Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I know my colleague from Wisconsin has been here before me. I have been asked by the majority leader to make a unanimous consent request. As soon as I make it, I hope the Chair will recognize my colleague from Wisconsin. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 30 minutes equally divided for debate relative to the Feingold amendment regarding a commission, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote. I further ask consent that following that debate, Senator Wellstone be recognized in order to resume debate on amendment No. 4120. I further ask consent that following the use or yielding of that debate time, the Senate proceed to a series of rollcall votes in relation to the following amendments, with 2 minutes for closing remarks prior to each vote. Those amendments are as follows: Helms amendment No. 4128; Helms amendment No. 4123; a Feingold amendment regarding a commission; Wellstone amendment No. 4120.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the Republican floor manager has indicated I could use his time to talk about this important piece of legislation. I don't have any remarks I am going to direct specifically to the amendment; although, I find myself in the same position as the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, in that there are many amendments that, under different circumstances, I may very well have found myself supporting. But because I think this is such an important piece of legislation, I have decided to oppose any amendments that will be made to this bill because I think it will put it in jeopardy, and the chances of it passing the House are, from what I understand, not good if we put Senate amendments on this side. I think we will have an opportunity in the future to address some of the amendments that were attempted to be made to this particular piece of legislation. Under those circumstances, as I mentioned earlier, I will probably support them. I think this is a very important piece of legislation for this country. It is a very important piece of legislation as far as the State of Colorado is concerned. The State of Colorado has experienced tremendous growth in exports, and I attribute that to the type of industry we have in the State of Colorado. We are primarily agriculture and light manufacturing, which includes high-technology. Those are areas where we have had a lot of growth in exports nationwide. Colorado has been the benefactor of that. I have come to the belief that we need to work to open trade barriers. When we open these trade barriers, democracy is exported and we prosper economically. Colorado would be one State in the Nation that would be a good example of that. Western civilization has been trading in some manner with China since the Roman Empire anchored one end of the Silk Road. But it will not be until we pass this bill before us that our culture will have access to free and open trade with this massive country called China. I am glad most of us have recognized that the term ``most favored nation'' was a misnomer. This country needs to remember that China will not actually be ``favored.'' China will be equally treated as we treat the other 137 World Trade Organization countries such as Cyprus, Jamaica, and Djibouti, or the newest WTO member nation, Albania. We are not singling China out for special treatment, nor are we ushering them into the community of nations. The World Trade Organization exists separate from our decision. I am struck most by this fact: That if the United States does not pass permanent normal trading relations, it does not keep China out of the WTO. It just keeps America from benefiting from China's presence in it. China has 1.3 billion people, a purchasing power of $4.42 trillion, and a yearly import market of $140 billion. Nearly 20 percent of the world lives within its borders--a fifth of the world. And many of the Chinese people are just beginning to desire Western products such as those made in Colorado--luxury goods, communication gear, computers, software, western beef, wheat, and so much more. The rest of the world is scrambling ferociously to pass their own version of PNTR to capture the China market. If we turn down this opportunity or if we amend it into practical nullification, we will not stop China's human rights problems; we will not force China to accept freedom of religion, speech, or other individual liberty. All that will happen is the United States will be denied the loosening of tariffs and import controls that the rest of the world nations will gain. If Congress balks at PNTR this year, 137 nations other than the United States will benefit from free trade with China while American workers, farmers, ranchers, and small businesses are denied equal access. Everyone knows we trade with China now. Colorado exported $166 million worth of goods to China in 1998. Colorado Springs alone, one of our larger metropolitan areas, exported $41 million. Denver, another of our larger metropolitan areas, exported $16 million to China. And these numbers are only going to grow. If we grant China PNTR, Colorado will be assured a more prosperous future. Why? Because with PNTR-WTO membership, China will have to lower their average tariffs on U.S. goods from 24 percent to 9 percent. They will have to cut average agricultural tariffs in half and eliminate all tariffs on high-tech goods. But Colorado and the United States will not have to undergo similar market restructuring. The United States already has open markets and engages in free trade. It is China that will have to open their markets and end their protectionism to benefit from WTO membership. This will then facilitate more trade and higher profits for Colorado companies and Colorado workers. Why is China doing this? Because they know what we do. Free trade benefits those who practice it. Many export producing jobs pay better than basic service sector jobs. Increasing trade generates more jobs of a higher quality, and that presents more opportunities for workers. For instance, since NAFTA, Colorado has increased exports to Mexico by $300 million. China PNTR will add to this export total. If we were to set aside economic reasons, there are still many other reasons to favor PNTR. The first is humanitarian. History has shown that it is the isolated, closed societies that are the most brutal and repressed. International contact--such as would be brought about by increased trade, with businessmen, foreign goods, exchanges, corporate presence and marketing--would serve to increase access to a higher standard of living and a better quality of life. We would be able to up-grade the everyday lifestyle of the ordinary people of China, and that is not an opportunity to be ignored by those who seek to aid the world's less fortunate. The number one export from America is democracy. PNTR will not only tear down the trade barriers for Colorado's workers, farmers, and small businesses, it will also flood the Chinese culture with the American ideals of liberty and democracy. When the freedom protesters took over Tiananmen Square in 1889 and built a replica of the Statute of Liberty, they were not just expressing support for the type of freedoms enshrined in our political documents. They were expressing a desire for the liberty and benefits of a modern, vibrant, and free United States that they saw on the current world stage. By increasing our relations with China, we can side step the admittedly authoritarian regime in Beijing, and deal with the people themselves through our products and our communications. The Soviet Union did not fall because we passed resolutions against them. It did not fall because we had bitter debates about their human right records, and it did not fall because we regularly reviewed their civil liberties. It fell for two reasons that remain relevant today: The Soviet Union fell because the oppressed people of Eastern Europe grew tired of being left behind by the western prosperity they saw, and because their leaders realized that President Reagan would not let them take that prosperity by force. Unable to keep up with the western nations, they fell behind and eventually fell apart. We need to remain aware of and secure against China's sometimes blatant hostility to us and our ideals. But we have less to fear from a China that shares an engaged, mutually beneficial relationship than from an excluded China shut out of our markets. Taiwan, the nation most under the gun from an aggressive China, supports Chinese PNTR/WTO membership for this very reason. It suggests that they too hope that increased trade will overwhelm the communist system and force it to grow and develop into a more mature, efficient, and equitable system. Some oppose trade agreements because of security concerns. Trade agreements are not the reason for the loss of our nation's military secrets. We have seen serious security lapses in the Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and our national laboratories. The responsibility of protecting our national secrets lies with the Administration, not our trade policies. The most recent Department of Energy security blunder, losing two hard drives, coupled with the discovery of bugging devices in State Department conference rooms and the mishandling of classified information by the recently dismissed Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, builds a very strong case for this administration's blatant disregard for protecting our national security secrets. However, these wrongs pale in comparison to the Secretary of Energy's decision to ignore the public law enacted by Congress last year to establish a semi-autonomous National Nuclear Security Agency to correct known security deficiencies within his department. Fortunately, the recent Los Alamos incident expedited what had become a stalled effort to confirm General John Gordon as Director of the newly formed NNSA. With General Gordon in place, I sincerely believe we will finally get some action to hasten security reform within this agency. But these acts, all pre-PNTR, highlight a simple truth--weapons proliferation, national security, and defense are functions of a nation's leaders, not its merchants. If we want a strong, pro-active national defense that diligently maintains our vital interests, we can not expect to let trade agreements alone shoulder that burden. It is my hope that the upcoming vote will confirm America's commitment to free trade, international participation, and mutually beneficial capitalism. That is why I will be voting in favor of China PNTR and against any amendments. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield my time.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. As I'm sure the Chairman knows, research that has been undertaken by CPBR's member universities, including the University of Colorado, in conjunction with the Department of Energy has led to improved biomass energy technologies that help develop a competitive biomass-based energy industry and a safer, cleaner environment.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to briefly engage Senator Domenici, Chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee on an important energy issue.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman for his time and would encourage him to consider the important work of CPBR when this bill moves to conference with the other body. general investigations activities of the corps of engineers

