[Pages S14245-S14271]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

Amendment No. 2776

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 2:15
p.m. having arrived, there will now be 4 minutes of debate equally
divided in the usual form to be followed by a vote or in relation to
the Bumpers amendment No. 2776.
Who yields time?
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, not seeing the proponent of the amendment on
the floor, I suggest that the time be equally divided, and I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask for 1 minute on behalf of the opponents.
Mr. BOND. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I absolutely oppose the amendment being
offered by the Senator from Arkansas. I thank him for his support of
the space program and also for research in the American life science
community, but I want to make three points.
The Senator says this is a condo in the sky for going to Mars. We
absolutely reject that. We go to Mars, and we are going by robots; we
are not going by astronauts. This is to be a science lab, not a condo.
Second, the space station at one time was overweight and
underpowered, not unlike the Federal bureaucracy. We streamlined the
space station design to make sure that weight, power, and mission
match.
And last, but not at all least, there was a question whether we could
really assemble the space station in space. When we gave the Hubble
space telescope a new contact lens and our astronauts showed the
deftness with which they could do mechanical assembly in space, they
showed that we could do it. So we now have designs to the mission. We
can put it together in space. And it is a science lab, not a condo for
astronauts.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has 1 minute 30
seconds remaining.
Mr. BUMPERS. Let me just reiterate, No. 1, much has been made of the
fact that the American Medical Association favors the space station.
Let me point out that the American Physical Society--40,000 physicists
in America--are adamantly opposed to the space station. Why? Because
they say the benefits are going to be negligible. You cannot do
anything in space with microgravity. Dr. Bloembergen at Harvard says,
when you put men on the space station to do microgravity research, you
just mess it up. The steps, a bump, destroys microgravity research.
And what is there about a lack of gravity that is going to cure
cancer and AIDS and all the rest of it? The answer is nothing. Here are
people who really are concerned about the deficit: The Cato Institute,
the Concord Coalition, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste,
the National Taxpayers Union, Progress in Freedom Foundation,
Progressive Policy Institute. Not only do the American physicists
oppose it, every one of those organizations strongly oppose it.
This bill, just this bill alone, ravages housing for the elderly,
ravages sewer projects, and torpedoes the AmeriCorps Program to make
room for this thing. We are going to cut $40 billion out of education
in the next 7 years to pay for this?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Arkansas has
expired.
The Senator from Missouri has 25 seconds.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think the argument made very compellingly
by our good friend from Arkansas just shows that physicists do not know
anything more about biomedical research

[[Page S 14246]]
in space than we do. I will take the word of the people who are at NIH
and who are involved in biomedical research to say that it is
important.
This country has an opportunity to invest in the future. A research
laboratory in space can provide the benefits we need. I urge my
colleagues to defeat this amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to the
amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas, No. 2776. The yeas and
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 35, nays 64, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 463 Leg.]

YEAS--35

Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bradley
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Cohen
Conrad
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Harkin
Hollings
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lugar
Moynihan
Nunn
Pryor
Simon
Snowe
Specter
Thomas
Warner
Wellstone

NAYS--64

Akaka
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Burns
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Packwood
Pell
Pressler
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Stevens
Thompson
Thurmond

NOT VOTING--1

Gramm

So the amendment (No. 2776) was rejected.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in discussions with the distinguished
ranking member, I think we have an order for the amendments that are
coming up. I want to thank our colleagues for getting the amendments in
order and getting time agreements.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Stevens, followed by Senator
Chafee, be recognized for up to 10 minutes to present an amendment
which I believe is acceptable on both sides. After action on that
amendment is completed, we ask that Senator Mikulski and Senator
Kennedy be recognized to present an amendment on national service with
a 2-hour time limit, with a vote on or in relation to that amendment to
occur at that time; following disposition of that amendment, that
Senator Sarbanes be recognized to present an amendment on the homeless,
that there be 1 hour divided in the usual form which would apply to
both of those amendments; and upon the expiration or yielding back of
the time, that a vote on or in relation to the Sarbanes amendment
occur.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have an amendment which is acceptable by
both sides dealing with arsenic in the safe drinking water. We have
discussed this with the staffs.
What I want to do is present that right after the Stevens amendment,
and if it is acceptable, if I had 4 minutes equally divided----
Ms. MIKULSKI. Reserving the right to object, on the arsenic, would
the Senator go ahead with this? I need to be sure that the authorizer
on our side, and Senator Lautenberg--not only do I wish to cooperate
with the Senator from Rhode Island, but these got fairly prickly as we
were moving into the full committee, so I just want to make sure we
have one good thing done, and check in the meantime about the arsenic.
Mr. CHAFEE. Fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the
Senator from Missouri?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Alaska is recognized to offer an amendment.

Amendment No. 2779

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I
ask the pending amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the pending committee
amendment is set aside.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] for himself and Mr.
Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered 2779.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

Sec. 308. None of the funds appropriated under this Act may
be used to implement the requirements of section 186(b)(2),
section 187(b) or section 211(m) of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7512(b)(2), 7512a(b), or 7545(m)) with respect to any
moderate nonattainment area in which the average daily winter
temperature is below 0 degrees Fahrenheit. The preceding
sentence shall not be interpreted to preclude assistance from
the Environmental Protection Agency to the State of Alaska to
make progress toward meeting the carbon monoxide standard in
such areas and to resolve remaining issues regarding the use
of oxygenated fuels in such areas.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment that Senator Murkowski and
I have discussed with the managers of their staff and the chairman of
the authorizing committee, I understand will be accepted.
It provides for a 1-year exemption from the oxygenated fuel
requirements of the Clean Air Act for Fairbanks, AK. There are unique
circumstances in Fairbanks that justify this limited exemption. I do
thank the other Senators who have worked with us on this amendment.
Alaska exceeds the carbon monoxide requirements on the Clean Air Act
only on days when there are temperature inversions caused by extreme
cold, which really means when it is below 50 below zero.
When the oxygenated fuels requirement of the Clean Air Act was
applied to Fairbanks to correct the carbon monoxide levels, serious
health problems were reported. The MTBE additives developed for the
area were simply never tested for use in the extreme cold of the
Fairbanks area.
In addition to waiving the requirements to use the oxygenated fuels,
this amendment would also prevent Fairbanks from unfairly being added
to the list of cities with serious nonattainment problems.
Given the transitory nature of the oxygenated fuel requirements by
Fairbanks with respect to carbon monoxide, other Senators have agreed
additional measures coming from the declassification should not be
required for Fairbanks.
Through negotiations with our staff and the staffs of the authorizing
committee and this committee, Senator Murkowski and I have agreed this
is the last time we will seek a waiver of the oxygenated fuel
requirement for Fairbanks using the appropriations process.
However, we do hope that the Senate will agree with us to fix the
problem legislatively through an amendment to the Clean Air Act.
Again, I do thank my colleagues for their help in this matter.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, although I generally oppose legislative
riders on appropriations bills, I want to say that I support this
amendment by my colleagues from Alaska.
The city of Fairbanks has made extraordinary progress against the
carbon monoxide nonattainment situation.
In 1977, Fairbanks experienced nearly 100 days--100 days--in 1 year
when carbon monoxide levels exceeded the health standard. Last year,
the city of Fairbanks only had 5 days when those standards were
exceeded.
There is no question but what the city of Fairbanks has done an
extraordinarily good job. It is a tribute to the

