Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I must admit that I was less than pleased with the spending portion of the budget reconciliation package. I regret that I was unable to give that section my support. Unfortunately, we failed to address the problem of growth in entitlement spending. We passed on making some needed reforms to the Medicare system. We owe our children and grandchildren much more, Mr. President. I am much more pleased with the tax portion of the budget reconciliation package. One of my primary goals has always been to reduce the tax burden on hard-working Americans. I am proud to say that we will take a step toward this goal today. For the first time in 16 years, we give the American people a measure of tax relief. I am especially pleased that we are taking steps to reduce two of the most onerous and economically harmful taxes--the capital gains tax and the death tax. Mr. President, with this act today, we will move in the direction of protecting family farms and businesses from Uncle Sam's grasping arms. Under current law, many family farms and small businesses have to be sold off just to pay the taxes on the founder's estate. This is tragic and irresponsible. But today, we will change that law to allow estates containing small businesses and family farms to deduct the first $1.3 million of the value of the estate. This change in death tax law is a good step in the right direction, although I must emphasize that it is only a first step. No family owned business or farm should have to be sold to pay death taxes. I will continue to fight to see that no family owned business is ever again the victim of the Federal Government's insatiable appetite for more money. We also make some good progress in the area of capital gains tax relief in this bill. Under current law, the U.S. has one of the highest capital gains tax rates in the world. These high rates have the perverse effect of punishing those who help our economy to grow by saving and investing and they raise the cost of capital, thereby lowering growth in productivity. With this bill today, we will reduce this economically harmful tax. Although we did not get the indexing provisions that I championed, most investors will get a reduced rate of 18 percent if they hold an asset purchased after 2000 for more than 5 years. Low-income investors will be charged an even lower rate of 8 percent for long-term investments. In addition, we are reducing the rate on all capital. Most taxpayers will now be charged a 20 percent rate and those in the lowest income bracket will only have to pay 10 percent. The 43 percent of Americans that now invest in stocks in one form or another will benefit from these provisions. Mr. President, I am pleased with these steps that we are taking today to reduce these economically harmful and unfair taxes, and I am proud to say that I will support this portion of the budget reconciliation package. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the future to enact further tax reduction measures that will help our family farms and small businesses.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Today, Mr. President, I would like to introduce a bill that would provide for more public housing vouchers. I have been working on this issue in the Housing Subcommittee, and it is my hope that a similar provision will be placed in the Public Housing bill. The original intent of the Federal housing assistance program was to provide temporary housing to poor individuals and families. Since their inception, federal housing programs have grown dramatically. Today they provide $25 billion per year in housing assistance. In my view, the voucher program is the best means for low-income families to find secure affordable rental housing. The voucher program first began in 1974 and has grown to serve over 1.5 million low-income families today. These families are empowered with the choice of where they want to live and are given the freedom to determine what surroundings they desire. Vouchers are the preferable means of providing affordable housing to low-income individuals. Vouchers enjoy wide support, including past Republican and Democratic administrations. In fact, the current Secretary of HUD, Secretary Andrew Cuomo supports an expanded voucher program. Vouchers are very popular, which is demonstrated by the 1.5 million families who are currently using vouchers or certificates. Vouchers empower individuals and promote competition within Public Housing Authorities and within the community, thereby lowering costs and improving conditions for the residents. Vouchers or other alternatives can be less expensive than the current public housing program; they can save the government money, and improve conditions for the tenants. Studies have indicated that project-based housing assistance costs more on average than the voucher housing program. In fact, the findings of the June 1995 GAO report indicated that housing vouchers cost 10 