Mr. ALLARD. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Domenici for his hard work on this important bill. In particular I would like to thank him for his actions in response to requests by many, including this Senator, on behalf of renewable energy. These funds will go far to help in many areas of science, the environment, national security and the economy. On a related topic, I wonder if I could briefly discuss the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research (CPBR) with the Chairman.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume postcloture debate on the motion to proceed to the China PNTR legislation. It is hoped an agreement can be reached to begin debate on the substance of the bill during today's session of the Senate. The Senate will also continue debate on the energy and water appropriations bill during this evening's session. The Schumer amendment regarding an energy commission is the pending amendment. By previous consent, during today's consideration of the energy and water appropriations bill, Senator Daschle, or his designee, will be recognized to offer a motion to strike the language relating to the Missouri River. There will be up to 3 hours of debate on the amendment prior to a vote in relation to the motion; therefore, votes could occur into the evening. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Local Housing Opportunities Act'', legislation to empower communities and individuals by consolidating and reforming HUD programs. I ask unanimous consent that the following section-by-section description of the bill be printed in the Record and that the text of the bill be printed in the Record following the description. In 1994, there were 240 separate programs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). By 1997, the number of programs had grown to 328. Many of these programs have never been authorized by Congress, and operate under questionable legal authority. While the number of HUD programs has grown, HUD's workforce has declined from 12,000 employees in 1995 to 9,000 employees today. As a result, scarce resources are diverted away from core housing and enforcement programs, dramatically increasing the risks of mismanagement and fraud. HUD remains the only Cabinet level agency designated by the General Accounting Office (GAO) as ``High Risk''. In order to promote the interests of taxpayers and improve the delivery of services to beneficiaries, Congress should transfer more programs to the States and localities and enact legislation to consolidate, terminate, and streamline HUD programs. Section-by-Section Description I. Prohibition of Unauthorized Programs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development--Prohibits HUD from carrying out any program that is not explicitly authorized in statute by the Congress. This provision takes effect one year after the effective date to give the Congress sufficient time to authorize those programs that it wishes to maintain. Within 60 days of the date of enactment the Department of Housing and Urban Development shall provide a report detailing every HUD program along with the statutory authorization for that program. This report shall be provided annually to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, the Senate Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and the House Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. II. Elimination of Certain HUD Programs--Terminates certain programs as recommended by the HUD Secretary in the ``HUD 2020 Program Repeal and Streamlining Act''. The Department has determined that these programs are unnecessary, outdated, or inactive. Community Investment Corporation Demonstration--never funded, superseded by the Community Development Financial Institutions program administered by the Department of the Treasury. New Towns Demonstration Program for Emergency Relief of Los Angeles--not funded since FY 1993. Solar Assistance Financing Entity--not funded in recent years. Urban Development Action Grants--discontinued program, not funded in recent years. Certain Special Purpose Grants--not funded since FY 1993 and FY 1995. Moderate Rehabilitation Assistance in Disasters--no additional assistance for the Moderate Rehabilitation program has been provided (other than for the homeless under the McKinney Act) since FY 1989. Rent Supplement Program--not funded for many years. National Home Ownership Trust Demonstration--authority expired at the end of FY 1994. Repeal of HOPE I, II, and III--all HOPE funds have been awarded, no additional funding has been requested since FY 1995, and no future funding is anticipated. Energy Efficiency Demonstration Program, section 961 of NAHA--never funded. Technical Assistance and Training for IHAs--no funds have been provided for this program since FY 1994. Termination of the investor mortgages portion of the Section 203(k) rehabilitation mortgage insurance program as recommended by the HUD IG. Investor rehabilitation mortgages constitute approximately 20% of the loans insured under this program, and recent IG audits have found this portion of the program to be particularly vulnerable to fraud and abuse by investor-owners. The larger portion of the program for owner/ occupants is retained. Certificate and Voucher Assistance for Rental Rehabilitation Projects--rental rehabilitation program has been repealed, section 289 of NAHA. Single Family Loan Insurance for Home Improvement Loans in Urban Renewal Areas--unnecessary. Single Family and Multifamily Mortgage Insurance for Miscellaneous Special Situations, section 223 (a)(1)-(6) and (8)--obsolete. Single Family Mortgage Insurance for so-called ``Modified'' Graduated Payment Mortgages, section 245 (b)--insurance authority terminated in 1987 but provision never repealed. War Housing Insurance--authority for new insurance terminated in 1954, but provision never repealed. Insurance for Investments (Yield Insurance)--program never implemented, but authority and provision never repealed. National Defense Housing--authority for new insurance terminated in 1954, but provision never repealed. Rural Homeless Housing Assistance--not funded since FY 1994, all HUD homeless assistance will be part of the McKinney Homeless Assistance Performance Fund created under this legislation. Innovative Homeless Initiatives Demonstration--not funded since FY 1995, all HUD homeless assistance will be part of the McKinney Homeless Assistance Performance Fund created under this legislation. During the remainder of 2000, the Senate Housing and Transportation Subcommittee will hold hearings on this discussion draft. At that time the Subcommittee will solicit the recommendations of the Department, the IG, the GAO, and other organizations for other HUD programs that can be streamlined or eliminated. This legislation also provides for the creation of a ``HUD Consolidation Task Force'' which will report to the Congress with recommendations on how to reduce the number of programs at HUD through consolidation, termination, or transfer to other levels of government. III. HUD Consolidation Task Force--Mandates the creation of a task force that will focus exclusively on legislative and regulatory options to reduce the number of HUD programs. The task force will consist of three individuals: the Comptroller General of the United States, the HUD Secretary, and the HUD Inspector General. Within six months of the enactment of this legislation, the task force will produce a report outlining options to reduce the number of HUD programs through consolidation, elimination, and transfer to other levels of government. The report will be provided to the Senate and House Housing Subcommittees as well as the Senate and House Banking Committees. I. Community Development Block Grant Authorization (CDBG) and Prohibition of Set-Asides and Earmarks--Restores local control over the CDBG program by prohibiting Congressional set-asides and earmarks not specifically authorized in statute. The original intent of CDBG was that program dollars would be allocated directly to cities and states according to formula. In FY 1999 over 10 percent of the funds were earmarked for specific projects (the earmarks have increased steadily in recent years). CDBG was last authorized in 1994, this legislation would authorize the program through FY 2005, with an initial authorization of $4,850,000,000 in FY 2001. II. Community Notification of Opt-Outs--Requires that when HUD receives notice of a Section 8 opt-out that it forward that notice within 10 days to the top elected official for the unit of local government where the property is located. This supplements the requirement in Section 8 (c)(8)(A) of the Housing Act of 1937 that HUD and tenants be notified one year in advance if a Section 8 opt-out is anticipated. III. Urban Homestead Requirement--Directs that HUD-held properties that have not been disposed of within six months following acquisition by HUD or a determination that they are substandard or unoccupied, shall be made available upon written request for sale or donation to local governments or Community Development Corporations (CDCs). IV. Permanent ``Moving To Work'' Authorization--Continues the deregulation of Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) by opening the ``Moving To Work'' program to all PHAs. This program was authorized as a demonstration in the 1996 VA/HUD Appropriation bill and granted up to 30 PHAs the option to receive HUD funds as a block grant. The program provides autonomy from HUD micro-management and the freedom to innovate with reforms such as work requirements, time limits, job training, and Home ownership assistance. The Secretary shall approve an application under this program for all but the lowest performing PHAs unless the Secretary makes a written determination, within 60 days after receiving the application, that the application fails to comply with the statutory provisions authorizing the ``Moving to Work'' program. Consolidate HUD Homeless Assistance Funds into the ``McKinney Homeless Assistance Performance Fund''--Combines HUD's McKinney programs (Supportive Housing Program, Shelter Plus Care, Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation for Single Room Occupancy Dwellings, Safe Havens, Rural Homeless Housing Assistance, and the Emergency Shelter Grants), into a single McKinney Homeless Assistance Performance Fund ( and authorizes funding through FY 2003, at an initial level of $1,050,000,000 in FY 2001). Distributes funds according to the CDBG block grant formula with 70 percent to units of local government and 30 percent to states. Eligible units of local government include metropolitan cities, urban counties, and consortia. The formula is to be reviewed after one year with a statutory requirement that HUD provide alternative formulas for the Congress to consider. State funds are available for use in areas throughout the entire state. Codifies and requires a Continuum of Care system by grant recipients. The Continuum of Care submission is linked with the Consolidated Plan. Every three dollars of federal block grant money is to be matched with one dollar of state or local money. Funds qualifying for the match are the same as those currently permitted under the Emergency Shelter Grants program, and would include salaries paid to staff, volunteer labor, and the value of a lease on a building. There is a five year transition period--state and local governments would receive no less than 90 percent of prior award amounts (average for FY 96-99) in the first year after enactment, 85 percent in the second year after enactment, 80 percent in the third and fourth year after