[[Page S 14247]]
city and I might say it is also attribute, Mr. President, to the
efficacy of the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act is working.
Fairbanks is currently classified as a moderate nonattainment area.
If it does not fully meet the standard by the end of this year,
Fairbanks will be reclassified as a serious nonattainment area.
Reclassification would trigger a series of additional requirements
under the Clean Air Act--including transportation control measures--
that may not be necessary to reach this standard.
Fairbanks believes that it can meet the standard without the
imposition of these expensive additional measures. Because of the
dramatic progress that has already been made, I think it is reasonable
to extend the deadline in this case. The Senators from Alaska have
stated that they will not seek another extension on an appropriation
bill in the future.
As to oxygenated fuels, some States have experienced complaints in
cities where MTBE has been used as an additive. But MTBE is not the
only additive available. Ethanol, grain alcohol, can also be used as an
oxygenate. Everything we know about air pollution tells us that burning
alcohol presents less pollution concern than burning gasoline, the fuel
the alcohol replaces.
So, there are alternatives for Fairbanks if it cannot reach
attainment using existing measures. In fact, Anchorage, AK, used
ethanol as a fuel additive last year and recorded its first year ever
with no exceedances of the carbon monoxide standard. This experience
has been repeated all across the country. When we passed the 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments more than 40 cities were in nonattainment for carbon
monoxide. Today that number is less than 10 and much of the credit goes
to the oxygenated fuels program in the Clean Air Act.
Mr. President, we all look forward to the day when every American
city can boast of healthy air. Fairbanks has made great strides already
and will reach that goal soon. In light of its accomplishments, I think
we can provide the city with some flexibility.
Mr. President, I have the assurance of the two Senators from Alaska
that this is the last time they will be in for this exception. I am
supportive of it and commend them and commend the city of Fairbanks.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Stevens-Murkowski amendment relieves Fairbanks of
oxygenated fuels requirement and transportation control measures under
the Clean Air Act for upcoming winter because Fairbanks' carbon
monoxide [CO] exceedances are a result of temperature inversions--not
simply CO emissions, and Fairbanks' residents experienced negative
health effects when they initially tried methyl tertiary butyl ether
[MTBE] as an oxygenated fuel.
The oxygenated fuels program was instituted in Anchorage and
Fairbanks on November 1, 1992, according to the law, using MTBE as the
oxygenate additive. Fairbanks' and Anchorage residents began to
experience unusual health problems--nausea, vomiting, dizziness,
disorientation, headaches, and other symptoms.
Our Governor canceled the program in Fairbanks on December 11, 1992,
due to these health problems. The EPA had not done any studies on MTBE
in the Arctic conditions that exist in Alaska. So, many Alaskans
justifiably fear the use of oxygenated fuels in their gasoline.
Let me also note that Alaska does not have a serious non-attainment
problem. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter
from the city of Fairbanks.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Fairbanks North Star Borough,

Fairbanks, AK, February 22, 1995.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
U.S. Senate, Hart Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: Thank you for taking the time to
meet with me while I was recently in Washington, DC. I
appreciate the time you took to talk with me about Fairbanks'
concerns regarding federal Clean Air Act requirements. We
continue to have problems with certain requirements of the
Act, due to a combination of extremely severe temperature
inversions and high cold-start emissions caused by our cold
temperatures. According to National Weather Service staff,
Fairbanks has the strongest temperature inversions in North
America.
As you can see from the enclosed chart, the number of days
each year that Fairbanks exceeds the ambient carbon monoxide
standard has dropped dramatically from previous levels to
fewer than five per year. The decrease is largely a result of
federal emissions controls on new cars, with some additional
benefits due to the basic emissions inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program the Borough implemented in 1985.
Although substantial progress has been made in reducing
emissions, several exceedances occurred recently during an
extended period of extreme temperature inversions and calm
winds. These conditions resulted in extremely stagnant air
dispersion for several days.
As you know, our residents remain adamantly opposed to the
use of oxygenated fuel in our community. Unfortunately, this
program is mandated directly by the Clean Air Act, and not
even EPA has the legal authority to exempt Fairbanks from
this requirement. As a result of the nonattainment status,
the Fairbanks North Star Borough may soon be subject to
additional Clean Air Act mandates which would require the
implementation of local transportation controls. None of
these programs appear feasible or acceptable to our
community, yet could be imposed upon us by a federal law that
doesn't recognize the uniqueness of the Fairbanks North Star
Borough.
When we spoke in Washington, you talked about current
efforts in the Senate to address the costs versus benefits of
federal mandates. The above Clean Air Act provisions are a
good example of this issue. It makes no sense to impose
federally mandated control strategies which may not provide
significant benefits on a community where those strategies
would cost millions of dollars, particularly when they aren't
likely to eliminate a problem that is largely caused by
Mother Nature. We are not asking to be completely exempted
from Clean Air Act requirements. We'll do our part to ensure
that the control measures we are responsible for (e.g., the
current I/M program) are effectively implemented. We need
your help in eliminating federal mandates that will not help
our community attain the goals of the Act. We would also like
some recognition in the Act that we shouldn't be penalized
for Alaska's unique weather characteristics.
We will be providing your staff with several options that
could possibly be pursued to provide Fairbanks with relief
from the above Clean Air Act provisions. Thanks again for
taking the time to talk with me on this subject. We truly
appreciate the efforts you've made on behalf of Interior
Alaska in the past regarding this issue, as well as any
additional actions that you can take to assist us further in
the future.
Sincerely,
Jim Sampson,
Borough Mayor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have some of the cleanest air in the
country. Fairbanks has made significant, dramatic reductions in CO
violations. You will notice that most of these reductions occurred
before the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments; so, the Clean Air Act was
effective in Fairbanks without the oxygenated fuels requirement. These
reductions are clearly attributable to Fairbanks' inspection and
maintenance program. Fairbanks has reduced their violations 43
percent--from 37 in 1985 to only 2 in 1992, and most recently we seem
to be down to 5 or fewer violations a year.
Those exceedances that do occur are during thermal inversions.
Typical automobile fleet turnover and the U.S. car fleet operating more
efficiently at cold temperatures could also bring Fairbanks into
compliance eventually.
I want to thank Senator Chafee and Senator Bond for accepting our
amendment. Fairbanks air quality has improved significantly over the
years. We want to continue to work with the EPA to improve our air
quality by means that make sense in our Arctic climate and not be
subject to a one-size-fits-all mandate that does not make sense in
Alaska. We welcome the current political climate that recognizes the
need for flexibility and common sense in our environmental regulatory
policy.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I just ask the Senate to remember the
extreme temperature conditions that exist in Fairbanks. I started my
life in Alaska, in Fairbanks, and I can attest to temperatures below 65
degrees below zero myself.
These temperature inversions are the problem. They are not the normal
problem that causes carbon monoxide limitations to be exceeded. The
oxygenated fuels I think would have a minimal impact on that problem
anyway because we are not certain they will even solve the problem when
we are down below 60 below zero.
So I thank the Senate. I thank Senator Chafee for being willing to
deal with this. Again, our commitment is, we will not raise this as an
exception through the appropriations process. We are going to pursue
the authorizing committee for a permanent solution to this problem as
we deal with the Clean Air Act.

