Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I yield myself 3 additional minutes.

Mr. SARBANES. A formula grant will allow better organization at the local level and facilitate better planning as funding levels become more predictable. The VA-HUD bill allows a formula approach, but it does not provide adequate funding. This amendment would raise the total homeless funding to a level that would allow a formula approach to make sense. In fact, the Appropriations Committee recognized it in their report. The committee stated: ``The committee is worried that the block grant approach with funds less than $1 billion may disadvantage some areas with significant homeless problems and homeless providers.'' This amendment addresses that problem. It brings the homeless funding figure back up to this year's level and makes it possible to use the formula approach. Almost everyone is supportive of a formula approach. In fact, the Senate Banking Committee reported a bill that included such a program last year on a bipartisan, 15 to 3 vote. I am not going to go through a litany of the numbers of people who are on the street. I do want to point out, however, how much of this is a veterans problem. Well over a third of the homeless have served in the Armed Forces. It is estimated that about 275,000 veterans are homeless on any given night. The single largest segment of homeless veterans--55 to 60 percent--are from the Vietnam era. [[Page S 14274]] The demand for these funds is significant. Last year applications for funds for assistance to the homeless were 2\1/2\ times the amount which the Congress had appropriated. Let me discuss the offset further. The offset for this amendment comes from section 8 contract renewal accounts. Currently, HUD is holding reserves in section 8 contracts on behalf of housing agencies that administer the section 8 program. The amendment would allow HUD to take into account the project reserves when considering the amount to provide housing agencies when contracts are to be renewed. Money would not be available to, in effect, uplift the section 8 program. The HUD Secretary has assured us, however, that enough money would remain to do the contract renewals. I therefore suggest to my colleagues, in terms of priority, it makes eminent good sense to shift this money out of section 8 and put it into the homeless programs. The last thing we want to see is people wandering our streets, many of them suffering from mental and physical disabilities. It is a problem that cuts to the very heart of what we stand for as a society. This amendment offers the opportunity to bring it back to this year's level and to enable us to move forward in partnership with State and local governments and with the private sector--churches, community groups and other similar action organizations--in order to address this very pressing problem. I very strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, what is the time situation?

Mr. SARBANES. The Secretary says: I am writing this letter to express my support for an amendment to the Senate Appropriations bill which would restore the level of funding for the homeless assistance programs to the FY 1995 level of $1.12 billion. This amendment would offset the homeless funding level increase of $360 million with a concomitant reduction in the section 8 renewal account. Funding for the renewal of expiring contracts can be reduced without any impact on existing recipients-- I underscore that ``existing recipients''-- Because many public housing agencies have sufficient reserves in their section 8 tenant-based contracts. These agencies can use these reserves to renew expiring contracts before receiving additional Federal resources. As you know, the FY 1995 Rescission law required the Department to use available PHA reserves in the same manner as this amendment would provide. The amendment uses these reserves. That means the reserves are not available if they want to upgrade the section 8 program. Public housing agencies would be less able to issue more contracts or cover rent increases. The amendment does leave enough money to fulfill existing contracts. The real question then becomes: Is it a sufficiently higher priority to address the problem of the homeless, even though we have to move money out of another program? I think the problems of the homeless are a critical priority. What the extra money for the homeless program would enable us to do is use a formula approach. Virtually everyone is in favor of a formula approach. The additional funds made available in this amendment would become part of a larger pool which would enable the Department to apply the formula to allocate the funds. We need enough funds to make the formula realistic. The fact that the additional money in this amendment can not be committed in a contract with a State or local government until the end of the fiscal year does not affect then the ability of the States and the localities to prepare for the money on the basis of a formula allocation and to develop their programs accordingly. The committee report says that ``funding for a formula below $1 billion will mean that many communities with significant homeless programs will not get adequate resources to design and maintain assistance programs to meet their needs.'' This amendment would provide enough money and make possible a major reform in the administration of HUD's homeless programs. Ever since 1989, the Congress has repeatedly increased the amount of money available for homeless assistance. This amendment merely tries to keep the funding level from 1995 to 1996. And, in this amendment, we have an offset that comes out of another housing account. I am not happy about the offset. I think the housing accounts are being markedly shortchanged. But, when it comes to a judgment as to whether we ought to let the bill's drastic cut in the money for the homeless stand or draw some money off of the section 8 reserves, it seems to me that we ought to use the section 8 reserves in order to assure that the homeless program can continue at a reasonable level. I again want to underscore that a significant number of Members are talking about are the needs of veterans in the context of the bill before us. The amendment raises a question of priorities. I say to my distinguished friend from Missouri, in the choice between leaving these funds in reserve accounts to be rolled over into section 8 versus providing shelter for homeless veterans, I have chosen to move the money to the homeless programs. The money left in the section 8 account after this amendment will cover existing contracts. What will be lost is the housing authorities' reserves that are there to cover increases the contract subsidy or to cover rent increases. I say to my colleague: Between those two alternatives it seems to me that raising the level of appropriations for the homeless ought to take precedent. As Lucie McKinney said in this very strong and moving article, ``We do know how to end homelessness.''