enactment, and 75 percent in the fifth year after enactment. Eligible projects and activities include emergency assistance, safe haven housing, transitional housing, permanent housing, supportive services for persons with disabilities, single room occupancy housing, prevention, outreach and assessment, acquisition and rehabilitation of property, new construction, operating costs, leasing, tenant assistance, supportive services, administrative (generally limited to 10 percent of funds), capacity building, targeting to subpopulations of persons with disabilities. Performance measures and benchmarks are included, along with periodic performance reports, reviews, and audits. I. Mutual and Self-Help Housing Technical Assistance and Training Grants Program--Reauthorizes technical assistance grants to facilitate the construction of self-help housing in rural areas. Program beneficiaries are required to contribute a significant amount of sweat equity to the construction of the homes that they will own. Authorizes funding of $40 million for FY 2001 and 2002, and $45 million for FY 2003- 2005. II. Improve the Rural Housing Repair Loan Program for the Elderly--Increases the amount for which a promissory note is considered a sufficient security for housing repairs from $2,500 to $7,500. III. Enhance Efficiency of Rural Housing Preservation Grants--Eliminates the existing statutory requirement that prohibits a State from obligating more than 50 percent of its Housing Preservation Grants allocation to any one grantee. Many states receive only a small amount from this formula program. In many cases the money can only be most effectively invested in one project. IV. Project Accounting Records and Practices--Requires section 515 rural housing borrowers to maintain records in accordance with GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles). V. Operating Assistance for Migrant Farmworker Projects Authority--Permits rural housing operating assistance payments in migrant and seasonal farm labor housing complexes. I. Authorization of Appropriations for Rental Vouchers for Relocation of Witnesses and Victims of Crime--Authorizes specific funding for vouchers for victims and witnesses of crime. These vouchers were authorized in the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (QHWRA). No funds have yet been appropriated and HUD has yet to write regulations. The current authorization directs the Secretary to make available such sums as may be necessary for the relocation of families residing in public housing who are victims of a crime of violence reported to an appropriate law enforcement authority, and requires that PHAs notify tenants of the availability of such funds. This legislation would authorize a funding level in each of FY 2001-2005 of $25,000,000. II. Revise the HUD Lease Addendum--Prohibits the HUD lease addendum from overriding local law. Participating housing providers and residents sign a three-party lease along with the public housing authority. The law requires the attachment of a HUD Lease Addendum (HUD Form 52647.3) which overrides some local market provisions and practices, holding the voucher resident to a non-standard lease contract. The use of federally promulgated forms that counter local practice incurs additional training, legal and management costs. The voucher lease addendum shall be nullified to the extent that it conflicts with State or local law. III. Reduce the Burden of Housing Quality Standard Inspections--Provides the option that Housing Quality Standard inspections be conducted on a property basis rather than a unit basis. Currently each individual unit that is rented under the program must be inspected for compliance with HUD's Housing Quality Standards. Individual inspections are a time-consuming administrative headache for PHAs and Section 8 landlords, result in slow unit turnover, and significant lost revenue. This legislation provides the Section 8 landlord with the option to have annual inspections conducted on a property or building basis, rather than a unit basis. IV. HUD Report to the Congress on Ways to Improve the Voucher Program--Requires that the HUD Secretary solicit comments and recommendations for improvement in the voucher program through notice in the Federal Register. Six months after enactment, the Secretary shall submit to the House and Senate Housing Subcommittees and the House and Senate Banking Committees a summary of the recommendations received by the Secretary regarding suggestions for improvement in the voucher program. I. Reauthorize the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP)--Reauthorizes the SHOP program which provides funding for land and infrastructure purchases to facilitate self-help housing. Utilized by Habitat for Humanity and the Housing Assistance Council. Reauthorize through FY 2005, beginning with $25 million in FY 2001. Adds new language allowing an additional year to use funds for local groups building five or more homes (increase from two years to three years), and also making it possible for local and national non-profit organizations using SHOP funds to advance their own money to purchase property, pending the environmental review approvals, to be repaid from federal funds after the environmental reviews have been approved. II. Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing Program--Reauthorizes and increases grants to non-profits to expand affordable housing capacity. Presently authorized for The Enterprise Foundation, Local Initiatives Support Corporation, Habitat for Humanity, Youthbuild USA, and the National Community Development Initiative. Expands access to this program to include the ``National Association of Housing Partnerships'' and authorizes a funding level of $40 million for each of FY 2001-2003. Amounts must be matched three to one from other sources. III. Work Requirement for Public Housing Residents: Coordinate Federal Housing Assistance with State Welfare Reform Work Programs--Requires that able-bodied and non- elderly public housing residents be in compliance with the work requirements of welfare reform in their state. Those unable to comply would be provided the opportunity to engage in community service or participate in an economic self- sufficiency program. There is substantial overlap in families receiving welfare and those benefitting from assisted housing. Among families with children, it is estimated that 72 percent of those who live in public housing receive some type of welfare. These families are currently subject to Welfare Reform work requirements and this provision simply applies the requirement to the remaining able-bodied recipients of federal housing assistance. Public housing was originally conceived as temporary assistance for working low- income families to help them during times of financial distress. Recent housing legislation has recognized this fact by placing increasing emphasis on self-sufficiency. These efforts should be coordinated with the self sufficiency efforts of Welfare Reform. PHAs shall monitor compliance with the state work requirement. There shall be an exception for the elderly and disabled, and as with Welfare Reform, there will be a broad definition of work including; employment, community service, vocational and job training, work associated with self help housing construction, refurbishing publicly assisted housing, the provision of certain child care services, and participation in education programs or economic self-sufficiency programs. This work requirement will replace the 8 hour per month ``Community Service'' Requirement that exists in current law for residents of public housing. Public Housing Authorities shall not be prohibited by this legislation from implementing more stringent work requirements and States electing the housing assistance block grant would be excluded from this requirement and be free to design their own self-sufficiency requirements. IV. Flexible Use of CDBG Funds to Maintain Properties-- Amends Section 105(a)(23) of the Housing and Community Development Act, which currently authorizes use of CDBG funding for activities necessary to make essential repairs and payment of operating expenses needed to maintain the habitability of housing units acquired through tax foreclosure proceedings in order to prevent abandonment and deterioration of such housing in primarily low- and moderate- income neighborhoods. This language is amended to permit the use of CDBG funds for property upkeep in instances in which a court has wrested effective control of a distressed residential property from the owner and appointed a responsible third party (often a non-profit organization or other owner/manager of properties in the area) to operate the property on an interim basis as administrator, although legal title remains with the original owner. IV. Allows Vouchers in Grandfamily Housing Assisted with HOME Dollars--Permits flexible use of Section 8 vouchers in Grandfamily Housing assisted with HOME dollars. Current law restricts the level of Section 8 assistance that may be used in projects assisted with HOME funds. This legislation creates an exception to the general rule for projects designed to benefit Grandfamilies, by permitting the use of Section 8 vouchers at the Fair Market Rent (FMR) level by Grandparents choosing to live in low income housing projects assisted with HOME dollars. This change is designed to assist low-income, elderly residents and their grandchildren for whom they provide full-time care and custody. V. Simplified FHA Downpayment Calculation.--Makes permanent the temporary simplified FHA downpayment calculation provided in section 203(b) of the National Housing Act. The current downpayment calculation on FHA loans is needlessly complex. Recent appropriations bills have included a simplified pilot program that replaces the current multi-part formula with a single calculation based solely on the appraised value of the property. The simplified formula yields substantially the same downpayment result as the multi-part formula. VI. Authorize the Use of Section 8 Funds for Downpayment Assistance--Permits tenants to receive up to one year's worth of Section 8 assistance in a lump sum to be used toward the down payment on a home. This compliments innovative programs that allow the use of Section 8 assistance for mortgage payments. VII. Reauthorize the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation through 2003--Reauthorizes the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, a congressionally chartered, public non-profit corporation established in 1978 to revitalize declining lower-income communities and provide affordable housing. Funding is authorized at $90 million in FY 2001, and $95 million in each of FY 2002 and 2003. Provides States the option to receive certain federal assisted housing funds (tenant assistance programs) in the form of a block grant. Modeled on Welfare Reform, this would give States the freedom to innovate absent HUD micro- management. States accepted into the program would sign a five year performance agreement with the federal government that details how the State intends to combine and use housing assistance funds from programs included in the performance agreement to advance low income housing priorities, improve the quality of low income housing, reduce homelessness, and encourage economic opportunity and self-sufficiency. States electing the block grant would determine how funds are distributed to state agencies, Public Housing Authorities, project owners, and tenants. During the first year of the performance