[[Page S 14248]]

I thank the Senator from Missouri.
Am I correct that this amendment will be accepted?
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, if I might add that when we passed the
Clean Air Act amendments in 1990, more than 40 cities were in
nonattainment for carbon monoxide. Today that number is less than 10.
Much of the credit goes to the oxygenated fuels program as well as
other steps taken by the various cities.
So I think we can look forward to the day when every American city
can boast clean air. Fairbanks, as I mentioned, has made great progress
and we believe will reach the goal of complete attainment soon. In
light of those accomplishments, I think we should provide Fairbanks
with some flexibility, and I am happy to support this amendment.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. BOND. The amendment is acceptable on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Alaska yield his
remaining time?
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we agree to the amendment. I have no
other statement to make on it.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I agree with what the Senator from Rhode
Island has said. I know what the situation here is. I am one who does
not believe that MTPE will make a difference when there are temperature
inversions that cause nonattainment. We will have to deal with that in
the Clean Air Act, however, and we agree not to pursue it with the
appropriations process again.
I thank the Senator. I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
No. 2779 offered by the Senator from Alaska.
The amendment (No. 2779) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe that the Senator from Rhode Island
has another amendment that will be acceptable on both sides. I modify
the unanimous-consent agreement and ask unanimous consent that he be
given 5 minutes to present the amendment with respect to arsenic in
drinking water.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. I further ask unanimous consent that on the Mikulski
amendment on national service and on the Sarbanes amendment on
homelessness, that no second-degree amendments be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2780 to the Committee Amendment Beginning on Page 143,
Line 17 through Page 151, Line 10

(Purpose: To amend the provisions with respect to arsenic)
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator seek to set aside the pending
committee amendments?
Mr. CHAFEE. I do so ask.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee
amendment beginning on page 143, line 17, be the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will now report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee) proposes an
amendment numbered 2780 to the committee amendment beginning
on page 143, line 17, through page 151, line 10.

On page 149, line 18, insert ``(for its carcinogenic effects)'' after
``arsenic.''
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this amendment would modify one of the
environmental riders on this appropriations bill. The appropriations
bill precludes the Environmental Protection Agency from taking final
action to set a standard for arsenic under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
This delay is presumably justified because some uncertainties in the
science on the cancer-causing effects of arsenic.
My amendment would continue the delay imposed by the rider for a
standard to deal with the cancer threat from arsenic, but it would
allow EPA to go forward and revise the standard to protect against the
other adverse health effects of arsenic.
Arsenic is a naturally occurring substance frequently found in
drinking water, especially in water supplies from ground water sources.
Arsenic causes several adverse health effects, the most important of
which are vascular diseases and skin cancer. Arsenic has been known to
be a cause of cancer by ingestion since 1887 because it was sold in
patent medicines. Ironically, many of these medicines were intended to
treat skin diseases. Using arsenic as a medicine proved that arsenic
itself causes skin cancer.
The other major health problem caused by arsenic is a weakening of
the vascular system--the vessels that circulate blood in our bodies.
Arsenic is currently regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and
has been regulated by the Federal Government beginning long before
there was an EPA. The current drinking water standard, established by
the Public Health Service after World War II, is 50 parts per billion.
That standard was set to address the vascular diseases, but was not
designed to address the cancer risk.
The 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act required the
arsenic standard to be rewritten and to address the cancer risk. EPA
was directed to establish a new arsenic standard by 1989. For cancer-
causing substances such as arsenic, the goal in the Safe Drinking Water
Act is to eliminate all exposure--to reach zero, if we can. But most
often that is not a practical reality. Instead, the standard is set
based on the treatment technologies that large drinking water systems
can afford. With technology available today, it is possible to reduce
the concentration of arsenic in drinking water from the current 50
parts per billion to levels below 10 parts per billion.
However, some have argued that arsenic may not be a typical cancer-
causing substance and ought not to be regulated in the typical way.
According to this argument, there may be a safe threshold for arsenic.
In other words, it may be that the first bit of arsenic one consumes
will not increase a person's cancer risk. It may be that some higher
concentration must be reached before the cancer effect takes hold.
Drinking arsenic below this level would not increase risk because the
body would slough it off before it reached the target organs. If there
is such a threshold--and depending where it is--a standard at less than
10 parts per billion--even though we could achieve it--might not make
sense, if our only concern is the cancer risk.
Unfortunately, there has not been sufficient study to answer this
question about a threshold. Recent studies from Taiwan suggest that
there is not a threshold and that the cancer risk from drinking water
at the current 50 parts per billion standard is quite high. If those
studies are correct 2 in each 100 people drinking arsenic-laden water
at the current federal standard would be expected to develop skin
cancer. On the other hand, many other scientists have attacked
weaknesses in the Taiwan study and argued that it cannot be relied upon
to determine whether there is a threshold or not.
Resolving this scientific dispute about the potential cancer-causing
properties of arsenic can be done. A gathering of scientists that
occurred last spring produced a research plan that would result in a
definitive answer. The study would take a period of a few years to
complete and would cost about $15 million.
Mr. President, I have brought this amendment to the floor of the
Senate to make a simple point. We have a responsibility to the American
people to make sure these studies get done and are completed as soon as
possible. We have delayed too long.
There is a great deal of disagreement in this body and across the
country today about the proper role of the Federal Government in
ensuring that our drinking water is safe. But one thing everybody
agrees on is that the Federal Government has a responsibility to
conduct the research necessary to determine the potential adverse
effects of

[[Page S 14249]]
the contaminants that occur in our drinking water. It would not make
sense for every state or every city to conduct its own drinking water
research program. That is a job for the Federal Government.
But we have not been doing it. We invest next to nothing in drinking
water research in these appropriations bills each year. A recent
briefing by EPA's Office of Research and Development indicated that
less than $5 million per year is being spent to investigate the adverse
health effects of drinking water contaminants.
Arsenic is a perfect example of this failing. It has been known to
cause skin cancer in humans since before 1900. It has been regulated--
but not to prevent cancer from drinking water --by the Federal
Government for decades. In 1986, Congress passed a law requiring that
the arsenic standard be revised and that the revision address the
cancer risk. The new standard was due in 1989.
But nothing was done. EPA took no action to revise the standard.
Finally, in 1993 EPA was sued by a public interest group to force the
Agency to issue the cancer standard. In response to the suit, EPA
appeared in court and asked for more time, because the research had not
been done.
Now, this appropriations bill comes before us and provides EPA with
the extension they have been seeking. This extension would not be
necessary, if the appropriations bills adopted in previous years had
provided the small amount of research money for the needed research.
Tens of thousands of Americans are consuming arsenic in their drinking
water at levels that may be a threat to their health. This is not new
information. But we are not ready to take action to protect public
health, because we have delayed and delayed and delayed in making the
small investment in research that is necessary to arrive at a sound
public policy regarding arsenic in drinking water.
Recent studies on the noncancer health effects of arsenic indicate
that the current 50-part-per-billion standard may not even prevent the
other arsenic-related diseases. One approach might be to immediately
revise the arsenic standard for drinking water based on these other
effects, press ahead full speed on the cancer research, and revise the
standard--if needed--to reflect the cancer risk when that research is
completed. That is an approach that we will consider when the Senate
takes up the bill to reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act.
My amendment today sets the stage for this debate. Instead of
prohibiting a revision of the standard for arsenic altogether, under my
amendment EPA would just be prohibited from issuing a standard for the
cancer effects. They might revise the standard based on the data for
other health effects. My amendment does not require EPA to issue a
standard. And it does not pre-judge the issue of whether the standard
should be tightened to prevent vascular diseases. We would want all the
studies on those effects thoroughly reviewed by the Science Advisory
Board and others before a standard-setting effort was begun. But it
would not be blocked. That is the point.
Mr. President, I have discussed this amendment with the manager of
the bill and believe that it is agreeable to him. I want to commend
Senator Bond for including $1 million in this bill for research on the
cancer-causing effects of arsenic. That is a start. And we appreciate
it. I am sure that we can count on him to see this research program
through to the end, now that it has been initiated.
So, Mr. President, my amendment lets the prohibition that is in the
basic bill dealing with cancer-causing substances, cancer threats
remain, but lets EPA go forward with revising the standards to protect
against, as I say, other adverse health effects.
Mr. President, this has been cleared on both sides of the aisle.
I ask for its acceptance.
Mr. President, I would like to say that I have discussed this
amendment with the managers of the bill and the ranking member. I
believe it is agreeable to them.
I commend Senator Bond for including $1 million in this bill for
research on the cancer-causing effects of arsenic. That is a start. We
appreciate it. I hope we can count on him--and I know we can--to see
this research program through to the end.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island.
The amendment (No. 2780) was agreed to.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the ranking member and the manager of the bill
for their consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous unanimous-consent
agreement, the Senate is to proceed to the National Service Program
amendment.

