of the Housing subcommittee, Senator John Kerry. This legislation reflects a bipartisan and bicameral agreement on the housing legislation that should be enacted before the close of this Congress. Also joining as cosponsors are Senators Richard Shelby, Rick Santorum, Rod Grams, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and Daniel Inouye. This legislation is the product of negotiations that have taken place between the House and Senate over the past several months. It has been introduced in the House of Representatives today, and if all goes well, it will be approved by both Houses and delivered to the President within the next several days. In addition to housing provisions, this legislation also includes a number of regulatory relief provisions, banking and housing reporting requirements, and several items related to the Federal Reserve. An explanation of each provision is included in the section-by-section that follows my comments. This legislation includes important home ownership, rural housing, elderly housing, disabled housing, and housing affordability barrier removal provisions. This bill also includes the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act championed by Senator Shelby, provisions dealing with Native American housing sponsored by my Colorado colleague, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and Native Hawaiian provisions sponsored by Senator Daniel Inouye. This legislation also includes the Private Mortgage Insurance Technical Corrections and Clarification Act which clarifies a number of provisions enacted by the 105th Congress to address the issue of private mortgage insurance cancellation and termination. Nearly 2 years ago, I became chairman of the Banking Committee's Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation. My priority during this time has been congressional oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. During the 106th Congress, our subcommittee held 19 hearings. Twelve of these hearings dealt specifically with HUD oversight. I have also made a point to develop a legislative agenda that focuses on innovative approaches to increase the supply of affordable housing. Our subcommittee held a number of hearings to review legislative proposals on affordable housing, manufactured housing, homelessness, elderly and disabled housing, and the Federal Housing Administration mortgage insurance program. While we have not been able to do everything we would like in the 106th Congress, I am pleased that this legislative package I am introducing today reflects significant progress on a number of housing initiatives. On July 26, 2000, I introduced the Local Housing Opportunities Act, S. 2968, which reflects a long-term approach to empower communities and individuals by consolidating and reforming HUD programs. While there is much that remains to be done on this legislation, I am pleased that a number of the provisions included in S. 2968 have been enacted or are included in today's introduced legislation. An extension of the simplified FHA downpayment calculation was included in the fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD appropriations bill, and today's legislation permits Section 8 funds to be used for home ownership downpayment assistance. It allows for the use of Section 8 assistance in grandfamily housing assistance with HOME funds, provides assistance for self-help housing providers, and includes several improvements in the rural housing programs at the Department of Agriculture. I also note that tax legislation is currently pending that includes significant increases in the caps of both the low-income housing tax credit and private activity bond programs. If we do not get this legislation enacted this year, I will continue to work hard with my colleagues to get this done in the 107th Congress. Early in this session of Congress, the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation set out to modernize the standards for manufactured housing. On October 5, 1999, the subcommittee held a comprehensive hearing on the proposed manufactured housing legislation. This legislation worked its way through the Senate in 1999 under the leadership of Senator Shelby. The House included similar legislation in a broader housing bill, and we have now reached agreement between the two Chambers on the compromise legislation. This is a tremendous achievement that will contribute significantly to an increase in the amount of affordable housing in our communities. I know from my work in Colorado that this will have a positive impact on the affordable housing shortage in my State. Today's legislation includes several provisions to encourage the removal of regulatory barriers to affordable housing. While this is largely a State and local issue, there are steps that can be taken at the Federal level to help ensure that government at all levels does not put excessive fees, permits, and regulations in place that drive up the cost of housing. In many cases these barriers move housing beyond the means of working families. I know this is an important issue for homebuilders in Colorado and throughout the Nation. As chairman, I will continue to work with local government and housing advocacy organizations during the 107th Congress to discourage and remove regulatory barriers to affordable housing. It has been my pleasure to work with Senator Rick Santorum on a number of important provisions to improve the Section 202 and Section 811 programs. Today's legislation reflects a compromise we have negotiated on proposals designed to expand housing opportunities for the elderly and persons with disabilities. These provisions reauthorize both programs through fiscal year 2003, permit the refinancing of program loans, permit for-profit limited partnerships, mixed funding sources, and certain commercial activities designed to increase the viability of elderly and disabled housing programs. The legislation also authorizes service coordinators and congregate services for elderly and disabled housing. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section description of the bill, along with the full text of the bill, be printed in the Record. And I thank all my colleagues who have helped to put this legislative package together.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for 10 minutes under morning business.