percent less than project-based housing. This study clearly demonstrated that on a national average, the section 8 tenant-based housing program is cheaper than the public unit-based housing program. In fact, one can say that the savings from the movement to vouchers would amount to $640 million per year which could add additional housing assistance. Under this legislation, ten percent of the public housing operating funds that are distributed to each public housing authority would be made available for those who currently live in the public housing unit and wish to be given a voucher. Nothing would be required or mandated; it is simply a choice given to the resident. In fact, we make clear that any unexpended amounts set aside for vouchers would be used by the PHAs for normal operating funds. Quite frankly, I really don't know how anyone could oppose this provision unless they are just opposed to giving people a choice and an opportunity. The language that I have proposed also establishes a preference for crime victims. It states that a voucher will be made available to any resident of public housing who is the victim of a crime of violence that has been reported to law enforcement. People should have the option of vouchers when their housing is unsafe. My strong belief is that we should increase the pace at which we move ahead with the conversion of housing from the old central planning and concentrated public housing model, to one of choice and opportunities through the use of vouchers.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Today, Mr. President, I would like to introduce a bill that would provide for more public housing vouchers. I have been working on this issue in the Housing Subcommittee, and it is my hope that a similar provision will be placed in the Public Housing bill. The original intent of the Federal housing assistance program was to provide temporary housing to poor individuals and families. Since their inception, federal housing programs have grown dramatically. Today they provide $25 billion per year in housing assistance. In my view, the voucher program is the best means for low-income families to find secure affordable rental housing. The voucher program first began in 1974 and has grown to serve over 1.5 million low-income families today. These families are empowered with the choice of where they want to live and are given the freedom to determine what surroundings they desire. Vouchers are the preferable means of providing affordable housing to low-income individuals. Vouchers enjoy wide support, including past Republican and Democratic administrations. In fact, the current Secretary of HUD, Secretary Andrew Cuomo supports an expanded voucher program. Vouchers are very popular, which is demonstrated by the 1.5 million families who are currently using vouchers or certificates. Vouchers empower individuals and promote competition within Public Housing Authorities and within the community, thereby lowering costs and improving conditions for the residents. Vouchers or other alternatives can be less expensive than the current public housing program; they can save the government money, and improve conditions for the tenants. Studies have indicated that project-based housing assistance costs more on average than the voucher housing program. In fact, the findings of the June 1995 GAO report indicated that housing vouchers cost 10 percent less than project-based housing. This study clearly demonstrated that on a national average, the section 8 tenant-based housing program is cheaper than the public unit-based housing program. In fact, one can say that the savings from the movement to vouchers would amount to $640 million per year which could add additional housing assistance. Under this legislation, ten percent of the public housing operating funds that are distributed to each public housing authority would be made available for those who currently live in the public housing unit and wish to be given a voucher. Nothing would be required or mandated; it is simply a choice given to the resident. In fact, we make clear that any unexpended amounts set aside for vouchers would be used by the PHAs for normal operating funds. Quite frankly, I really don't know how anyone could oppose this provision unless they are just opposed to giving people a choice and an opportunity. The language that I have proposed also establishes a preference for crime victims. It states that a voucher will be made available to any resident of public housing who is the victim of a crime of violence that has been reported to law enforcement. People should have the option of vouchers when their housing is unsafe. My strong belief is that we should increase the pace at which we move ahead with the conversion of housing from the old central planning and concentrated public housing model, to one of choice and opportunities through the use of vouchers.