Amendment No. 2781

(Purpose: To restore funding for national and community service
programs)

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendments pending before the Senate be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have an amendment that I would like to
send to the desk in behalf of myself, Senator Kennedy, Senator
Rockefeller, Senator Daschle, and Senator Breaux.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), for herself, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Breaux
proposes an amendment No. 2781.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 27, line 5, strike ``$5,594,358,000'' and insert
``$5,211,358,000''.
On page 27, line 6, insert the following after ``That'':
``in addition to the appropriation of $5,211,358,000 made
available under this heading, in order to achieve an
effective program level of $5,594,358,000 for the `Annual
Contributions for Assisted Housing' account for fiscal year
1996, in carrying out the programs and activities specified
under this heading, the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall use $383,000,000 from any combination of
unobligated balances or recaptures from prior year
appropriations in the `Annual Contributions for Assisted
Housing' account, and from any reduction in amounts provided
during fiscal year 1996 from the `Annual Contributions for
Assisted Housing' account (or from the `Renewal of Expiring
Section 8 Subsidies' account) to any public housing agency
whose project reserve account is determined by the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development to contain funds in excess
of the needs of that public housing agency: Provided further,
That''.
On page 30, line 5, strike ``and''.
On page 30, line 7, insert before the colon the following:
``; and (3) shall give priority to projects designated for
purchase by nonprofit organizations in allocating any funds
for the sale of any projects in the preservation pipeline''.
On page 128, after line 20, insert the following new
section:

SEC. 225. INSURANCE OF MORTGAGES UNDER THE NATIONAL HOUSING
ACT.

Section 203(b)(2)(A) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.
1709(b)(2)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (ii), by striking ``75 percent'' and
inserting ``86 percent''; and
(2) by striking ``38 percent'' and inserting ``50
percent''.
Beginning on page 130, strike line 19 and all that follows
through page 131, line 2, and insert the following:

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses for the Corporation for National and
Community Service (referred to in the matter under this
heading as the ``Corporation'') in carrying out programs,
activities, and initiatives under the National and Community
Service Act of 1990 (referred to in the matter under this
heading as the ``Act'') (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.),
$425,000,000, of which $335,000,000 shall be available for
obligation from September 1, 1996, through August 21, 1997:
Provided, That not more than $26,000,000 shall be available
for administrative expenses authorized under section
501(a)(4) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12681(a)(4)), of which not
more than $12,000,000 shall be for administrative expenses
for State commissions pursuant to section 126(a) of the Act
(42 U.S.C. 12576(a)): Provided further, That not more than
$2,500 shall be for official reception and representation
expenses: Provided further, That not more than
$93,000,000, to remain available without fiscal year
limitation, shall be transferred to the National Service
Trust account for educational awards authorized under
subtitle D of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12601 et seq):
Provided further, That not more than $209,000,000 shall be
available for grants under the National Service Trust
program authorized under subtitle C of title

[[Page S 14250]]
I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12571 et seq.) (relating to activities
including the Americorps program): Provided further, That
not more than $5,000,000 shall be made available for the
Points of Light Foundation for activities authorized under
title III of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12661 et seq.): Provided
further, That none of the funds made available under this
heading may be used to administer, reimburse, or support
any national service programs run by Federal agencies
authorized under section 121(b) of the Act (42 U.S.C.
12571(b)): Provided further, That not more than
$19,000,000 shall be available for the Civilian Community
Corps authorized under subtitle E of title I of the Act
(42 U.S.C. 12611 et seq.): Provided further, That not more
than $43,000,000 shall be available for school-based and
community-based service-learning programs authorized under
subtitle B of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12521 et
seq.): Provided further, That not more than $25,000,000
shall be available for quality and innovation activities
authorized under subtitle H of title I of the Act (42
U.S.C. 12653 et seq.): Provided further, That not more
than $5,000,000 shall be available for audits and other
evaluations authorized under section 179 of the Act (42
U.S.C. 12639): Provided further, That no funds from any
other appropriation, or from funds otherwise made
available to the Corporation, shall be used to pay for
personnel compensation and benefits, travel, or any other
administrative expense for the Board of Directors, the
Office of the Chief Executive Officer, the Office of the
Managing Director, the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, the Office of National and Community Service
Programs, the Civilian Community Corps, or any field
office or staff of the Corporation working on the National
and Community Service or Civilian Community Corps
programs: Provided further, that none of the funds made
available under this heading may be obligated until the
earlier of the date on which the Chief Executive Officer
of the Corporation submits a plan to Congress to
restructure the National Service Trust program authorized
under subtitle C of title I of the Act (relating to
activities including the Americorps program) in accordance
with a budget smaller than the budget requested for the
program in the President's fiscal year 1996 budget, or the
date of enactment of an Act that reauthorizes the National
and Community Service Act of 1990.

office of inspector general

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, $1,500,000.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 hours of debate equally
divided in the usual manner. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you, Mr. President. At this time, I yield myself
no more than 15 minutes, reserving the balance of my time to allocate
to other Senators and also for summation argument.
Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the VA-HUD and
independent agencies appropriations bill.
My amendment restores funding for the Corporation for National and
Community Service. It is in the amount of $425 million. The offset
necessary to do this is taken from inside HUD to cover the budget
authority in outlays needed to restore funding for national service.
The amount of funding this amendment provides allows another year of
operation at a level that is 48 percent below the President's 1996
request, and it is also 10 percent below the fiscal year 1995 rescinded
level.
In addition, my amendment would prohibit direct grants to Federal
agencies, generating an additional 11 percent of savings. And, finally,
my amendment would fence all funds from obligation until the
Corporation submits a plan that restructures the program operation to
reflect its reduced budget or until national service is reauthorized,
whichever comes first.
Mr. President, why do I do this? I do this because I so strongly and
passionately believe in national service. This is not just yet another
social program. It is a unique American social invention designed to
help create the ethic of service in today's young people. It creates an
opportunity structure under which young Americans receive a reduction
in their student debt or a voucher to pay for their higher education in
exchange for full- or part-time community service.
This is not another handout. This says to young people, we know that
your first mortgage is your student debt, but we want to give you an
opportunity to reduce that student debt by doing service in your
community. And if you do that, you will earn a voucher to reduce that
student debt to the tune of about $4,000 a year.
The projects themselves do not come from some Federal bureaucrat
deciding what is best for local communities. It is driven by the
choices of local organizations, primarily nonprofits, and organizing
around four basic areas of activity: education, public health, the
environment, and public safety. It gives these young men and women a
chance to get a college education in exchange for community service.
This is not a Gucci-styled, show-up-once-a-week concept. These
community workers spend an average of 35 hours each week contributing
to their communities. They get a modest monthly allowance, and they get
other support.
Why is this important? We want to do three things with national
service. We want to help students reduce their student debt. We want to
also rekindle the habits of the heart that made America great with the
spirit of voluntarism. And third but not at all least, we want to deal
with the new volunteer deficit that is facing the United States of
America when many of our nonprofits are withering on the vine for the
lack of community participation.
What are some of the examples of what these volunteers do? In my own
State, in Montgomery County, they operate a community assisting police
program where volunteers engage in community education and outreach
that addresses the need for crime control, prevention, and the
reduction of fear in six underserved communities.
Some of the projects that they do are coordinating a school awareness
crime program. They provide bilingual assistance and referrals to crime
victims. They work actually in a community policing station side by
side with the police officers. They are not new cops, but they are cop
extenders because while the police officers are doing the policing,
these volunteers are helping doing prevention, community education, and
also providing much-needed bilingual assistance.
In Vermont, there is something called the Vermont Antihunger,
Nutrition and Empowerment Corps. This group operates five sites in
Vermont, developing a statewide approach to hunger to increase
participation of low-income and rural residents in Federal food
assistance programs and teaching them about nutrition and how to buy
and plant food.
In Washington State, we have a conservation corps providing a 1-year
program that combines fieldwork and on-the-job instruction for doing
things like watershed restoration, reforestation, stream and salmon
habitat rehabilitation, and forest fire and oil spill response. It
takes hard-to-reach kids and puts them with other young people who have
recently graduated from college, both doing hands-on work. I know that
we have not only turned the environment around but we have turned
around some at-risk kids.
YouthBuild Boston is a program that puts 18- to 24-year-old
volunteers to work renovating buildings to provide low-income housing.
The program engages disenfranchised youth in rebuilding their
communities and provides them with the education and skills to become
self-reliant and responsible citizens.
The program has had such success that it has expanded its services
from housing renovation to include environmental, public safety, and
education projects.
There are over 1,000 programs operating nationwide which involve
20,000 volunteers.
These programs are doing exactly what Congress intended to do when we
authorized this bill in 1993. In fact, many of the programs are
operating with a larger degree of success than even we had hoped.
National service was designed to address those two programs I talked
about--student indebtedness as well as how to instill a sense of
obligation and habits of the heart in young people.
There has been a sharp drop over the last 20 years in the number of
Americans who volunteer in their communities. Harvard Prof. Bob Putnam
has identified this trend and says that we need to promote more civic
activity. Fewer people attend the PTA. But also what we know is that
groups like the Red Cross, Meals on Wheels, Girl Scouts, and Boy Scouts
face fewer and fewer volunteers. What we want to do is instill this
sense of citizenship, this sense of obligation. And we also want to
say, as part of an overall Government framework, now we have a clear
message that for every right there is a responsibility, for every
opportunity there should be an obligation. And this

