Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to establish an Interagency Council on Meeting the Housing and Service Needs of Seniors, which will help the Federal Government work with its partners to meet the growing housing and related needs of senior citizens around the country. The Interagency Council will work to better coordinate Federal programs so that seniors and their families can access the programs and the services necessary to allow them to age in place or find suitable housing alternatives. It is important that we take note of the needs of this rapidly growing senior population. In 2000, the population over 65 years of age was 34.7 million. This number is expected to grow to over 50 million by 2020. By the year 2030, nearly one-fifth of the United States population will be above 65 years of age. In recognition of the importance of this issue, in 1999 Congress established the Commission on Affordable Housing and Health Facility Needs for Seniors--``Seniors Commission''--to assess the Federal role in senior housing, health and supportive services. The Seniors Commission made a number of significant findings. For example, the commission found that seniors require a wide array of housing options with access to services, including meal preparation, transportation, health care, and assistance with daily activities. According to the Seniors Commission, over 18 percent of senior citizens--over 5.8 million seniors--who do not reside in nursing facilities have difficulty performing their daily activities without assistance. Over a million of these seniors are severely impaired, requiring assistance with many of their basic tasks. Many other seniors, those that can perform their daily functions, still require access to health care, transportation and other services. Without enhanced housing opportunities, such as service-enriched housing or assisted living facilities, these seniors find it increasingly difficult to remain outside of nursing homes or other institutional settings. In fact, the Seniors Commission found that ``many seniors across the income spectrum are at risk of institutionalization or neglect due to declining health and the loss or absence of support and timely interventions.'' For many seniors, in-home care, service-enriched housing, retrofitted homes and apartments, and assisted living-type facilities are sorely needed so that seniors can access necessary services where they live. While there are numerous Federal programs that assist seniors and their families in meeting these needs, they are fragmented across many government agencies, with little or no coordination. In fact, the Seniors Commission found that ``the most striking characteristic of seniors' housing and health care in this country is the disconnection of one field from another.'' For example, housing assistance is available from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, while health care and supportive services are most likely accessed through various branches of the Department of Health and Human Services, such as the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services and the Administration on Aging, as well as through the Department of Transportation and the Department of Labor. The Seniors Commission concluded that ``the time has come for coordination among Federal and State agencies and administrators.'' The legislation I am introducing today, the ``Meeting the Housing and Service Needs of Seniors Act of 2005,'' answers the commission's call to action by implementing the recommendation for better federal coordination. Through a high-level interagency council the Federal Government will take a simple, but critical, step in addressing this fragmentation. This Council will have a variety of functions. The council will review all Federal programs designed to assist seniors, identify gaps in services, make recommendations about how to reduce duplication, identify best practices for relevant programs and services, and most importantly, work to improve the availability of housing and services for seniors. The council will also monitor, evaluate, and recommend improvements in existing programs and services that assist seniors in meeting their housing and service needs at the Federal, State, and local level, and will work to more effectively coordinate programs at the federal level, as well as at the state level, where many of the decisions regarding health and service needs are made. In addition, the council will be responsible for collecting and disseminating information, through a variety of means, about seniors and the programs and services relating to their needs. Through collaboration with the Federal Interagency Forum on Aging Statistics and the Census Bureau, the council will consolidate data on these needs and identify and address unmet data needs. With improved collaboration and coordination among the Federal agencies and our State partners, we can ensure that seniors are better able to access housing and services. To ensure its effectiveness, the council will be comprised of top-level officials who oversee the programs which assist seniors in this country, including the Secretaries of the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the Department of Health and Human Services; the Department of Labor; the Department of Transportation; and the Department of Veterans Affairs; as well as the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration; the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; and the Administrator of the Administration for the Aging. This is a step we must take. It is essential that we make it easier for seniors and their families to access housing and supportive services together, so that when faced with difficult decisions, they do not have to navigate a confusing maze of programs and services, and work through multiple bureaucracies. We must also make it simpler for developers and providers to link housing and services so that greater supportive housing opportunities are available to the senior population. Through the Interagency Council, it is my hope that we will move toward a model of providing housing and services to seniors around the country. If we are to successfully address these growing needs, it is clear that much work must be done. The establishment of an Interagency Council on Meeting the Housing and Service Needs of Seniors is a critical first step in this endeavor. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill together with letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, having lost the previous amendment, I support the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota. It is not my preference to do an across-the-board cut of other programs, but the CDBG Program is so important that we should adopt this amendment.