agreement States would receive the highest of the prior three years funding for each program included in the performance agreement. There would then be an annual inflation adjustment in each future year until Congress (following consultation with HUD) enacts a formula that reflects the relative low-income/affordable housing needs of each State. A performance agreement submitted to the Secretary would have to be approved by the Secretary unless the Secretary makes a written determination, within 60 days after receiving the performance agreement, that the performance agreement fails to comply with provisions of the Act. Eligible programs for inclusion in the block grant shall include: the voucher program for rental assistance under section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937; the programs for project-based assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937; the program for housing for the elderly under section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959; the program for housing for persons with disabilities under section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act. The distribution of block granted funds within the State from programs included in the performance agreement shall be determined by the Legislature and the Governor of the State. In a State in which the constitution or state law designates another individual, entity, or agency to be responsible for housing, such other individual, entity, or agency shall work in consultation with the Governor and Legislature to determine the local distribution of funds. Existing contracts involving federal housing dollars shall be honored by the States until their expiration. States shall at such point handle the renewal of all contracts. A State may not use more than 3 percent of the total amount of funds allocated to such State under the programs included in the performance agreement for administrative purposes. Performance criteria shall include at a minimum a measure of; the improvement in housing conditions, the number of units that pass housing quality inspections, the number of residents that find employment and move to self- sufficiency, the level of crime against residents, the level of homelessness, the level of poverty, the cost of assisted housing units provided, the level of assistance provided to people with disabilities and to the elderly, success in maintaining the stock of affordable housing, and increasing homeownership. If at the end of the 5-year term of the performance agreement a State has failed to meet at least 80 percent of the performance goals submitted in the performance agreement, the Secretary shall terminate the performance agreement and the State or community shall be required to comply with the program requirement, in effect at the time of termination, of each program included in the performance agreement. To reward States that make significant progress in meeting performance goals, the HUD Secretary shall annually set aside sufficient funds to grant a reward of up to 5 percent of the funds allocated to participating States. Sense of the Congress Supporting Tax Incentives Sense of the Congress That the Low Income Housing Tax Credit State Ceilings and the Private Activity Bond Caps Should Be Increased It is the sense of the Congress that the Low Income Housing Tax Credit and Private Activity Bonds have been valuable resources in the effort to increase affordable housing. It is the sense of the Congress that the Low Income Housing Tax Credit and Private Activity Bonds effectively utilize the ability of the states to deliver resources to the areas of greatest need within their jurisdictions. It is the sense of the Congress that the value of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit and the Private Activity Bonds have been eroded by inflation. Therefore, be it resolved, That the Low Income Housing Tax Credit State Ceilings should be increased by forty percent in the year 2000, and that the level of the state ceilings should be adjusted annually to account for increases in the cost-of-living, and That the Private Activity Bond Caps should be increased by fifty percent in the year 2000, and that the value of the caps should be adjusted annually to account for increases in the cost-of-living. I. Tighten Language on Lobbying Restrictions on HUD employees--Prohibits employees at HUD from lobbying, or attempting to influence legislation before the Congress. This language is based on current restrictions on Department of Interior employees. No federally appropriated funds may be used for any activity that in any way tends to promote public support or opposition to legislation, a nomination, or a treaty. The President, the Vice President and Senate confirmed agency officials are exempt from these provisions. However, these individuals may not delegate their authority to any other employees of the Department. Provides civil money penalties against non-exempt employees who independently violate the statute, and against exempt employees who have delegated their lobbying authority. II. The Department of Housing and Urban Development shall promulgate regulations under the provisions of this Act within 6 months of the enactment of this Act.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Local Housing Opportunities Act'', legislation to empower communities and individuals by consolidating and reforming HUD programs. I ask unanimous consent that the following section-by-section description of the bill be printed in the Record and that the text of the bill be printed in the Record following the description. In 1994, there were 240 separate programs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). By 1997, the number of programs had grown to 328. Many of these programs have never been authorized by Congress, and operate under questionable legal authority. While the number of HUD programs has grown, HUD's workforce has declined from 12,000 employees in 1995 to 9,000 employees today. As a result, scarce resources are diverted away from core housing and enforcement programs, dramatically increasing the risks of mismanagement and fraud. HUD remains the only Cabinet level agency designated by the General Accounting Office (GAO) as ``High Risk''. In order to promote the interests of taxpayers and improve the delivery of services to beneficiaries, Congress should transfer more programs to the States and localities and enact legislation to consolidate, terminate, and streamline HUD programs. Section-by-Section Description I. Prohibition of Unauthorized Programs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development--Prohibits HUD from carrying out any program that is not explicitly authorized in statute by the Congress. This provision takes effect one year after the effective date to give the Congress sufficient time to authorize those programs that it wishes to maintain. Within 60 days of the date of enactment the Department of Housing and Urban Development shall provide a report detailing every HUD program along with the statutory authorization for that program. This report shall be provided annually to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, the Senate Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and the House Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. II. Elimination of Certain HUD Programs--Terminates certain programs as recommended by the HUD Secretary in the ``HUD 2020 Program Repeal and Streamlining Act''. The Department has determined that these programs are unnecessary, outdated, or inactive. Community Investment Corporation Demonstration--never funded, superseded by the Community Development Financial Institutions program administered by the Department of the Treasury. New Towns Demonstration Program for Emergency Relief of Los Angeles--not funded since FY 1993. Solar Assistance Financing Entity--not funded in recent years. Urban Development Action Grants--discontinued program, not funded in recent years. Certain Special Purpose Grants--not funded since FY 1993 and FY 1995. Moderate Rehabilitation Assistance in Disasters--no additional assistance for the Moderate Rehabilitation program has been provided (other than for the homeless under the McKinney Act) since FY 1989. Rent Supplement Program--not funded for many years. National Home Ownership Trust Demonstration--authority expired at the end of FY 1994. Repeal of HOPE I, II, and III--all HOPE funds have been awarded, no additional funding has been requested since FY 1995, and no future funding is anticipated. Energy Efficiency Demonstration Program, section 961 of NAHA--never funded. Technical Assistance and Training for IHAs--no funds have been provided for this program since FY 1994. Termination of the investor mortgages portion of the Section 203(k) rehabilitation mortgage insurance program as recommended by the HUD IG. Investor rehabilitation mortgages constitute approximately 20% of the loans insured under this program, and recent IG audits have found this portion of the program to be particularly vulnerable to fraud and abuse by investor-owners. The larger portion of the program for owner/ occupants is retained. Certificate and Voucher Assistance for Rental Rehabilitation Projects--rental rehabilitation program has been repealed, section 289 of NAHA. Single Family Loan Insurance for Home Improvement Loans in Urban Renewal Areas--unnecessary. Single Family and Multifamily Mortgage Insurance for Miscellaneous Special Situations, section 223 (a)(1)-(6) and (8)--obsolete. Single Family Mortgage Insurance for so-called ``Modified'' Graduated Payment Mortgages, section 245 (b)--insurance authority terminated in 1987 but provision never repealed. War Housing Insurance--authority for new insurance terminated in 1954, but provision never repealed. Insurance for Investments (Yield Insurance)--program never implemented, but authority and provision never repealed. National Defense Housing--authority for new insurance terminated in 1954, but provision never repealed. Rural Homeless Housing Assistance--not funded since FY 1994, all HUD homeless assistance will be part of the McKinney Homeless Assistance Performance Fund created under this legislation. Innovative Homeless Initiatives Demonstration--not funded since FY 1995, all HUD homeless assistance will be part of the McKinney Homeless Assistance Performance Fund created under this legislation. During the remainder of 2000, the Senate Housing and Transportation Subcommittee will hold hearings on this discussion draft. At that time the Subcommittee will solicit the recommendations of the Department, the IG, the GAO, and other organizations for other HUD programs that can be streamlined or eliminated. This legislation also provides for the creation of a ``HUD Consolidation Task Force'' which will report to the Congress with recommendations on how to reduce the number of programs at HUD through consolidation, termination, or transfer to other levels of government. III. HUD Consolidation Task Force--Mandates the creation of a task force that will focus exclusively on legislative and regulatory options to reduce the number of HUD programs. The task force will consist of three individuals: the Comptroller General of the United States, the HUD Secretary, and the HUD Inspector General. Within six months of the enactment of this legislation, the task force will produce a report outlining options to reduce the number of HUD programs through consolidation, elimination, and transfer to other levels of government. The report will be provided to the Senate and House Housing