[[Page S 14251]]
is what we are trying to create also through this legislation.
National service is the latest in a long series of social inventions
designed by this country to create higher education. Earlier today we
debated the space station. We are known worldwide for our scientific
invention. But also we have been a genius in social inventions--those
tools that enable people to pursue the American dream.
(Ms. SNOWE assumed the chair.)
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, we are the country that invented night
school so that immigrants, working in factories during the day, would
have a chance to learn English, learn citizenship, learn the skills to
move ahead in our society. That was a social invention. We created the
GI bill for returning vets because we said that if you gave to this
Nation, we will make sure you will be able to participate in the
American dream.
National and community service is part of that framework. How can we
make sure the access to higher education is not only for the wealthy?
In my own home State of Maryland, to go to an independent college like
Loyola or Notre Dame of Maryland, the kind of school I went to, it now
costs anywhere from $12,000 to $18,000 a year. For most middle-income
families, the whole idea of $72,000 for 4 years of education is beyond
their dream. The same thing for our public schools. It still then would
be about $8,000 or $9,000 a year--or $45,000.
In this country, we believed that intellectual ability and character
was randomly distributed through the population, so that it was only an
elite few that could have access to higher education and thus remain
elite. We wanted to make sure it was available to others. So that is
why national service is important.
There are many critics to national service, and Senator Grassley, of
Iowa, has rightfully raised many of those concerns.
I joined with him, asking GAO to evaluate the AmeriCorps Program. I
felt if we could not stand to be evaluated, we could not stand to be
authorized and we could not stand to be funded. In our quest, we asked
them to identify the resources required to field an AmeriCorps
participant, evaluate whether an AmeriCorps program was meeting its
mission, and make recommendations on how the national service corps
could be more efficient and effective.
Well, GAO answered two of the three questions we asked. GAO estimates
that the amount of resources available from the Corporation to field a
participant are in line with the Corporation's estimate. Most
impressive in GAO's finding is that national service programs are
meeting the objectives that Congress set when we passed the bill in
1993.
Some will come to the floor and argue that the cost to the taxpayer
of about $26,000 is excessive. Well, I want to point out that in the
report it says, ``It is important not to equate our funding information
with cost data.'' Most AmeriCorps programs are still in their first
year of operation.
Also, the $26,700 figure is misleading because it represents all
resources from Federal, State, local, and private. It is not a total
cost to the taxpayer. You know, in fact, we require matching funds. And
Congress expects that the federally appropriated dollars would be used
to leverage matching contributions. So we see that what they say it
costs is really excessive.
Also, some have suggested in the tight budget times we cannot afford
to continue this. Well, I do not think we can afford not to continue
it. The GAO report goes on to recognize that these grants have really
served communities. They have served rural communities and they have
served urban communities. GAO said in the seven AmeriCorps programs in
the four States it visited that ``During our site visits we observed
local programs helping communities.'' This one sentence makes it all
worthwhile.
GAO says, ``In our site visits, we observed that these communities
are actually being helped.'' I could go on to talk about what they do,
but what GAO says is, ``We observed participants renovating inner-city
housing, assisting teachers in elementary schools * * * analyzing
neighborhood crime statistics to better target prevention measures * *
* '' working with the police, developing a community food bank for
people with special dietary needs--and I could go on.
Others would say that is going to be done anyway. Well, I am not so
sure it is going to be done anyway. You have the downsizing of State
and local governments. They are shrinking funds available for
nonprofits. And also there are few people to volunteer.
This bill rewards the kinds of values, like sweat equity and work,
that are at the heart of the American family. It does not identify with
victims. It does not whine. It is not morose about the issues facing
our society. I think this goes right into the values of the Nation.
These are not Democratic Party values; these are not Republican Party
values. These are American values: Hard work, neighbor helping
neighbor, making sure that the access to the American dream is there
for all Americans.
So, Madam President, I hope we will support the appropriation of
national service. I also hope that we support the reauthorization when
it comes up. I really think this is very important legislation. I think
it really warrants the Senate's attention and their vote.
I yield back such time as I might have left, reserving other time
that has been allocated to me.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 6 minutes and 46 seconds remaining.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts 15 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I welcome the opportunity to join with
my friend and colleague, the Senator from Maryland, in urging the
Senate to accept this particular amendment that will restore the
national service program and the service learning programs and renewing
this country's commitment to service. I think all of us in this body
are very much aware of the strong commitment that the Senator from
Maryland has had in terms of the voluntary service programs. As one who
has been involved in this effort for some period of time, Senator
Mikulski has really been the leader here in the Senate in the
development of these important programs, and has given us the
opportunity in our Human Resources Committee to hear the testimony of
many of the young people in Maryland who have been involved in
voluntary programs, and conservation programs, and many others.
We are very much aware of not only her strong commitment as a policy
maker but also her strong personal interest in the national service
program, community service program, and other volunteer efforts. I
welcome the chance to join with her in what I consider to be an
extremely important vote here this afternoon.
Madam President, I think, as Senator Mikulski has pointed out, the
issue of voluntarism is really as old as the country. And I think many
of us feel that the outlet for this voluntary spirit has not always
been very evident. Only in very recent years did we see the development
of a new major volunteer opportunity. That was in the early 1960's--we
can go back to the period of the 1930's and cite some of the programs
in the time of the Depression, but really the 1960's and the
development of the Peace Corps Program marked the dramatic beginning of
a national commitment to service programs.
I had an opportunity, recently, to visit with some of the volunteers
at the 25th anniversary of the Peace Corps. At a luncheon that was held
over in the other side of the Capitol building, I sat down with the
first volunteers for the Peace Corps and I asked them about why they
participated in the Peace Corps. Virtually, all of them gave--phrased
somewhat differently, a uniform response. And that was: We were asked
and it was the first time that we were ever asked to do anything for
anybody else. The Peace Corps asked them to do something for their
country and also for the communities that they would serve, and they
responded.
I think all of us who have watched the program grow and develop, and
have heard the various discussions and debates about its stability and
about its future in recent years, have learned a very important lesson
from the Peace Corps. We have seen a large number of Peace Corps
volunteers working on Capitol Hill and in different agencies of
Government. They are individuals who