Mr. ALLARD. Are we in morning business?

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I have been following the debate between the two Presidential candidates and notice that the Vice President wants to take full credit for paying down the deficit. At the time that the legislation went through the Congress, the President's proposal was a tax increase, and it was a proposal to increase spending in 1993. I served on the Budget Committee in the House and I expressed at that time in reality this was not a tax to cut the deficit; it was a tax to increase spending. As members of the House Budget Committee, we had pointed out at that time that it was going to create a $2 billion deficit as far as the mind's eye could see. So now we have the Vice President on the campaign trail taking credit for having eliminated the deficit. In reality, what it was, it was the Republican Congress. In 1993, when this was passed, Democrats controlled the Senate, Democrats controlled the House, and Democrats were in control of the Presidency. This passed by a very narrow margin in the House. Not one Republican voted for it. It came over to the Senate and would not have passed the Senate if at that time the Vice President, Al Gore, had not voted for the budget proposal which, in effect, was going to maintain the deficit at $200 billion. So I wanted to bring some facts to the floor in that regard. I thought it was important I do that. This year, in July, just before we were ready to adjourn, the assistant minority leader pointed out that I made a comment at one time and my comment was, about the President's plan in 1992, which we were voting on: In summary, the plan has a fatal flaw--it does not reduce the deficit. Today I am standing up on the Senate floor to stand by my remarks because, if we look historically, that plan did not reduce the deficit. In fact, I repeat, Al Gore's record is that of a tax hike because he is the one who voted for this--his vote alone. Al Gore would like to have you believe that actually what he was doing was putting in place a plan to eliminate the deficit. I point out there is no document in the Clinton-Gore administration that exists that shows the largest tax hike--and that is what this was--the largest tax hike in American history did, or would have, or could ever have balanced the budget--not one document. I have here before me ``A Vision of Change For America.'' This is dated February 17, 1993. This is the President's plan on how he was going to eliminate the deficit. If we look at that, on page 22 of that document, we see the projected deficit 5 years out, from 1993, is $241 billion, despite all the rhetoric and how it is going to pay down the deficit with the tax increase. Then, in September of the same year, in 1993, if we look on page 34 of the ``Mid-Session Review'' of the 1994 budget, we see the projected deficit out to 1998 is $181 billion. Then, if we look at the budget of the U.S. Government proposed for 1995, proposed in 1994, again, on page 13 of that particular document we see the projected deficit, 5 years out from the date of that document, is $181 billion again. It is flat-lining out at approximately $200 billion a year. Then we have another document that was published in 1994, the ``Mid- Session Review'' of the 1995 budget. On page 3 of that document, it shows that the deficit, 5 years out from that date, is projected to be $207 billion. This is deficit spending. This is where you are going in, on any one fiscal year, and you are spending more than what you bring in, in revenues. Then, following out through the first couple of years since his proposal, we look at the document, ``The Budget Of The U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 1996.'' If we look on page 2 of that particular document, we see the projected deficit for the year 2000, 5 years out, was $194 billion. Then, in the Mid-Session Review on that particular budget, Mid- Session Review of the 1996 budget, we see the projected deficit 5 years out on that document is $235 billion in 2005. If you recall, in 1996 we had the Republican Congress elected. Under pressure from the Republicans in the Congress, the President finally admitted that his plan was not going to eliminate the deficit. So, in working with the Republican Congress, a new plan was beginning to be put in place. That is what this chart reflects. It reflects two things. The red part is this projected deficit that was passed by the President and the Congress and put into law. As we can see, it is about $200 billion deficit spending. This is a tax increase, the largest tax increase in the history of this country. Then we see the Republicans come into power in 1996, and what happens, which is reflected by this black line, is that the deficits dramatically are reduced, and then we find, a little past 1997, actually we are beginning to get some surpluses until where we are at 2000, where we have the huge surpluses we are dealing with today. I think the wrong person is taking credit for this. It is the Republican Congress that made a difference on deficit spending. It