Mr. SARBANES. I yield myself one minute. The article by Ms. McKinney continues: ``And while the cure is not cost free, it costs a whole lot less than not facing and solving the problem. Saving lives and saving money, how can that be bad?'' Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, what is the time situation?

Mr. SARBANES. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that very point?

Mr. SARBANES. The figures here in this report before me show that single men comprise 48 percent of the homeless population. Families with children now comprise 39 percent of the homeless population. The nature of the homeless population is changing.

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will--

Mr. SARBANES. Would it not make more sense to take the chance that the section 8 contracts will be adequate funded? The reserves are there for when the rents go up or the income of the section-8-assisted people go down more than anticipated. Both of these outcomes are possibilities, but by no means certainties. Would it not make more sense to take the contingent money and use it to address the current needs of the homeless? Their needs are a certainty. We are reducing our commitment to the fight against homelessness by 32 percent in this legislation. You have got State and local governments working with private groups to construct this network to try to deal with the homeless problem. They are relying on these resources and I think we should sustain our commitment. We know that the homeless problem is there. The section 8 problem you are talking about is only a possibility. I do not deny that using the reserves does raise the possibility of future section 8 needs.

Mr. SARBANES. The section 8 offset is not money that appears out of nowhere.

Mr. SARBANES. No. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. SARBANES. The money in the amendment would become available for purposes of running the formula and for the purposes of HUD developing its regulations. With this amendment, the Senator has an opportunity now to make the formula approach --which he supports, as I understand it--work. The Senator has said himself in the committee report that he needs at least $1 billion in order to fund a formula adequately. This amendment would provide the Senator with that opportunity. The final commitment of funds would not come until the end of the fiscal year, but the whole process could be put in place. You could have a formula- based homeless program, which everyone says is the direction in which to move. My amendment would give HUD the opportunity to do it.

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator wishes to respond, I will hear him out and then make my closing statement.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I have no objection to the vote being set aside. I gather the Senator from Vermont wishes to offer his amendment, and then we will vote on both of them at the same time seriatim.

Mr. SARBANES. Is the parliamentary situation that a vote is to occur on this amendment at the conclusion of the use of our time?