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support to the request for a special prosecutor to look into the campaign finance abuses of the last election. It comes as a shock to me that I even have to give this speech. It is so clearly necessary to have a nonpartisan, noncoercible investigator looking into these issues that the failure to appoint one in itself looks suspicious. The current troubles over election funding are just the sort of situation the special prosecutor idea was created for. The problem is a far reaching, bi-partisan scandal involving two branches of Government. It is also a scandal where those being investigated have the ability and possibly the desire to curb or even block efforts to fully unearth all the relevant facts. And let me make this clear--it is not a potential scandal, Mr. President, it is a scandal. It is a scandal we see unfolding on TV, in the papers, and in the Hart Committee room with Senator Thompson's hearings. And by the word scandal, I don't mean it's a little bit of gossip the media can pick over, but a scandal in that the situation is an illegal, unethical, and glaringly blatant violation of what the American people expect from their elected officials. There needs to be a full scale investigation into the entire finance problem, and a special prosecutor is the best way to accomplish this. I admire Senator Thompson. I admire what he is doing. I have the utmost respect for his investigatory powers, and I truly believe he can do what he says he is going to do. His committee is fairly and bravely shining the public light of inquiry into the darker corners of election funding, and for that he deserves all the kudos he can be given. But the fact remains that a special prosecutor is needed. Senator Thompson's hearings should serve as the springboard from which a special prosecutor's investigation is launched. He has called attention to the problem, he has let our colleagues from both sides of the aisle have a chance to look into the abuses of fund-raising and soft money, and he has helped greatly to awaken the American people to the travesties done in an attempt to win their votes. Now, from this solid base, a solid legal case can be built against those who have abused our--admittedly--easily abusable system. A special prosecutor investigation has more mobility, more leeway and more time than a Senate committee. It also is not troubled with partisan bickering and posturing. I know that Senator Thompson has done his best to curtail any partisanship, and he has done an excellent job, but the special prosecutor was created for just this reason--to avoid the clash between parties in a wide ranging investigation. Honestly, how can there be any doubt that we need a special prosecutor in this case? Not only the chairman, but also the ranking member of the committee looking into campaign finance abuses, Senator Glenn, admits that the evidence before the committee supports the conclusion that attempts were made by foreign powers to buy our elections. There are those who say that the Justice Department could handle any illegalities associated with campaign abuse, if indeed any are found. Well, the Justice Department faces a conflict of interest trying to investigate up its chain of command. Anyone who thinks differently is kidding themselves. The Justice Department lawyers looking into this are careerist, and they report to political appointees. For instance--the FBI claims they have not been able to find Charlie Trie, but Tom Brokaw was not only able to find him, he was able to interview him. I know that the American media are good, but better than the combined powers of our Federal police forces? More likely, there is a restraining force on the Justice Department. They are not to blame. Nobody should have to investigate their boss, and nobody should have to investigate the people who find them. A special prosecutor has not been appointed because the Attorney General says that there is not enough proof to warrant one. I am not sure, exactly, where to begin to refute that idea. The abuses we have been made aware of are so glaring and so blatant and so widespread that I am almost thinking that the Attorney General is kidding. She herself, according to the press, has created a tax force inside the Justice Department and convened a grand jury to look into allegations. Now, the special prosecutor's system has taken some hits lately. But we can insure that any prosecutor appointed is given a clear, specialized and fixed mandate to investigate the election funding issue. We can set guidelines that do not curb the power of the prosecutor, but insure a very narrow and specific investigation. I urge the appointment of a special prosecutor. I urge the investigation of the election fundraising abuses. I urge a fair and just conclusion to this stain on our democratic election system.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I thank my colleague.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chair. We do not have a pending amendment in the Chamber, do we?