was not the largest tax increase in the history of this country which was passed in the Senate, here, by the Vice President. So this is a summary of what happened 2 years after the largest tax hike in history. Finally, Clinton and Gore admitted America was still 10 years away and almost $1 trillion short of a balanced budget. It is not just their documents I demonstrated with on the floor of the Senate. In their own words, they verify this. During the signing ceremony on the largest tax hike in history, not a word was uttered by President Clinton about balancing the budget or saving Social Security or paying off the national debt. At that time, the Republican plan was we really needed to have dramatic changes if we were going to make a difference in saving Social Security, eliminating the deficit, and paying down the debt. But all the plan we got out of Al Gore and the administration was that we increased taxes and we would eliminate the deficit, and it was not working because they also increased spending. If we look at the President's comments at the signing of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, on August 10 of 1993--this is from a book entitled ``Public Papers of the President, William J. Clinton,'' 1993, volume 2, page 1355. If you read through his comments and examine his remarks, not once was a word uttered about balancing the budget, saving Social Security, or even paying off the national debt. Thus, Al Gore's tax hike was actually no act of heroism. What it really was, was a tax-and-spend vote instead of a tax to end the deficit. So I wanted to address that issue here on the floor of the Senate. In summation, Mr. President, no Clinton-Gore budget document from February 13, 1993, through July 28, 1995, ever shows a balanced budget resulting from Mr. Gore's record tax hike. No Clinton-Gore budget document from February 13, 1993, through July 28, 1995, ever shows a Social Security surplus being saved from Mr. Gore's record tax hike. And no Clinton-Gore budget document from February 13, 1993, through July 28, 1995, ever shows debt reduction or elimination resulting from Mr. Gore's record tax hike. Yet Al Gore now claims and lectures as if he actually created this surplus. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding me some time here. This is an important piece of legislation that my colleague has been working for. I rise in support of S. 2508, called the Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000. It has been worked on for some 18 years by my colleague, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. I wish to take a few moments to commend everyone who has worked on behalf of this piece of legislation, and for their efforts to resolve this issue. In Colorado, earlier this year--maybe it was last year--there was a group of us who did get together, Congressman McInnis, myself, we had Senator Campbell, and Secretary of Interior Babbitt. We got together what we called the great sand dunes conference. All four of us walked up on those great majestic sand dunes. We talked about the future of the great sand dunes, and we had a discussion about the Animas project. At that point, we had our staffs standing off on the far side. All of our supporters were wondering what the four of us were talking about. We were talking about common ground and how we could come to an agreement to get the Animas-La Plata project passed. It was a great opportunity my colleague took at that time to talk to the Secretary of Interior while he was breathing some of that fresh mountain air of Colorado and clearing his thinking a little bit, and that got things off to a good start. This new legislation is a product of that meeting, and it reflects significant compromises and challenges we all faced in getting to this historical moment. Growing up in rural Colorado and throughout my tenure as a public servant, it seems the Animas-La Plata conflict has endured. Every time water and water projects were discussed, the promises and unsettled claims to the Colorado Ute Indian tribes always persisted. Now the time has come for the Federal Government to fulfill its obligations to the Ute Indian tribes and satisfy the water treaty. The project was originally authorized in 1968 with the help of then- Congressman Wayne Aspinall, a good friend of the Allard family and former chairman of the House Interior Committee. I knew Mr. Aspinall. He served Colorado honorably. Over the past 32 years, since authorization, we have tried to get this project completed with bipartisan efforts by former Congressmen Ray Kogovsek and Mike Strang. Now, with the outstanding leadership of Senator Campbell, who for 14 years has championed this project, I believe the end is near. After 132 years, the time has come for the United States to finally do the right thing and meet its treaty obligations. I commend Senator Campbell for his tireless efforts, from his days in the House of Representatives, to his current time in the Senate and through three different Presidential administrations, to fulfill our Nation's treaty obligations. I yield the floor.