Mr. SARBANES. That would be the regular order. I do not mind accommodating, but I do not want to see the vote extended way into the evening, I say to my colleagues.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. First of all, the amendment does not jeopardize the contracts. We have a letter here from the Secretary of HUD. I ask unanimous consent to include it in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES. Let me say to my colleague from Missouri, and I am on the housing committee, you say in your own report, on trying to go to a formula base: . . . the Committee is worried that a block grant approach with funds less than $1,000,000,000 may disadvantage some areas with significant homeless problems and some homeless providers. That is on page 61. What this transfer will do is it will enable HUD, in effect, to move to a formula grant program as it develops these negotiated regulations in the coming fiscal year. It is going to take time to develop those regulations, but they cannot structure a competition or an allocation of those moneys unless they are above $1 billion by your own statement in the report. So this offers the opportunity to really move forward on the homeless issue, and the price we are paying for it is we are taking some moneys out of the section 8 program, which would not cover then the possibilities to which you have eluded, either that rents would rise or incomes of people getting section 8 would drop. Those are both possibilities, and I concede that. But the homeless are a reality here and now, and the need to structure the homeless programs in partnership with State and local government and in partnership with the private sector must move forward. And the way to move it forward is to adopt this amendment, bringing the amount for the homeless back up to this year's level and thereby enabling HUD to structure a program which utilizes the formula- grant approach, which the committee on which the Senator and I serve reported out last year on a bipartisan vote, on a 15-to-3 vote. A formula grant will provide State and local governments with a predictable stream of funding to support their efforts to create comprehensive systems: outreach and screening, emergency shelters, transitional facilities and permanent housing with supportive services. Comprehensive, coordinated systems such as those are critical for addressing the needs of the homeless population. I urge the adoption of this amendment. It will actually be putting resources to work in their most important and critical need.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, to restore funding to the Corporation for National and Community Service. When the conference report on the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 came before the Senate for final approval, I was proud to cast my vote in favor of this important legislation and I am equally proud to stand before the Senate today to reaffirm my support for the Corporation and its mission. Signed into law on September 21, 1993, the National Service Act has helped to renew the ethic of civic responsibility and the spirit of community service while also providing critical assistance to needy communities throughout the Nation. The measure has also encouraged and, more importantly, provided the opportunity for thousands of Americans to give of themselves for the greater good while earning money to further their education. In my view, the legislation effectively merges education and service, two critical components of a healthy society. Now, several of my colleagues in stating their opposition to continued funding for the National Service Corporation have expressed the view that it is not the role of the Federal Government to subsidize community service; that to pay volunteers through a Federal program runs contrary to the spirit of local community-based service. I would urge those who hold this view to look to history. Our society and the unique form of government we enjoy was built on the strength of national service and, in my view, fostering the investment in and providing the leadership for increased opportunity to serve is a responsibility we all share. Mr. President, Americorps, the centerpiece of the national service program, is not one large Federal program, but a network of locally developed and locally managed service corps which gives thousands of young people the opportunity to serve their country while improving the lives of themselves and their neighbors. Moreover, the initial investment we have made has encouraged increased private sector involvement in community service programs, including Americorps. I encourage opponents of national service to look carefully at the success of many of the Americorps programs operating in communities across the United States. Information gathered from site visits by the General Accounting Office (GAO) indicate that an overwhelming majority of the programs across the country serve their purpose. In my State of Maryland, the Montgomery County Police Department is operating a Community Assisting Policing program designed to engage volunteers in education and outreach efforts to control and prevent crime and to reduce fear in at-risk communities. The GAO found that participants were involved in such projects as organizing a school Crime Awareness Day, teaching senior citizens how to protect themselves from crime, and analyzing neighborhood crime statistics to identify problem areas. The GAO also visited MAGIC ME America, a nonprofit organization founded in Baltimore in 1980. The central mission of the MAGIC ME organization, which operated three AmeriCorps programs nationwide, is to motivate and educate teens by involving them in local community service projects. The GAO reported that participants in the MAGIC ME Program in Baltimore found that the program helped them to build their self-esteem and confidence and that all three participants interviewed planned to use their education awards to start or return to college. Additionally, staff members at three of the area facilities served by AmeriCorps volunteers stated that their presence was a key ingredient to the program. With the help of the AmeriCorps Program, MAGIC ME estimates that they have been able to increase the number of people served by over 800 percent in their three AmeriCorps Program sites. Mr. President, it is my view that national service, and those who participate in national service represent the best of our Nation. In the tradition of the Peace Corps and VISTA, AmeriCorps strengthens the beliefs and values that are at the very root of American citizenship-- the tradition of serving others, the value of taking personal responsibility for ourselves and our communities, and the belief that to who much is given, much is expected. Through programs like AmeriCorps we provide our Nation with both an opportunity and an obligation. National service requests a contribution to the community while providing individuals with the opportunity to develop skills which will serve them well throughout their lives. As I have indicated through examples in my own State, the national service program is effective; it does work. At a time when we as a society are searching for ways in which to strengthen our families and our communities it would be foolhardy to abandon this national service initiative. I urge my colleagues to join me in applauding those who have answered the call to service through AmeriCorps and other national service opportunities. These individuals are taking part in the oldest and best of America's traditions--the spirit of service--and they deserve our support.