[[Page S 14252]]
involve themselves voluntarily in service. They give something back to
the community. And they have maintained this spirit of voluntarism and
an interest in the broad public policy issues of our country.
That has been true of Peace Corps volunteers, and it has been true of
the Vista volunteers as well. I think there are more than 1,250 Peace
Corps volunteers who are somehow related to activities on the Hill.
They are working for Members of the House, the Senate, extended staffs,
an in other areas of service to the Congress. It is an extraordinary
record. I think all of us have seen similar examples in our own States,
through our visits and travels.
I think one of the most important purposes of this whole program is
to try to reach out and bring the idea of service to young people.
Service learning programs, involve children as young as kindergartners,
and continue the effort through the 12 years of school, to reach out to
those individuals in the 12th grade. The AmeriCorps Program provides
another kind of opportunity. It allows individuals to offer full time
voluntary service to their community and earn educational benefits
through their service. Hopefully they then maintain that sense of
voluntarism during the time they are in school and in college, and
continue it through the rest of their lives. The precedent set by Peace
Corps and VISTA volunteers indicates that they will.
The programs that involve our seniors--Foster Grandparents, Senior
Companions, RSVP, provide great service to communities. These
volunteers are elderly retirees, who in many instances, are living on
just a few thousand dollars a year. They are providing service to their
communities and receiving a very minimal amount of resources for the
great value that they represent in their communities.
Two superb programs in my own State, in Bedford and Fall River, come
to mind immediately. These communities have very high unemployment and
face many different challenges. The service that these programs provide
to those communities is extraordinary. Those of us who support this
program, want to see that concept of voluntarism started in the early
years and continued on for young people and adults through the
AmeriCorps Program, continued into college, the workplace and on into
retirement.
As part of the whole AmeriCorps Program, we have seen a great deal of
commitment from the private sector. The challenge, when this program
was established, was to try and ensure private participation and
matching funds. The Senator from Maryland has talked about it, as well.
We can, during the debate, go into greater detail on that part of the
program. But it is already well documented that we have successfully
involved the private sector in providing incentives and opportunities
for service.
The fact remains, Madam President, that the concept of voluntarism
exists not only for those individuals who have financial security. It
will be said, in the course of this debate--it always is--it will be
said that if we are going to talk about voluntary, why do we not talk
about really voluntary. That is fine for those families, young and old
alike, who have financial independence. But the idea of contribution of
service back into community does not define itself by financial
resources. The desire to serve exists among many people, young and old,
those that have resources and those that do not.
We should not deny the opportunity for service to those individuals
who come from humble beginnings and a family that does not have great
resources. They know the concept of service and we should not deny them
that. That is the point of the AmeriCorps Program: provide a small
stipend and give them an opportunity to continue their education after
they meet their service obligation. That is the AmeriCorps Program and
it has been a great community resource.
We have seen the examples of real results where these programs have
taken place. I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the
Record examples of the services provided in a number of different
cities in my own State in projects that would never have been done
unless AmeriCorps had been involved. The value of those projects far
exceed the value of money paid to the individual AmeriCorps members.
These are projects that generally would not be done without this
program.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Massachusetts AmeriCorps Programs--1995-96 Program Year

program and community

YMCA Earth Service Corps--Becket, Fall River, Boston,
Brockton.
Berkshire Conservation Team/Berkshire \1\--Pittsfield.
\1\ Footnotes at the end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston University Health & Housing Fellows--Boston.
Academics for Changing times/Cambridge Community Services
\1\--Cambridge.
City Pride/Old Colony Y Services Corp.\1\--Brockton.
City Year Boston \1\--Boston.
Linking Lifetimes AmeriCorps/Corporation for Public
Management \1\--Springfield.
Greater Holyoke Youth Service Corps \1\--Holyoke.
City C.O.R.E./Lawrence Youth Commission \1\--Lawrence.
Local Initiatives Support Corporation--Boston.
Lowell Neighborhood Service Corps/Greater Lowell YWCA\1\--
Lowell.
MAGIC ME/Boston--Boston.
National Alliance of Veteran Family Service Organizations--
Roxbury.
National Council of Educational Opportunity Association--
Northfield.
National Multiple Sclerosis Society--Waltham.
Neighborhood Green Corps--Boston, Worcester, Springfield.
Athletes in Service to America/Northeastern University--
Boston.
Notre Dame Mission Volunteers--South Boston.
Action for Children Today--Boston, Worcester, Fitchburg.
Youth STAR/ROCA Revere Project \1\--Revere.
Summerbridge Cambridge--Cambridge.
Elder Leaders in Community Care/UMass Boston \1\--Greater
Boston.
US Catholic Conference--Somerville.
United States Department of Agriculture/Public Lands and
Environment Team--Dorchester.
National Service Legal Corps/Western Mass. Legal Services--
Springfield.
Cityworks/Worcester Community Action Council \1\--
Worcester.
YouthBuild Boston \1\--Roxbury.
YouthBuild USA \2\--Somerville.
I Have a Dream Foundation--Boston.
Youth Volunteer Corps--Boston, Lawrence.

planning grants and community

Coalition for Asian Pacific American Youth/UMass Boston
\1\--Boston.
New Bedford Youth Corps \1\--New Bedford.

footnotes

\1\ Funded through the Massachusetts National and Community
Service Commission.
\2\ Parent organization in Massachusetts. Operating sites in
other states.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, service is of great value to the
community, and also of value to the individual who participates in the
program.
Madam President, the Mikulski amendment will allow the programs in
schools across this country to continue to provide the opportunity of
service to young children.
In Springfield, MA, we have kindergarten children who are involved in
folding napkins and preparing centerpieces and involved in the feeding
programs for the homeless people in that area. They are just small
children, and they are finding out about what homelessness means. They
are finding out about the joy that takes place when they are able to
involve themselves, as kindergarten children, in the preparation of
napkins and centerpieces for those homeless individuals.
We find sixth graders who go out and visit nursing homes and perform
in pantomime the race between the rabbit and the turtle and they see
the joy that they are giving to those seniors. They often receive
requests for performances. They go out during study hall to do service
to the community. They learn that good citizenship is an important
value in our society. This is important.
We have 8th through 12th graders, under supervision, providing day
care programs for the sons and daughters of working families. They are
working and even providing some reading and tutoring for these young
children.
These 8th and 12th graders write these extraordinary books. They
write them themselves--and read them to the other children. They are
more popular than the books that are bought or were already available
at these centers. The impact of that on those students is significant
and profound.
We have more than 30,000 of them involved in these programs now in my
own State of Massachusetts and that number is expanding. They do not
need