Mr. SARBANES. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this is a community development block grant amendment. Our mayors, Governors, and county officials are all desperate for this program. This restores the cuts, keeps it in HUD. Bernardi, the Deputy Secretary, said: We must continue to support and build upon programs that work, those that have a proven record of flexibility and the ability to fit in the local determined needs. CDBG is such a program and ranks among our Nation's oldest and most successful programs. This amendment would fund it by using the closing of tax loopholes, which previously passed this body. I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I was pleased to join with my colleague Senator Chafee in sponsoring a sense of the Senate resolution which sought to restore the Clean Water State Revolving Funds to the fiscal year 2004 enacted level of $1.35 billion. For the past 2 years, Senators Crapo, Jeffords, and I, along with other Members of this body, have offered successful amendments to the budget resolution on the Senate floor seeking to boost funding for this program from $1.35 billion to $3.2 billion. Unfortunately, these amendments were not accepted by the conference committee for fiscal year 2004, and there was no budget resolution in fiscal year 2005. There is a tremendous need for increased funding for wastewater treatment infrastructure improvements throughout the country. As we underscore in this resolution, in 2002 the Congressional Budget Office estimated a spending gap for clean water needs between $132 billion and $388 billion over 20 years. This year we are proposing a very modest amendment simply to hold the line. All States will be affected by the President's proposed cut in spending, a cut of 33 percent from the fiscal year 2005 enacted funding and a cut of 46 percent from the 2004 enacted level. This cut will have a devastating impact on the ability of States and communities to continue upgrading their wastewater infrastructure and to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. This request to restore the funding has broad bipartisan support: 41 Senators joined me in a letter seeking this restoration. Americans overwhelmingly believe that clean and safe water should be a national issue and a national priority. Protecting our Nation's water is an essential Federal role, not just a State and local responsibility. In a recent poll, nearly three-quarters of Americans agreed that ``clean and safe water is a national issue that requires dedicated national funding.'' More than two-thirds think Federal spending to ensure clean and safe water is more important than tax cuts. Across the Nation, our wastewater systems are aging. Some systems currently in use were built more than a century ago and have outlived their useful life. Many communities cannot meet water-quality goals with their current systems. The American Society of Civil Engineers recently released its 2005 Report Card for America's Infrastructure and gave Wastewater systems a D minus, down from a D 2 years ago. Obviously, I would like to see a significant increase in these clean water State revolving funds, which have been a highly effective means for improving wastewater treatment for communities across the Nation. However, at a minimum, I urge a simple restoration of the funding to the 2004 enacted level.

Mr. SARBANES. I inform the managers that I have an amendment involving clean water, but I will not offer it.

Mr. SARBANES. I understand in the list you just read was a sense of the Senate by Senator Chafee on clean water, is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the chairman, the manager of the bill, yield for a question?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I yield the balance of my time.