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, in cosponsoring this important legislation to ensure the protection of Federal employee pay and benefits in the event of a furlough. We have a responsibility to the men and women who have dedicated themselves to public service and I would hope that my colleagues would join Senator Mikulski and I in our ongoing effort to maintain the Federal Government's commitment to its dedicated work force. Over the past several months, Federal employees have been subject to numerous attacks on their pay and earned benefits. Despite my opposition, Congress approved the Republican budget resolution which seeks to change the calculation of retirement benefits for Federal employees from the employee's highest 3-year average to the highest 5- year average. The resolution also contains a reduction in the Federal Government's contribution to employee health care benefits and an increase from 7 to 7.5 percent in Federal employee contribution rates over the next 7 years. In my view, this is a breach of the contract with Federal employees. In an attempt to restore fairness for Federal workers, I offered, along with Senator Mikulski and several of my colleagues, an amendment to the Republican budget resolution which would have stricken the high three/ high five provision. Unfortunately, the provision failed by the narrowest of margins. Mr. President, Federal employees have made a choice to serve their country and we should respect and reward that choice by supporting these hardworking, dedicated individuals. [[Page S 13729]] Through the legislation Senator Mikulski and I are introducing today, we have the opportunity to send a message to the Federal work force and to all American citizens that Congress honors and values the commitment those who work for the Government have made. As I have stated many times before, Federal employees have already made significant sacrifices in past years in the form of downsizing efforts, delayed and reduced cost of living adjustments, and other reductions in Federal employee pay and benefits. They have been called on to sacrifice further in this Congress through the Republican budget resolution and are now facing the very real possibility that, through no fault of their own, they may have to either work without pay or be prohibited from coming to work at all. In a consistent and committed way, Federal workers give dedicated service to our country and they deserve to have their pay and earned benefits protected. Like Cal Ripken, who was recently honored in Baltimore, Federal employees show up day in and day out and do their jobs. In my view, we should recognize and encourage such dedication by ensuring that the pay and benefits of Federal workers are not placed in jeopardy.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, in cosponsoring this important legislation to ensure the protection of Federal employee pay and benefits in the event of a furlough. We have a responsibility to the men and women who have dedicated themselves to public service and I would hope that my colleagues would join Senator Mikulski and I in our ongoing effort to maintain the Federal Government's commitment to its dedicated work force. Over the past several months, Federal employees have been subject to numerous attacks on their pay and earned benefits. Despite my opposition, Congress approved the Republican budget resolution which seeks to change the calculation of retirement benefits for Federal employees from the employee's highest 3-year average to the highest 5- year average. The resolution also contains a reduction in the Federal Government's contribution to employee health care benefits and an increase from 7 to 7.5 percent in Federal employee contribution rates over the next 7 years. In my view, this is a breach of the contract with Federal employees. In an attempt to restore fairness for Federal workers, I offered, along with Senator Mikulski and several of my colleagues, an amendment to the Republican budget resolution which would have stricken the high three/ high five provision. Unfortunately, the provision failed by the narrowest of margins. Mr. President, Federal employees have made a choice to serve their country and we should respect and reward that choice by supporting these hardworking, dedicated individuals. [[Page S 13729]] Through the legislation Senator Mikulski and I are introducing today, we have the opportunity to send a message to the Federal work force and to all American citizens that Congress honors and values the commitment those who work for the Government have made. As I have stated many times before, Federal employees have already made significant sacrifices in past years in the form of downsizing efforts, delayed and reduced cost of living adjustments, and other reductions in Federal employee pay and benefits. They have been called on to sacrifice further in this Congress through the Republican budget resolution and are now facing the very real possibility that, through no fault of their own, they may have to either work without pay or be prohibited from coming to work at all. In a consistent and committed way, Federal workers give dedicated service to our country and they deserve to have their pay and earned benefits protected. Like Cal Ripken, who was recently honored in Baltimore, Federal employees show up day in and day out and do their jobs. In my view, we should recognize and encourage such dedication by ensuring that the pay and benefits of Federal workers are not placed in jeopardy.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to call to the attention of our colleagues celebrations that are underway to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the establishment of the town of Indian Head, MD. The mayor of Indian Head, Warren Bowie, along with the entire community, has planned several significant events to commemorate this propitious milestone. One of two incorporated townships in Charles County, Indian Head's history goes back much further than its date of incorporation in 1920. The territory now known as Indian Head was given to Lord Baltimore, and then to Gen. Charles Cornwallis, as part of a land grant made by the English King in 1736. Records later reveal that Cornwallis titled the land to George Washington in 1761. Older charts and maps dating from 1776 through 1866 indicate that Indian Head has had several names including Indian Point, Indian Headlands, and Indian Head Point. All of these names reflect the more popular tale of how the name Indian Head was bestowed upon the town. As the story is told, there was an Algonquin chief who had promised his daughter in marriage to the son of the chief of the neighboring Piscataway Tribe. Before the two children were united, the young woman met an Indian hunter who was traveling up the Potomac River from the Virginia Colony. The two immediately fell in love. The Algonquin chief, enraged at the disruption of the wedding plans, ordered the hunter to leave and never to return to the region again. The hunter vowed that he would come back for his love. His plans to return were discovered and foiled. The night he returned, he was ambushed by Algonquin warriors and beheaded. His head was placed on a spear and set in the sand as a warning to other trespassers. The very next day, the first white settlers came and discovered this monument. Hence the name Indian Head. Indian Head was slow to populate itself, largely due to the fact that the area was mainly marshland. But in 1890 the U.S. Navy decided to move its proving ground to Indian Head, primarily because of its location between the naval shipyards in Norfolk and the Washington Navy Yard on the Anacostia. As the installation at Indian Head grew, so did the town. When it became inevitable that the United States would become deeply engaged in World War I, Indian Head was given a large appropriation to expand its facilities to produce smokeless powder. The naval powder factory, which is now the naval ordnance station, provided the stimulus for the expansion of Indian Head. [[Page S 13745]] Indian Head is a model of community spirit and cooperation. The activities that have been sponsored to commemorate this auspicious occasion exemplify the deep devotion of Indian Head's residents to the community. The spirit and enthusiasm of Indian Head's citizens have been the foundation of its success. These celebrations provide the opportunity to renew the dedication that has supported Indian Head throughout its history and helped it to develop into one of Maryland's most attractive communities. We in Maryland are fortunate to have an area as community-oriented as Indian Head. I join the citizens of Charles County in sharing their pride in Indian Head's past and optimism for continued success in the years to come.