[[Page S 14253]]
extensive resources and training to be able to run these programs. They
have to have a program developed by students that has an education
function, service to the community, and make application to the State
boards.
That is another very important underlying concept. These programs are
basically structured and run by the States. The grant decisions are not
Federal they are controlled by the States.
We have, in my own State of Massachusetts, a good program. The men
and women who are part of it have all been individuals who have been
very, very much involved in voluntary service over the period of their
lives and have been involved in a wide range of different kinds of
service activities. They review to make sure that these programs work
and work effectively. Some programs, clearly, work better than others,
and there is obviously a responsibility to ensure that those programs
that do not work are halted or discontinued and others that do work
should go forward.
I know there have been examples that have been raised during the
course of the various discussions on this of programs engaging in
improper advocacy activities. When the very few allegations, have been
substantiated, the programs have been abandoned. I think that is
important. I think those of us who are supporting the Mikulski
amendment certainly support that concept. Overall, the service provided
by this program has been extraordinary.
I mentioned, Madam President, one particular school in Springfield,
MA, that had one of the highest incidences of trouble in terms of
violence, one of the highest dropout rates and also one of the highest
incidences of teenage pregnancy.
There was an introduction into that whole school system of a
community service program. There was a good deal of effort by very
enterprising students, members of the faculty and several of the
parents. They really made an impact on this student body.
Now it is the second best high school in Springfield, MA. If you go
up there and talk to the parents, if you go up there and talk to the
students, if you go up there and talk to the teachers, if you talk to
the local merchants, if you talk to the other people who have received
the service and seen the difference--there is no question in any of
their minds about the fact that the service opportunity that was
available to these young people made the big difference. It reduced
violence and increased the academic benefits to the students themselves
and changed, in a very significant and important way, the attitudes of
these students about their school, about themselves and about their
community.
We all know about the challenges that we are facing in many of our
urban areas and in many of our school systems about how we are going to
enhance education, academic achievement; how we are going to do
something about violence; how we are going to do something about
teenage pregnancy; how we are going to do something to encourage our
young people to move around and learn.
There are a lot of different ways of trying to do it, and we have
tried to do it in a variety of ways. Do not discount service as also an
important contribution to those effort. When service and service
opportunities are done right, they teach excellent lessons. I think the
record demonstrates that.
Madam President, I see others who want to speak to this issue.
I will just say I think this program is an extremely modest program.
The basic concept is to give an opportunity to people to give something
back to their community. Many of us have the opportunity to visit
different service sites in our own States or communities. The number of
volunteers that are out there to try and provide help and assist is
absolutely extraordinary.
I visited recently a station that feeds those who are HIV positive,
and I asked them about the volunteers that they get to assist in
feeding. They said the number of volunteers is off the charts. People
really care. They do not want to have their names listed. They are
people you would consider to be successful in terms of financial
standing in the community. People really care.
We, as a society, do not offer sufficient kinds of opportunities for
that kind of voluntarism. We provide important opportunities in many
different areas, and I certainly acknowledge the work that is done by
many of the very nonprofit voluntary agencies. But this is special and
unique, a school-based program.
I ask for 1 more minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Maryland yield?
Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield 1 more minute.
Mr. KENNEDY. It really provides a very, very important opportunity. I
think our greatest hope is that that opportunity will be expanded on
over the years in the future to make voluntarism something that is
basically a part of the American ethic from the earliest part of our
lives until the twilight years of our lives.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
Madam President, I regret having to rise to oppose the efforts of my
good friends from Maryland and Massachusetts to restore funding for the
Corporation for National Service. I know that the Senator from Maryland
has been a champion of this and every other measure that contributes to
community service, that motivates people of all ages to take an active
part in their community, to be contributing members of the community,
to do something with their lives that is more than just getting a
paycheck, and I know how important this program is to her.
But as I weigh the priorities, Madam President, I cannot see how we
would allocate the scarce resources to pay for a program which the
Government Accounting Office has concluded costs, per participant, over
$26,000 per year. That is a level of expenditure that I just do not
believe can be sustained in our current budget.
As I indicated when we began consideration of this measure, we are
trying to move from the present condition of deficit spending, where we
are going $200 billion in the tank every year, to balancing our books
and stopping or ending the deficit, stopping the addition of debt,
almost $5 trillion worth, that is now on the backs and on the credit
cards of our children and grandchildren.
Good intentions alone, unfortunately, are not enough. We must
establish some priorities, and it is very difficult. But to me, I
cannot see AmeriCorps ranking high enough on that priority level. I do
not dispute that the program has provided some benefits to communities.
I know that individuals have benefited from it. Yet, we have had to
make tough choices.
I had leaders of the Nation's mayors and county officials come into
my office to ask about what I was proposing in this VA-HUD bill for the
communities. I discussed with them the choices that I had to make at
the subcommittee level, and that the full committee had to make between
the community development block grant and AmeriCorps. The local
officials who judge what really makes a difference for their
communities said, ``Well, we like both of them, but there is no
question that the community development block grant is more important
in our community.'' That is a decision made at the local level by
people elected by and responsible to the people in that community. And
I cannot argue with that.
I wanted to accommodate my colleague from Maryland. I do know that
there are some benefits to the AmeriCorps Program. But when the choice
came to funding community development block grants or AmeriCorps, as a
supporter of block grants, one who has worked with county and city
officials throughout my years of service, I felt we must go with those
elected by the people at the local level, who said this is their
priority.
I note also that the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts said
that this is a very worthwhile program and that the private sector
matches it. Yet, I understand that only about 8 percent of the funds
come from the private sector. This basically is a Federal Government
program. We used to have a program called CETA, Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act, way back many years ago when I was
Governor. That program funded all kinds of jobs. After evaluation of
Government-funded jobs, on a bipartisan basis, the leaders of this
country, both at the State and