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, first, let me say at the outset, because I neglected to do so the other day in the general debate, that I commend both the chairman of the Budget Committee and the ranking minority member of the Budget Committee for the fair and expeditious way in which consideration of this resolution was conducted in the committee. We have a new chairman. It is always a challenge, and I want to express to him my recognition of the fair process conducted in the committee, which is, of course, essential to the Senate working through controversial issues and trying to reach a solution. This amendment would restore approximately $1.89 billion in cuts that are in the administration's proposed budget to the Community Development Block Grant Program and a number of other development programs that have been proposed for elimination. It would bring all of those programs back to the 2005 level. It is my view, and the view of a majority of the Members of the Senate expressed in a letter sent to Chairman Gregg and Senator Conrad, that the administration of these 18 programs should remain as they are currently constituted. In other words, the community development block grant should continue to be housed at HUD, the rural programs at USDA, and this effort to shift all of them over to the Department of Commerce, an idea which has not been considered, not examined, not brought to the floor of the Congress, ought not to be carried through. I am going to focus on the CDBG Program primarily because very substantial cuts have been proposed in the budget. Roy Bernardi, the Deputy Secretary of HUD, a former mayor of Syracuse, has said that the foundation of virtually all community and economic development occurring across the Nation is CDBG. This is the Deputy Secretary of HUD, formerly mayor of Syracuse. He said: We must continue to support and build upon programs that work, those that have a proven record of flexibility and the ability to fit in with locally determined needs. CDBG is such a program and ranks among our Nation's oldest and most successful programs. I have two letters strongly supporting full funding for the CDBG Program at HUD, signed by a host of State, city, and county organizations, such as the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, and the National Governors Association. I ask unanimous consent those two letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, the private sector strongly supports CDBG. Doug Woodruff, Senior Vice President of the Bank of America, said at a recent Hill briefing: From the perspective of the private sector, the CDBG program provides a valuable and irreplaceable function in the continuum of efforts that surround many revitalization projects. The success of CDBG is unquestionable. It has produced over 2 million jobs in its 30-year history, and generated more than $50 billion in personal earnings. I want to address one other point; that is, how do we restore the funding? That is always a question. It is a matter of priorities. This amendment proposes to restore the funding by eliminating tax loopholes that were closed by this body in the last Congress. Ninety- two Members voted to do this. A lot of those provisions were dropped in conference. Just 2 weeks ago, colleagues supported closing these loopholes in the context of the minimum wage debate. Obviously, these loopholes should be closed. The headlines are screaming ``abusive tax shelter schemes.'' The GAO recently reported that 60 of the Nation's largest corporations used and abused tax shelter services in recent years. Some want to cut other programs but this would mean taking from Peter to pay Paul. We have a perfect opportunity here to recoup valuable revenues that are now being lost through these tax shelter schemes. That is the tradeoff in this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SARBANES. I yield half of that time to the Senator from Michigan.

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

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I ask what the time situation is and the parliamentary situation.

Mr. SARBANES. I yield myself 3 minutes of the 7\1/2\ minutes that I have available. Amendment No. 156

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I commend the Senator from Minnesota for a very eloquent statement about the effectiveness of the CDBG program. Of course, he has absolutely firsthand experience with it having been a mayor of one of our great cities. I appreciate his analysis of the worth of the CDBG program. I simply make this point, and this is a broader priorities question: The amendment I have offered derives the funding, in order to restore the money, by closing tax loopholes--the very provisions that passed the Senate overwhelmingly last year 92 to 4 on the FSC/ETI bill. A lot of these provisions were dropped in conference. The ones dropped would produce $27 billion over a 5-year period. So there is not much argument about the necessity of closing these loopholes. The overwhelming judgment here was that ought to be done. That would then avoid cutting other programs. There is a dilemma here. I understand that. If we are trying to keep things neutral as far as contributing to the deficit is concerned, then the question becomes, do you cut other programs in what is, I think, an already extremely tight budget. So you fund CDBG, but you would diminish the funding for housing, education, and other programs--across the board. The alternative is to find a revenue source in which there is general agreement in terms of an abuse of the Tax Code. Now, the chairman refers to that as taxing and spending. I do not know how you spend if you do not tax unless you are going to run up a deficit. I regard that as responsible budget making. You always have to use reasoned judgement and analysis in terms of what is fair and right. The proposal here is to close some of those tax loopholes. There has been an overwhelming judgment that those loopholes should be closed. The amount of revenue produced by closing the loopholes dropped in conference is three times what it would cost to restore the CDBG Program. Thus closing only some of them would produce sufficient revenue to restore these programs.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. As I understand this chart, each column is a 5-year period; is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SARBANES. There has been no 5-year period since 1950--none during that period--in which the growth of long-term GDP has been at or below the line they are projecting; is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. So we have exceeded it in each of these 5-year periods over that 55-year span?

Mr. SARBANES. Not only how big the problem is, but I guess when the problem would occur, how soon it would be upon us.