Subcommittees as well as the Senate and House Banking Committees. I. Community Development Block Grant Authorization (CDBG) and Prohibition of Set-Asides and Earmarks--Restores local control over the CDBG program by prohibiting Congressional set-asides and earmarks not specifically authorized in statute. The original intent of CDBG was that program dollars would be allocated directly to cities and states according to formula. In FY 1999 over 10 percent of the funds were earmarked for specific projects (the earmarks have increased steadily in recent years). CDBG was last authorized in 1994, this legislation would authorize the program through FY 2005, with an initial authorization of $4,850,000,000 in FY 2001. II. Community Notification of Opt-Outs--Requires that when HUD receives notice of a Section 8 opt-out that it forward that notice within 10 days to the top elected official for the unit of local government where the property is located. This supplements the requirement in Section 8 (c)(8)(A) of the Housing Act of 1937 that HUD and tenants be notified one year in advance if a Section 8 opt-out is anticipated. III. Urban Homestead Requirement--Directs that HUD-held properties that have not been disposed of within six months following acquisition by HUD or a determination that they are substandard or unoccupied, shall be made available upon written request for sale or donation to local governments or Community Development Corporations (CDCs). IV. Permanent ``Moving To Work'' Authorization--Continues the deregulation of Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) by opening the ``Moving To Work'' program to all PHAs. This program was authorized as a demonstration in the 1996 VA/HUD Appropriation bill and granted up to 30 PHAs the option to receive HUD funds as a block grant. The program provides autonomy from HUD micro-management and the freedom to innovate with reforms such as work requirements, time limits, job training, and Home ownership assistance. The Secretary shall approve an application under this program for all but the lowest performing PHAs unless the Secretary makes a written determination, within 60 days after receiving the application, that the application fails to comply with the statutory provisions authorizing the ``Moving to Work'' program. Consolidate HUD Homeless Assistance Funds into the ``McKinney Homeless Assistance Performance Fund''--Combines HUD's McKinney programs (Supportive Housing Program, Shelter Plus Care, Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation for Single Room Occupancy Dwellings, Safe Havens, Rural Homeless Housing Assistance, and the Emergency Shelter Grants), into a single McKinney Homeless Assistance Performance Fund ( and authorizes funding through FY 2003, at an initial level of $1,050,000,000 in FY 2001). Distributes funds according to the CDBG block grant formula with 70 percent to units of local government and 30 percent to states. Eligible units of local government include metropolitan cities, urban counties, and consortia. The formula is to be reviewed after one year with a statutory requirement that HUD provide alternative formulas for the Congress to consider. State funds are available for use in areas throughout the entire state. Codifies and requires a Continuum of Care system by grant recipients. The Continuum of Care submission is linked with the Consolidated Plan. Every three dollars of federal block grant money is to be matched with one dollar of state or local money. Funds qualifying for the match are the same as those currently permitted under the Emergency Shelter Grants program, and would include salaries paid to staff, volunteer labor, and the value of a lease on a building. There is a five year transition period--state and local governments would receive no less than 90 percent of prior award amounts (average for FY 96-99) in the first year after enactment, 85 percent in the second year after enactment, 80 percent in the third and fourth year after enactment, and 75 percent in the fifth year after enactment. Eligible projects and activities include emergency assistance, safe haven housing, transitional housing, permanent housing, supportive services for persons with disabilities, single room occupancy housing, prevention, outreach and assessment, acquisition and rehabilitation of property, new construction, operating costs, leasing, tenant assistance, supportive services, administrative (generally limited to 10 percent of funds), capacity building, targeting to subpopulations of persons with disabilities. Performance measures and benchmarks are included, along with periodic performance reports, reviews, and audits. I. Mutual and Self-Help Housing Technical Assistance and Training Grants Program--Reauthorizes technical assistance grants to facilitate the construction of self-help housing in rural areas. Program beneficiaries are required to contribute a significant amount of sweat equity to the construction of the homes that they will own. Authorizes funding of $40 million for FY 2001 and 2002, and $45 million for FY 2003- 2005. II. Improve the Rural Housing Repair Loan Program for the Elderly--Increases the amount for which a promissory note is considered a sufficient security for housing repairs from $2,500 to $7,500. III. Enhance Efficiency of Rural Housing Preservation Grants--Eliminates the existing statutory requirement that prohibits a State from obligating more than 50 percent of its Housing Preservation Grants allocation to any one grantee. Many states receive only a small amount from this formula program. In many cases the money can only be most effectively invested in one project. IV. Project Accounting Records and Practices--Requires section 515 rural housing borrowers to maintain records in accordance with GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles). V. Operating Assistance for Migrant Farmworker Projects Authority--Permits rural housing operating assistance payments in migrant and seasonal farm labor housing complexes. I. Authorization of Appropriations for Rental Vouchers for Relocation of Witnesses and Victims of Crime--Authorizes specific funding for vouchers for victims and witnesses of crime. These vouchers were authorized in the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (QHWRA). No funds have yet been appropriated and HUD has yet to write regulations. The current authorization directs the Secretary to make available such sums as may be necessary for the relocation of families residing in public housing who are victims of a crime of violence reported to an appropriate law enforcement authority, and requires that PHAs notify tenants of the availability of such funds. This legislation would authorize a funding level in each of FY 2001-2005 of $25,000,000. II. Revise the HUD Lease Addendum--Prohibits the HUD lease addendum from overriding local law. Participating housing providers and residents sign a three-party lease along with the public housing authority. The law requires the attachment of a HUD Lease Addendum (HUD Form 52647.3) which overrides some local market provisions and practices, holding the voucher resident to a non-standard lease contract. The use of federally promulgated forms that counter local practice incurs additional training, legal and management costs. The voucher lease addendum shall be nullified to the extent that it conflicts with State or local law. III. Reduce the Burden of Housing Quality Standard Inspections--Provides the option that Housing Quality Standard inspections be conducted on a property basis rather than a unit basis. Currently each individual unit that is rented under the program must be inspected for compliance with HUD's Housing Quality Standards. Individual inspections are a time-consuming administrative headache for PHAs and Section 8 landlords, result in slow unit turnover, and significant lost revenue. This legislation provides the Section 8 landlord with the option to have annual inspections conducted on a property or building basis, rather than a unit basis. IV. HUD Report to the Congress on Ways to Improve the Voucher Program--Requires that the HUD Secretary solicit comments and recommendations for improvement in the voucher program through notice in the Federal Register. Six months after enactment, the Secretary shall submit to the House and Senate Housing Subcommittees and the House and Senate Banking Committees a summary of the recommendations received by the Secretary regarding suggestions for improvement in the voucher program. I. Reauthorize the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP)--Reauthorizes the SHOP program which provides funding for land and infrastructure purchases to facilitate self-help housing. Utilized by Habitat for Humanity and the Housing Assistance Council. Reauthorize through FY 2005, beginning with $25 million in FY 2001. Adds new language allowing an additional year to use funds for local groups building five or more homes (increase from two years to three years), and also making it possible for local and national non-profit organizations using SHOP funds to advance their own money to purchase property, pending the environmental review approvals, to be repaid from federal funds after the environmental reviews have been approved. II. Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing Program--Reauthorizes and increases grants to non-profits to expand affordable housing capacity. Presently authorized for The Enterprise Foundation, Local Initiatives Support Corporation, Habitat for Humanity, Youthbuild USA, and the National Community Development Initiative. Expands access to this program to include the ``National Association of Housing Partnerships'' and authorizes a funding level of $40 million for each of FY 2001-2003. Amounts must be matched three to one from other sources. III. Work Requirement for Public Housing Residents: Coordinate Federal Housing Assistance with State Welfare Reform Work Programs--Requires that able-bodied and non- elderly public housing residents be in compliance with the work requirements of welfare reform in their state. Those unable to comply would be provided the opportunity to engage in community service or participate in an economic self- sufficiency program. There is substantial overlap in families receiving welfare and those benefitting from assisted housing. Among families with children, it is estimated that 72 percent of those who live in public housing receive some type of welfare. These families are currently subject to Welfare Reform work requirements and this provision simply applies the requirement to the remaining able-bodied recipients of federal housing assistance. Public housing was originally conceived as temporary assistance for working low- income families to help them during times of financial distress. Recent housing legislation has recognized this fact by placing increasing emphasis on self-sufficiency. These efforts should be coordinated with the self sufficiency efforts of Welfare Reform. PHAs shall monitor compliance with the state work requirement. There shall be an exception for the elderly and disabled, and as with Welfare Reform, there will be a broad definition of work including; employment, community service, vocational and job training, work associated with self help housing construction, refurbishing publicly assisted housing, the provision of certain child care services, and participation in education programs or economic self-sufficiency programs. This work requirement will replace the 8 hour per month ``Community Service'' Requirement that exists