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

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, today I file an amendment to provide for more public housing vouchers. The original intent of the Federal housing assistance program was to provide temporary housing to poor individuals and families. Since its inception, the Federal housing program has grown to become a $25 billion entity. In my view, the section 8 voucher program is the best means for low- income families to find secure, affordable rental housing. The section 8 certificate or voucher program first began in 1974 and has grown to serve over 1.5 million low-income families today. These families are empowered with the choice of where they want to live and are given the freedom to determine what surroundings they desire. Section 8 housing is the preferable means of providing affordable housing to low-income individuals. Vouchers enjoy wide support including past Republican and Democrat administrations alike. In fact, the current Secretary of HUD, Secretary Andrew Cuomo, supports an expanded voucher program. Vouchers are very popular, which is demonstrated by the 1.5 million families who are currently using vouchers or certificates. Vouchers empower individuals and promote competition within the public housing authority and within the community, thereby lowering costs and improving conditions for the residents. Vouchers or other alternatives can be less expensive than the current public housing program. They can save the Government money and improve conditions for the tenants. Studies have indicated that project-based housing assistance costs more on average than the voucher housing program for each family that is assisted. In fact, the findings of the June 1995 GAO report indicated that the cost of housing vouchers is 10 percent less than the cost of public housing. This study clearly demonstrated that on a national average, the section 8 tenant-based housing is cheaper than the public-unit housing program. In fact, one can say that the savings from the movement to vouchers could lead to an annual savings of $640 million per year and could be applied to over 100,000 low-income families for housing assistance. I am a member of the Housing Subcommittee which is currently putting the final touches on authorization language for a new public housing bill. I have proposed that this approach be included in that bill. Under my proposal, 10 percent of public housing operating funds that are distributed to each public housing authority would be made available for those who want vouchers. Nothing would be required or mandated. It is simply a choice given to the resident. In fact, we make clear that any unexpended amounts set aside for vouchers would be used by the public housing authorities for normal operating funds. Quite frankly, I really do not know how anyone could oppose this provision unless they are just opposed to giving people a choice and an opportunity. The language that I have proposed in committee also would establish a preference for crime victims. It states that a voucher would be made available to any resident of public housing who is the victim of a crime of violence that has been reported to law enforcement. People should have the option of vouchers when their housing is unsafe. My objective here today is to alert the appropriators to my interest in this matter and in my strong belief that we should increase the pace at which we move ahead with the conversion of housing from the old central planning and concentrated public housing model to one of choice and opportunities through vouchers. My view is that, whenever practical, programs should be properly authorized before funds are appropriated. Therefore, I am not going to push forward here today on this issue. I will continue my work on the authorizing committee to get this choice added to the law and my efforts will be devoted to getting this done in the next several months through the public housing reform bill. I thank you, Mr. President, and I now withdraw my amendment.

Mr. ALLARD. If the Senator will yield, I thank the chairman for his efforts. I know he has a tough job, and I respect his responsibilities in that regard.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chair. I have an amendment at the desk numbered 947. I request that it be reported.

Mr. ALLARD. I am not going to ask for a rollcall.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Missouri for yielding. I suspect we could move on my amendment in 10 minutes.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation amending the Higher Education Act to revise the proportion of student loans that a bank can maintain in relation to their total consumer portfolio. This bill will allow the Young Americans Bank to continue providing a unique opportunity for young people to learn to control a checking account, save for the future, and manage credit obligations. The bank has had resounding success in teaching young clients how to responsibly handle their finances. The Young Americans Bank has been operating for ten years as the only bank in the nation that exclusively serves young people under the age of 22. It is a full service, State chartered, federally insured bank with almost 17,000 customers from all 50 States and 11 foreign countries. Another exceptional element of the bank is that its holding company, the Young American Education Foundation, is the only nonprofit holding company in the country. While educating our youth on how to make responsible financial decisions, the Young Americans Bank also has a natural demand for student loans. Section 435 of the Higher Education Act prohibits banks from having student loans comprise more than 50 percent of total loans. Clearly this prohibits the Young Americans Bank from accommodating the large percentage of student loans that they would like to provide for their young clients. It is also important to note that allowing the bank to carry a larger student loan portfolio would improve the bank's financial performance, which in turn would provide more funds for educational programming. My legislation would allow very small, nonprofit banks to exceed the 50-percent student loan ratio. The exception would apply only to institutions with a total outstanding student loan volume of $10 million or less, and all loans would have to be made to those age 22 and under. The Young Americans Bank enjoys broad support, and I have received letters endorsing this legislation from Denver's Mayor Wellington Webb, the Colorado Bankers Association, the Colorado Governor's office and numerous financial institutions and universities. The operation and objectives of the Young Americans Bank should not be limited. This bank does an outstanding job of providing financial and educational opportunities to young people, and I encourage my colleagues to support their mission and encourage the expansion of such a successful institution.