in current law for residents of public housing. Public Housing Authorities shall not be prohibited by this legislation from implementing more stringent work requirements and States electing the housing assistance block grant would be excluded from this requirement and be free to design their own self-sufficiency requirements. IV. Flexible Use of CDBG Funds to Maintain Properties-- Amends Section 105(a)(23) of the Housing and Community Development Act, which currently authorizes use of CDBG funding for activities necessary to make essential repairs and payment of operating expenses needed to maintain the habitability of housing units acquired through tax foreclosure proceedings in order to prevent abandonment and deterioration of such housing in primarily low- and moderate- income neighborhoods. This language is amended to permit the use of CDBG funds for property upkeep in instances in which a court has wrested effective control of a distressed residential property from the owner and appointed a responsible third party (often a non-profit organization or other owner/manager of properties in the area) to operate the property on an interim basis as administrator, although legal title remains with the original owner. IV. Allows Vouchers in Grandfamily Housing Assisted with HOME Dollars--Permits flexible use of Section 8 vouchers in Grandfamily Housing assisted with HOME dollars. Current law restricts the level of Section 8 assistance that may be used in projects assisted with HOME funds. This legislation creates an exception to the general rule for projects designed to benefit Grandfamilies, by permitting the use of Section 8 vouchers at the Fair Market Rent (FMR) level by Grandparents choosing to live in low income housing projects assisted with HOME dollars. This change is designed to assist low-income, elderly residents and their grandchildren for whom they provide full-time care and custody. V. Simplified FHA Downpayment Calculation.--Makes permanent the temporary simplified FHA downpayment calculation provided in section 203(b) of the National Housing Act. The current downpayment calculation on FHA loans is needlessly complex. Recent appropriations bills have included a simplified pilot program that replaces the current multi-part formula with a single calculation based solely on the appraised value of the property. The simplified formula yields substantially the same downpayment result as the multi-part formula. VI. Authorize the Use of Section 8 Funds for Downpayment Assistance--Permits tenants to receive up to one year's worth of Section 8 assistance in a lump sum to be used toward the down payment on a home. This compliments innovative programs that allow the use of Section 8 assistance for mortgage payments. VII. Reauthorize the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation through 2003--Reauthorizes the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, a congressionally chartered, public non-profit corporation established in 1978 to revitalize declining lower-income communities and provide affordable housing. Funding is authorized at $90 million in FY 2001, and $95 million in each of FY 2002 and 2003. Provides States the option to receive certain federal assisted housing funds (tenant assistance programs) in the form of a block grant. Modeled on Welfare Reform, this would give States the freedom to innovate absent HUD micro- management. States accepted into the program would sign a five year performance agreement with the federal government that details how the State intends to combine and use housing assistance funds from programs included in the performance agreement to advance low income housing priorities, improve the quality of low income housing, reduce homelessness, and encourage economic opportunity and self-sufficiency. States electing the block grant would determine how funds are distributed to state agencies, Public Housing Authorities, project owners, and tenants. During the first year of the performance agreement States would receive the highest of the prior three years funding for each program included in the performance agreement. There would then be an annual inflation adjustment in each future year until Congress (following consultation with HUD) enacts a formula that reflects the relative low-income/affordable housing needs of each State. A performance agreement submitted to the Secretary would have to be approved by the Secretary unless the Secretary makes a written determination, within 60 days after receiving the performance agreement, that the performance agreement fails to comply with provisions of the Act. Eligible programs for inclusion in the block grant shall include: the voucher program for rental assistance under section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937; the programs for project-based assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937; the program for housing for the elderly under section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959; the program for housing for persons with disabilities under section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act. The distribution of block granted funds within the State from programs included in the performance agreement shall be determined by the Legislature and the Governor of the State. In a State in which the constitution or state law designates another individual, entity, or agency to be responsible for housing, such other individual, entity, or agency shall work in consultation with the Governor and Legislature to determine the local distribution of funds. Existing contracts involving federal housing dollars shall be honored by the States until their expiration. States shall at such point handle the renewal of all contracts. A State may not use more than 3 percent of the total amount of funds allocated to such State under the programs included in the performance agreement for administrative purposes. Performance criteria shall include at a minimum a measure of; the improvement in housing conditions, the number of units that pass housing quality inspections, the number of residents that find employment and move to self- sufficiency, the level of crime against residents, the level of homelessness, the level of poverty, the cost of assisted housing units provided, the level of assistance provided to people with disabilities and to the elderly, success in maintaining the stock of affordable housing, and increasing homeownership. If at the end of the 5-year term of the performance agreement a State has failed to meet at least 80 percent of the performance goals submitted in the performance agreement, the Secretary shall terminate the performance agreement and the State or community shall be required to comply with the program requirement, in effect at the time of termination, of each program included in the performance agreement. To reward States that make significant progress in meeting performance goals, the HUD Secretary shall annually set aside sufficient funds to grant a reward of up to 5 percent of the funds allocated to participating States. Sense of the Congress Supporting Tax Incentives Sense of the Congress That the Low Income Housing Tax Credit State Ceilings and the Private Activity Bond Caps Should Be Increased It is the sense of the Congress that the Low Income Housing Tax Credit and Private Activity Bonds have been valuable resources in the effort to increase affordable housing. It is the sense of the Congress that the Low Income Housing Tax Credit and Private Activity Bonds effectively utilize the ability of the states to deliver resources to the areas of greatest need within their jurisdictions. It is the sense of the Congress that the value of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit and the Private Activity Bonds have been eroded by inflation. Therefore, be it resolved, That the Low Income Housing Tax Credit State Ceilings should be increased by forty percent in the year 2000, and that the level of the state ceilings should be adjusted annually to account for increases in the cost-of-living, and That the Private Activity Bond Caps should be increased by fifty percent in the year 2000, and that the value of the caps should be adjusted annually to account for increases in the cost-of-living. I. Tighten Language on Lobbying Restrictions on HUD employees--Prohibits employees at HUD from lobbying, or attempting to influence legislation before the Congress. This language is based on current restrictions on Department of Interior employees. No federally appropriated funds may be used for any activity that in any way tends to promote public support or opposition to legislation, a nomination, or a treaty. The President, the Vice President and Senate confirmed agency officials are exempt from these provisions. However, these individuals may not delegate their authority to any other employees of the Department. Provides civil money penalties against non-exempt employees who independently violate the statute, and against exempt employees who have delegated their lobbying authority. II. The Department of Housing and Urban Development shall promulgate regulations under the provisions of this Act within 6 months of the enactment of this Act.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, as we today welcome Senator Coverdell's successor, I wanted to talk about the man whose shoes he must fill. Last week the Atlanta Journal Constitution's tribute article to our late friend Paul Coverdell included the following story. Once, at a county fair on a hot summer day, someone asked Paul why he was wearing a coat and tie in such a casual setting. Paul replied that he had noticed that in an emergency, when people are trying to figure out what to do, they always go to the guy with the tie on. Well, tie or not, Senator Coverdell was a guy whom we always went to. I, like many of us on both sides of the aisle, considered him a friend. His hand and arm gestures will always be remembered as ``get up and go'' signs. I had the privilege of lunching with Paul nearly every Wednesday for the last several years and his presence there was a treat. He was a hard worker. He knew where he wanted to go. And he was willing to help those with whom he teamed on issues--issues that were invariably important and meaningful. I checked last night, and there are 103 pieces of legislation listed as sponsored by Senator Coverdell. Now, Paul did work on parochial legislation for his state, and he had his share of technical bills, but he also authored many significant and far-reaching national provisions. He worked for the country as well as Georgia, and strove to improve the education, the safety, and the prospects of our children specifically and our citizenry generally. He had an IRS reform bill, the Safe and Affordable Schools Act, Education IRA's, anti-drug legislation . . . and then there are the countless hours spent working on bills for his colleagues and conference. Even his commemorative bills were significant--Reagan Washington National Airport for example, a bill I jumped to co-sponsor. He had 30 productive years of service to his country--army postings in Asia, Georgia State Senate, Peace Corps Director, and an invaluable Member of the United States Senate. I was proud to be his friend and colleague. I will miss my friend from Georgia. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article from the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:15 a.m. with Senators Durbin and Collins in control of the time. Following morning business, the Senate will proceed to a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the Treasury and general government appropriations bill. If cloture is invoked, the Senate will begin 30 hours of postcloture debate. If cloture is not invoked, the Senate will proceed to a second vote on the motion to proceed to the intelligence authorization bill. Again, if cloture is invoked on the motion, postcloture debate will begin immediately. As a reminder, on Thursday the morning hour has been set aside for those Senators who wish to make their final statements in remembrance of the life of our former friend and colleague, Senator Paul Coverdell. At the expiration of that time, a vote on the motion to proceed to the energy and water appropriations bill will occur. I thank my colleagues for their attention. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to reduce the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) homeownership tax. I am joined in this effort by Senator Gramm of Texas, the chairman of the Banking Committee. This legislation was introduced earlier in the month by Congressman Rick Lazio of New York. Congressman Lazio chairs the House Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. This homeownership tax comes in the form of excess premiums paid by those who have FHA insured mortgages on their properties. The FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMI fund) collects mortgage insurance premiums in order to cover any losses to the government that result from FHA-insured mortgage defaults and to fund the administrative costs of the FHA program. FHA is an important program for first-time, low and moderate income, and minority homeowners. These families should not be overcharged in FHA premiums. Premiums in excess of an amount necessary to maintain an actuarially sound reserve ratio in the FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund can only be characterized as a tax on homeownership. The Congress has determined that a capital reserve ratio of 2 percent of the MMI fund's amortized insurance-in-force is necessary to ensure the safety and soundness of the MMI fund. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development the FY 1999 capital reserve ratio is 3.66 percent and is estimated to rise to over 3.8 percent in FY 2000, nearly twice the reserve ratio mandated by Congress. The FHA single family mortgage program was designed to operate as a mutual insurance program where homeowners were granted rebates of excess premiums. This rebate program was suspended at the direction of Congress in 1990 when the MMI fund was in the red--with the intent that the payment of distributive shares or rebates would resume when the Fund was again financially sound. Since 1990 a number of steps have been taken to strengthen the FHA program. The premiums were increased (Congress mandated the addition of a risk-based annual premium to the one-time, up front premium), downpayment requirements were improved, oversight by HUD and the Congress was strengthened, and Congress mandated the minimum 2 percent capital reserve ratio. With a capital reserve ratio nearly twice that mandated by the Congress it is time to resume rebates and return the MMI program to its prior status as a mutual insurance fund. This legislation restores the rebates for mortgages insured for 7 years or more and paid off subsequent to the 1990 rebate suspension. The legislatively mandated improvements in the FHA program have certainly been partially responsible for the strength of the MMI fund. But another major reason for this strength is the fact that we have experienced a near perfect economy in recent years. I recognize that this will not always be the case. We should therefore proceed carefully when we propose to lower or rebate premiums. This legislation takes the cautious approach of providing for rebates only when the reserve ratio is in excess of 3 percent, or 150 percent of the reserve level mandated by Congress. If the capital reserve ratio drops below 3 percent, the rebates will be suspended. The legislation also requires that the General Accounting Office evaluate the adequacy of the 2 percent capital reserve ratio for ensuring the safety and soundness of the MMI fund and make a recommendation to Congress regarding the most appropriate reserve ratio at which to trigger future premium rebates. I invite my colleagues to review this important legislation and join with me in reducing this tax on homeownership. By enacting this homeownership rebate we will continue to help make homeownership affordable for more and more Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record following this statement.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to reduce the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) homeownership tax. I am joined in this effort by Senator Gramm of Texas, the chairman of the Banking Committee. This legislation was introduced earlier in the month by Congressman Rick Lazio of New York. Congressman Lazio chairs the House Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. This homeownership tax comes in the form of excess premiums paid by those who have FHA insured mortgages on their properties. The FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMI fund) collects mortgage insurance premiums in order to cover any losses to the government that result from FHA-insured mortgage defaults and to fund the administrative costs of the FHA program. FHA is an important program for first-time, low and moderate income, and minority homeowners. These families should not be overcharged in FHA premiums. Premiums in excess of an amount necessary to maintain an actuarially sound reserve ratio in the FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund can only be characterized as a tax on homeownership. The Congress has determined that a capital reserve ratio of 2 percent of the MMI fund's amortized insurance-in-force is necessary to ensure the safety and soundness of the MMI fund. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development the FY 1999 capital reserve ratio is 3.66 percent and is estimated to rise to over 3.8 percent in FY 2000, nearly twice the reserve ratio mandated by Congress. The FHA single family mortgage program was designed to operate as a mutual insurance program where homeowners were granted rebates of excess premiums. This rebate program was suspended at the direction of Congress in 1990 when the MMI fund was in the red--with the intent that the payment of distributive shares or rebates would resume when the Fund was again financially sound. Since 1990 a number of steps have been taken to strengthen the FHA program. The premiums were increased (Congress mandated the addition of a risk-based annual premium to the one-time, up front premium), downpayment requirements were improved, oversight by HUD and the Congress was strengthened, and Congress mandated the minimum 2 percent capital reserve ratio. With a capital reserve ratio nearly twice that mandated by the Congress it is time to resume rebates and return the MMI program to its prior status as a mutual insurance fund. This legislation restores the rebates for mortgages insured for 7 years or more and paid off subsequent to the 1990 rebate suspension. The legislatively mandated improvements in the FHA program have certainly been partially responsible for the strength of the MMI fund. But another major reason for this strength is the fact that we have experienced a near perfect economy in recent years. I recognize that this will not always be the case. We should therefore proceed carefully when we propose to lower or rebate premiums. This legislation takes the cautious approach of providing for rebates only when the reserve ratio is in excess of 3 percent, or 150 percent of the reserve level mandated by Congress. If the capital reserve ratio drops below 3 percent, the rebates will be suspended. The legislation also requires that the General Accounting Office evaluate the adequacy of the 2 percent capital reserve ratio for ensuring the safety and soundness of the MMI fund and make a recommendation to Congress regarding the most appropriate reserve ratio at which to trigger future premium rebates. I invite my colleagues to review this important legislation and join with me in reducing this tax on homeownership. By enacting this homeownership rebate we will continue to help make homeownership affordable for more and more Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record following this statement.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am pleased to take a step in addressing the long-term water needs of the northern Colorado citizens whose water is provided by the City of Loveland, Colorado. The bill I am introducing today authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter into contracts with the City of Loveland to utilize federal facilities of the original Colorado-Big Thompson Project for various purposes such as the storage and transportation of non-federal water originating on the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains and intended for domestic, municipal, industrial and other uses. Water supplies for Colorado cities are extremely limited. Whenever possible, cities attempt to use their water storage and conveyance systems in the most efficient ways they can. The City of Loveland is trying to use excess capacity in the federally built Colorado-Big Thompson conveyance facilities to deliver water to an enlarged city reservoir, but current law does not allow the City to use excess capacity in an existing Federal water delivery canal for domestic purposes. In this case, Loveland intends to convey up to 75 cubic feet per second of its native river water supply from the Big Thompson River to two city-owned facilities, Green Ridge Glade Reservoir and Chasteen Grove Water Treatment Plant. A contract with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Colorado-Big Thompson Project operator, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, will provide an economical and reliable means of delivering Loveland's native river water supplies. The City of Loveland simply desires to ``wheel'' some of its drinking water supply through excess capacity in a canal serving Colorado-Big Thompson Project, a water project built by the Bureau of Reclamation from 1938 to 1957. Loveland is prepared to pay appropriate charges for the use of this facility. In addition, any contract affecting the Colorado-Big Thompson Project would be conducted in full compliance with all applicable environmental requirements. In fact, the Final Environmental Assessment on use of C-BT facilities to convey City of Loveland Water Supplies to an expanded Green Ridge Glade Reservoir has already been completed, and permits have been issued by the Army Corps of Engineers. Allowing Loveland to use the Colorado-Big Thompson Project should be a simple matter, but it is not. Legislation is required to allow the City to use the Federal water project for carriage of municipal and industrial water. Historically when a party has desired to use Reclamation project facilities for the storage or conveyance of non- project water, the authority cited was the Act of February 21, 1911, known as the Warren Act. The Warren Act provides for the utilization of excess capacity in Reclamation project facilities to store non-project, irrigation water. Based on the current interpretation of Reclamation law, the Warren Act does not provide authority to enter into long-term storage or conveyance contracts for non-irrigation, non-project water in Colorado-Big Thompson Project facilities. Congress in recent years has expanded the scope of the Warren Act to apply to communities in California and Utah where there existed a need for more water management flexibility. The legislation I am introducing today is similar to other legislation introduced and passed in the recent Congresses. It will simply extend similar flexibility to the Colorado-Big Thompson Project and to the City of Loveland. Since there is precedent allowing the wheeling of non-federal water through federal facilities, this is a non-controversial piece of legislation. Therefore, I hope that Congress will move quickly to pass this legislation and I look forward to working closely with my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to move it quickly.