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation amending the Higher Education Act to revise the proportion of student loans that a bank can maintain in relation to their total consumer portfolio. This bill will allow the Young Americans Bank to continue providing a unique opportunity for young people to learn to control a checking account, save for the future, and manage credit obligations. The bank has had resounding success in teaching young clients how to responsibly handle their finances. The Young Americans Bank has been operating for ten years as the only bank in the nation that exclusively serves young people under the age of 22. It is a full service, State chartered, federally insured bank with almost 17,000 customers from all 50 States and 11 foreign countries. Another exceptional element of the bank is that its holding company, the Young American Education Foundation, is the only nonprofit holding company in the country. While educating our youth on how to make responsible financial decisions, the Young Americans Bank also has a natural demand for student loans. Section 435 of the Higher Education Act prohibits banks from having student loans comprise more than 50 percent of total loans. Clearly this prohibits the Young Americans Bank from accommodating the large percentage of student loans that they would like to provide for their young clients. It is also important to note that allowing the bank to carry a larger student loan portfolio would improve the bank's financial performance, which in turn would provide more funds for educational programming. My legislation would allow very small, nonprofit banks to exceed the 50-percent student loan ratio. The exception would apply only to institutions with a total outstanding student loan volume of $10 million or less, and all loans would have to be made to those age 22 and under. The Young Americans Bank enjoys broad support, and I have received letters endorsing this legislation from Denver's Mayor Wellington Webb, the Colorado Bankers Association, the Colorado Governor's office and numerous financial institutions and universities. The operation and objectives of the Young Americans Bank should not be limited. This bank does an outstanding job of providing financial and educational opportunities to young people, and I encourage my colleagues to support their mission and encourage the expansion of such a successful institution.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chair. Before I begin, I commend my friends, the subcommittee chairman, Mitch McConnell, and Senator Patrick Leahy and chairman Ted Stevens and Senator Robert Byrd, for a very good bill. I support the bill. I believe its overall funding levels are very appropriate, and I plan on supporting it. However, I have one concern. My amendment is very simple. It strikes the $32 million for administrative expenses for the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and scales it back to its 1994 level of $21 million. Now, why was the year 1994 selected? In 1994, with Public Law 103- 392, OPIC's congressional authorized lending authority was last raised. This increased the maximum contingent liability or lending authority cap for insurance from $9 billion to $13.5 billion and increased the contingent liability cap for financing from $2.5 billion to $9.5 million. However, since 1994, there have been no increases in the authorized lending cap for OPIC. As a matter of fact, I have recently learned that while at the end of 1996 OPIC's liability exposure has increased, their total number of issuances has decreased. Now, in 1995, 1996 and 1997, OPIC's administrative expense appropriations have increased. In 1994, their administrative expense was $20.2 million; in 1995, their administrative expense was $25.8 million; in 1996, their administrative cost was $21.8 million, and in 1997 their administrative costs again increased to $32 million, while their cap was not increased one dime. In fact, there is a zero percent increase since 1994. Now, their administrative appropriation over the same period has increased $12 million--over the last 3 years--resulting in a 50-percent increase. Now, why should OPIC's administrative appropriation increase while their lending authority cap has stayed frozen? As I stated earlier, in reality their issuances have declined. While the $32 million in this bill is a freeze as of 1996--and I commend the committee for doing this, by the way--I believe it would be very appropriate to scale them back to the 1994 level. All this is occurring while the future of OPIC is very much uncertain. On September 30, 1997, OPIC's authorization ends. As of today, I do not believe the Senate has a reauthorization bill for OPIC. From my understanding, the House of Representatives is just beginning the process of reauthorization and, in the report for the companion foreign operations appropriations bill, it states they are reluctant in the absence of an authorization bill to fund OPIC. I believe this number is enough to administer their outstanding liabilities, but there is still great uncertainly as to what the future holds for OPIC. If reauthorization does occur, then we can come back to this issue at a later date. This amendment is not the place, nor do I plan to argue the specific pros and cons of OPIC, for that will come at a future date if we have a reauthorization bill. I plan to be involved in the debate at that time if that comes up. But this amendment is a matter of whether an agency, a Government entity, that depends on the full faith and credit of the United States, with Federal employees, should have their administrative expenses increased by 50 percent over the last 3 years while their authorized lending cap is not increased by one dime, zero percent. Make no mistake, OPIC is a Federal agency. It needs the United States to fund its operation. This Congress should always be concerned when an agency staff grows faster than its authority. I know of very few agencies that have no growth in authority which get a 50-percent increase in administrative expenses. It seems, if we are at all serious about reducing the size and scope of Government and take our oversight role seriously, then all agencies should play by the same rules, and we as a Congress should apply these rules evenly to all agencies. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and keep the growth of OPIC at a minimum, especially when their authorized cap has been frozen since 1994 and with their authorization expiring in September 1997. Mr. President, I reserve my right to address the Senate and yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chair. I thank Senator Leahy.