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am pleased to take a step in addressing the long-term water needs of the northern Colorado citizens whose water is provided by the City of Loveland, Colorado. The bill I am introducing today authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter into contracts with the City of Loveland to utilize federal facilities of the original Colorado-Big Thompson Project for various purposes such as the storage and transportation of non-federal water originating on the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains and intended for domestic, municipal, industrial and other uses. Water supplies for Colorado cities are extremely limited. Whenever possible, cities attempt to use their water storage and conveyance systems in the most efficient ways they can. The City of Loveland is trying to use excess capacity in the federally built Colorado-Big Thompson conveyance facilities to deliver water to an enlarged city reservoir, but current law does not allow the City to use excess capacity in an existing Federal water delivery canal for domestic purposes. In this case, Loveland intends to convey up to 75 cubic feet per second of its native river water supply from the Big Thompson River to two city-owned facilities, Green Ridge Glade Reservoir and Chasteen Grove Water Treatment Plant. A contract with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Colorado-Big Thompson Project operator, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, will provide an economical and reliable means of delivering Loveland's native river water supplies. The City of Loveland simply desires to ``wheel'' some of its drinking water supply through excess capacity in a canal serving Colorado-Big Thompson Project, a water project built by the Bureau of Reclamation from 1938 to 1957. Loveland is prepared to pay appropriate charges for the use of this facility. In addition, any contract affecting the Colorado-Big Thompson Project would be conducted in full compliance with all applicable environmental requirements. In fact, the Final Environmental Assessment on use of C-BT facilities to convey City of Loveland Water Supplies to an expanded Green Ridge Glade Reservoir has already been completed, and permits have been issued by the Army Corps of Engineers. Allowing Loveland to use the Colorado-Big Thompson Project should be a simple matter, but it is not. Legislation is required to allow the City to use the Federal water project for carriage of municipal and industrial water. Historically when a party has desired to use Reclamation project facilities for the storage or conveyance of non- project water, the authority cited was the Act of February 21, 1911, known as the Warren Act. The Warren Act provides for the utilization of excess capacity in Reclamation project facilities to store non-project, irrigation water. Based on the current interpretation of Reclamation law, the Warren Act does not provide authority to enter into long-term storage or conveyance contracts for non-irrigation, non-project water in Colorado-Big Thompson Project facilities. Congress in recent years has expanded the scope of the Warren Act to apply to communities in California and Utah where there existed a need for more water management flexibility. The legislation I am introducing today is similar to other legislation introduced and passed in the recent Congresses. It will simply extend similar flexibility to the Colorado-Big Thompson Project and to the City of Loveland. Since there is precedent allowing the wheeling of non-federal water through federal facilities, this is a non-controversial piece of legislation. Therefore, I hope that Congress will move quickly to pass this legislation and I look forward to working closely with my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to move it quickly.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I also rise in opposition to this amendment and join my colleague from Arizona in his opposition. We just held a number of hearings in the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee of the Banking Committee. I chair this subcommittee. We found that we even have the Federal Transit Administration subsidizing Amtrak. Clearly, in my mind, when I look at the 1997 accountability act, Congress intended to move Amtrak to self-sufficiency. Amtrak claims to be a private corporation, and, plainly and simply, private corporations are not eligible to lease Government vehicles. I have grown increasingly skeptical about what is going on with Amtrak. It seems they found a way of picking up Government subsidies all over the place. Several years ago, the FTA required--I want to get back to some other issues that may either be directly or indirectly related to this amendment, but several years ago, The Federal Transit Authority required the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority to bid out contracts for their commuter rail services. Four companies bid. Amtrak had the highest cost bid and lowest quality. This will cost taxpayers $75 million above the low bid. This is a $75 million, 3-year subsidy on top of the nearly $600 million annual subsidy Congress grants Amtrak. Now they want the subsidy of leasing Government vehicles. I ask my colleagues: When are we really going to require Amtrak to be self-sufficient? For that reason, I oppose this amendment with my colleague from Arizona and urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume debate on the Agriculture appropriations bill, with amendments in order. Senators who have amendments are encouraged to work with the bill managers on a time to come to the floor to offer and debate their amendments. Also, during today's session, Senators are welcome to come to the floor to share their thoughts and memories of our former friend and colleague, Senator Paul Coverdell. For the information of all Senators, funeral services are being arranged, and Senators will be notified with the specifics as soon as they become available. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk due for its second reading.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on this bill at this time.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I rise in strong support of the FY 2001 Defense Appropriations Act Conference Report. This bill provides the much needed funding for our deserving men and women in the military. After years of declining military budgets, this Defense Appropriations bill does the right thing by putting more of our resources toward our Armed Forces. While I strongly support the overall bill, I would like to make note of one serious omission--the cut in funding for the Discoverer II or DII program. I know that Senator Stevens and the Defense Appropriations staff fought hard for the DII program, but that they ran up against an entrenched opposition from the other side. Discoverer II is a key element in assessing the utility, feasibility, and affordability of Space Based Radar (SBR). SBR will provide all weather, 24 hour, 7-day a week global surveillance coverage. The Department of Defense has stated that SBR will satisfy many unfilled requirements, such as Long Range Endurance Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition, Improved Ground Moving Target Indicator Tasking, Processing, Exploitation and Dissemination Interoperability, and provide simultaneous access to multiple theaters worldwide. The program not only had the wide support of many Members of Congress, but also from the Secretary of the Air Force, the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the CINC of US Space Command, the CINC of US Central Command, and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. While I cannot understand the reasoning for such opposition, I do want to thank Senator Stevens and his staff for fighting for this program and only hope that we can revive this important program in the future. The capabilities it will provide are too important to let it go quietly in the night. As the Chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee on the Armed Service Committee, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and as a member of the Commission on the National Reconnaissance Office, I have heard from our military and intelligence leaders that this capability is needed and that we must demonstrate the space based radar. That is why I will continue to fight for this defense capability. Again, Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Stevens for all his hard work and for producing such a strong bill for our military men and women.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I would like to engage the chairman briefly on an important Land and Water Conservation project in my state of Colorado called the Red Mountain project. Specifically, the first phase of the project owned by Idarado Mining Co.

Mr. ALLARD. The Red Mountain project, located in the communities of Silverton and Ouray Colorado, is a top priority for the U.S. Forest Service this year. Red Mountain is a 10,500 acre site that is one of the most nationally renowned scenic and historic resources in Southwestern Colorado. Before the Silver Crash in 1893, Red Mountain was a vibrant mining town, home to thousands of miners and their families, living in four communities and working dozens of rich silver mines. Today, the remnants of this community have been designated by Ouray and San Juan Counties as a historical landmark, and just named one of the National Trust for Historic Preservation's 11 most endangered sites in America. In addition, Red Mountain contains extensive habitat for endangered species as well as other sensitive species. The area offers an abundance of recreation opportunities to one million visitors annually--from hiking, biking and four-wheel driving to cross country skiing and mountaineering. As you may know, this year although the Forest Service recommended $10 million in its FY01 budget for a Colorado project called Silver Mountain, we have received correspondence from the Forest Service indicating that this project is no longer viable. In addition, the U.S. Forest Service has further indicated that the Red Mountain project is a top priority for funding this year. Therefore, I urge you to consider allocating the $10 million from the Silver Mountain project to the Red Mountain project as the Interior bill moved toward conference.

Mr. ALLARD. I sincerely appreciate the Chairman's consideration of my request and understand the predicament he was in with respect to his allocation. Given the immediate needs of this project, I appreciate the Chairman is willing to work with me to find ways to fund the first phase of the Red Mountain project this year.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I am willing to grant the Senator from South Carolina 5 minutes.