Mr. ALLARD. We shared a copy of that amendment. I think you have it. I will explain it in my remarks.

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

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to begin by congratulating Chairman McConnell and Senator Leahy for their hard work in crafting this legislation and working to include language on the CAMPFIRE Program in the bill. Mr. President, as I have made very clear in the past, I am a strong supporter of fiscal responsibility on the part of the Federal Government. It is our responsibility to use taxpayer's dollars in the most effective, and efficient way possible. This responsibility at times mandates that we review and question just where our tax dollars are going. When USAID's Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources or CAMPFIRE Program was first brought to my attention, I had to ask myself, just why are United States taxpayer's dollars being spent to fund big game hunting of elephants in Zimbabwe? If a program could spend dollars to hunt elephants how else are they spending our money? Asking myself these questions was not enough, so I began a comprehensive review of the CAMPFIRE Program. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce, that as a result of congressional review a little more fiscal responsibility has been restored to the U.S. Government. Our review of CAMPFIRE has produced three highly beneficial results. First of all, fiscal year 1998 will be the last year that the CAMPFIRE project will receive funding. This will end the cycle of appropriations that has already lead to $28 million being spent on this program. This amount, though small in respect to the overall budget, is a good start to tightening up Government spending, especially U.S. funding for international projects. Second, the appropriations language states that no U.S. tax dollars will go to directly fund the big game trophy hunting of Zimbabwe's elephants. I think we can agree that an endangered species such as the elephant should not be hunted with the tacit consent of the U.S. taxpayer through governmental funding. Finally, for the remaining time CAMPFIRE is funded, USAID must submit to Congress the steps they have taken to implement the CAMPFIRE Program. This will allow us to watch their use of our dollars. For far too long the U.S. has funded international programs with little or no oversight--this will serve as an example of how Congress should police international funding measures. Mr. President, I support the Foreign Operations Subcommittee's appropriations for fiscal year 1998 of the CAMPFIRE Program, with the understanding that this is the last year of the program, USAID submit information on how they implement the program, and no U.S. tax dollars will be spent to kill elephants. Now that we have ended the CAMPFIRE Program, it is my hope that we will not have to revisit this issue again in the future. In conclusion, Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Boxer and Senator Smith of New Hampshire for their help in drafting this language. I yield my time.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think there was a mistake in the remarks. There was going to be 15 minutes on each side, and the request was for 15 minutes equally divided. I wanted to clarify.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chair. In 1994, OPIC's lending authority for its insurance and financing was last raised and has been frozen since then. On the administrative cost side, we have seen a growth during that period, when their authority was limited, from $20 million to about $32 million. This amendment just takes the administrative cost back to the 1994 level. It is a reduction of $11 million in administration. I ask for a yea vote. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.