[[Page S 14254]]
national level, decided that Comprehensive Employment and Training Act
funds were not the way to go.
We have seen in the Federal Government's use of the AmeriCorps jobs
how expensive they can be. It will surprise some of my colleagues that
$14 million out of AmeriCorps funds went to fund Federal agencies. I
bet you thought that we were cutting employment in the Federal
Government, because that is what we have heard. Guess what? We cut
employment in the Federal Government on the one hand, and we come in
through the other door, through AmeriCorps, and use AmeriCorps funds to
hire people paid for by the Federal Government.
In some of those programs, the cost per participant was more
expensive. For instance, one HHS program costs more than $45,000 per
participant. The Navy has a wonderful Seaborne Conservation Corps. It
costs $66,715 per participant. That, to me, is a pretty expensive
volunteer program. AmeriCorps, across the board, costs $20 per hour.
HHS projects cost $33 an hour. The Navy project costs $49 an hour.
That, Madam President, is for a volunteer.
When the program was authorized 2 years ago, it was authorized as an
expansion upon the concept of voluntarism. Certainly, I believe and
support voluntarism in this country. It has made our country great.
Most of us would not be elected to this body, or any other body, if we
did not have voluntary support in our campaigns. Most good works in the
community would not go forward without voluntarism. But it would be
cheaper for the Federal Government to simply pay salaries for
additional staff members for not-for-profit agencies than to continue
this program.
We do have good programs that assist in voluntarism. The VISTA
program in the Labor-HHS Subcommittee is one that I have seen work. You
have to have some paid people to organize volunteers. Yes, that is one
of the things you do have to have--somebody to help organize people to
make sure the volunteer efforts are effective. I agree with that
program. But this is different. This is paying people to be volunteers.
To me, they are no longer volunteers.
The point was made very eloquently by the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts that voluntarism is only for the wealthy, unless you are
paid. I do not agree with that. The figures are that over 80 million
Americans are engaged in volunteer work. I know people from all parts
of the economic scale, all up and down the spectrum of wealth, who
volunteer. They volunteer in churches and schools and community
organizations, community betterment projects, in programs that they
think are important. And these people volunteer regardless of how much
they have in the way of economic resources, or even paychecks.
Voluntarism is the spirit of America. But it is not paid voluntarism.
Let me emphasize that under the proposal in this bill, no members of
the National Service Corps that are currently serving will be cut off.
The Corporation just announced the fiscal year 1995 awards in the last
few weeks. These programs will run until September 1996. It gives us an
opportunity to see one more year of the experiment and to allow the
not-for-profit agencies one more year to prepare for a possible change
in their Federal subsidies.
From my perspective, we have not seen the administration provide any
kind of support or real push to get this program in a position where it
can be saved. We have asked them for their input. We have told them of
the problems. We have asked how they are going to reform it. And in our
hearing, the ranking member asked Mr. Segal, the chief executive
officer of the Corporation, to provide the subcommittee with workable
options to save the Corporation because she suggested that perhaps the
request for 1996 was unrealistic.
I do not know if Mr. Segal has responded but in the amendment that
has been offered by the Senator from Maryland, I commend her because
she has demanded they come up with a plan, they come up with a program,
to show how they can be effective in a new, reconfigured, smaller,
leaner process.
I can assure you that if the administration wants to save this
program, it is going to have to be reconfigured. It will have to be
slimmer. It will have to get rid of the abuses.
The champion of this effort to reform the program and make it more
efficient and less abusive of the process has been the Senator from
Iowa, who is prepared to speak. He has invited the Corporation,
administration officials, to work with him and with me on restructuring
the program to ensure its survival.
The latest I have heard, they simply responded that it was OK that
Federal volunteers were paid $66,000 a year----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. BOND. With that, Madam President, I yield to the Senator from
Iowa 30 minutes, and ask the Senator to reserve such time as he does
not use.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, first of all, the job that the Senator
from Maryland and the Senator from Missouri have on this entire budget
that is within the jurisdiction of their subcommittee is a very
difficult process. They are fitting all the needs that come within
those programs within the 602(b) allocation they have been given.
I commend the chairman for the fine work that he has done on this
bill and how pleased I am to work with him in reforming the AmeriCorps
Program. He has a tough budget problem.
We have a program here, AmeriCorps, that has not worked out the way
the administration has said it would work out. I think that is why we
are calling for either reinventing this program within the definition
of the President's statements when it was first enunciated, when the
program was inaugurated, or else lose the program.
That is what my letter to the President in late August said. This is
the problem pointed out by the General Accounting Office. We feel that
until the problems are corrected, either reinvent it, in other words,
or lose it.
We have not had the cooperation of the White House on that point.
That is why I think one of the reasons that the chairman felt necessary
to zero out this program at this particular time and use the money
someplace where there is a greater need for it.
In the process of stating my position in support of the chairman and
against the amendment by the Senator from Maryland, I do not take
exception to the rationale that the Senator from Maryland or the
Senator from Massachusetts gave for the necessity of promoting a great
American tradition of voluntarism. I do not take exception to their
points that we need to promote a communitarian spirit within our
American society. I do not find any fault with anyone who says that we
ought to have as a characteristic Americans giving back to the
community, because we receive a lot from the community.
I do not find any fault with helping people to get education. I do
not find any fault with what I have seen on television for the most
part, although lately there have been some stories that are real
boondoggles within these programs. Over the vast amount of the TV
coverage of this program, I do not find one program of voluntarism that
I find fault with.
Compare what it costs with what the managers and the President said
that it would cost. We have a program that, according to the General
Accounting Office, is costing $26,650 per position. Now, the workers
get about $13,000 plus.
We are in a position where the President said 1 Federal dollar would
leverage 1 private-sector dollar. The General Accounting Office says
that only 8 percent of the $26,650 comes from the private sector.
So we have a program that is 40 percent or more in overhead and
administrative costs, bureaucratic costs, when that money could better
be used going to the worker. If you want to compare this whole program
with another use of the money that I do not think we would find any
fault with, at $26,650 we can finance 18 Pell grants for one person
being educated under the provisions of AmeriCorps.
This program is not coming out of the pipeline according to the
rhetoric that it went into the pipeline. We need to refocus this
program so that the money goes to those who are volunteering and that
the programs are within the $13,000 of Federal costs that the President
and the Director said they would.

[[Page S 14255]]

This is a period of time when there is a great need to establish very
stringent budget priorities. The middle-class American taxpayers are
asking us to balance the budget. They want us to make sure that good
use is made of their taxpayers' money. Hard-working taxpayers should
not have to fund $18.26 for every hour of community service by
Government-paid volunteers.
This Congress is committed to setting priorities that would say the
money ought to be within the cost that the program was enunciated.
These were programs that were going to cost much, much less than
$18.26. These are good goals, but it is a high priced method to
accomplish the goals of voluntarism when we have $26,650-a-year costs
per position. If we keep the Federal costs within the $13,000, that
means we are not going to have the high bureaucratic overhead that we
have in this program that is pointed out by the General Accounting
Office. That is the main reason for my letter to the President, that he
needs to reinvent this program or face losing it.
I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This is an amendment
that, if passed, would undermine efforts to reform AmeriCorps and only
ensure that the taxpayers' money continues to be wasted in this
program.
I hope I come to the floor with some credibility on the issue of
trying to consistently support the wise use of taxpayers' money. I
hope, as has been said by some critics of our effort to reinvent this
program, that it is not a political attack by Republicans on the
President's most-favored program.
I remind my colleagues that I have fought for many years against
waste of the taxpayers' money, particularly in the Reagan and Bush
administration. I fought against waste in the Pentagon. I still
continue my efforts to watchdog the taxpayers' money at the Department
of Defense.
It was well over a year ago before there was such a political price
on this program that I started looking into the AmeriCorps Program,
this program that is administered by the Corporation for National
Service.
Similar to the Department of Defense under Reagan, AmeriCorps is one
of the fastest growing programs in the budget. The administration wants
to spend billions over the next several years of taxpayer dollars on
this program. Just as with the Pentagon, I found that there was a
tremendous waste in the AmeriCorps Program. In many cases, AmeriCorps
gives the Pentagon a run for its money in the boondoggle department.
For example, while the Air Force paid $7,600, as this chart shows, for
a coffee pot, the AmeriCorps Program managed to work with the Navy to
produce a $66,715 volunteer.
As we remember from a few years ago, the Department of Defense bought
a $600 toilet seat. But the AmeriCorps workers give us a $49,652
volunteer. The Department of Defense a few years ago paid $500 for a
hammer. But AmeriCorps pays $42,758 for a volunteer in new England.
There is no disputing the fact that the coffeepots, the toilet seats,
and the hammers at the Department of Defense actually work. They
actually work. There is no doubt in my mind that the volunteers under
AmeriCorps at the Seaborne Corp., or the Magic Me, or the Youth
Conservation Corps will work. But what we in Government have to do is
find a more wise way to use the taxpayer dollars, whether it is with
the $7,600 coffeepot at the Department of Defense or whether it is the
$66,000 volunteer in AmeriCorps.
My long experience is that when the Department of Defense and their
supporters are confronted with a $500 hammer story, they at least claim
that there will be an end to business as usual. They state that there
are going to be reforms. Frankly, sometimes these reforms are real and
sometimes they are not very real at the Pentagon.
Here with AmeriCorps, we have an amendment that says all is well--
that there is nothing wrong with paying nearly $50 an hour for service
to the community, nothing wrong with 50 percent cost overruns, and
nothing wrong with the taxpayers footing 92 percent of the bill. When
it comes to AmeriCorps, $1 of Federal money was going to leverage $1 of
private sector contribution to the program. This amendment is the same
as Congress saying $500 hammers are completely acceptable, and voting
to increase the Pentagon's hardware budget.
I do not find such waste of taxpayers' money acceptable at the
Pentagon, and I do not find it acceptable at the AmeriCorps Program.
So, as I said, I wrote to President Clinton last month offering to
work with him to reinvent the AmeriCorps Program. I asked him to sit
down with Congress and work cooperatively with us in finding ways to
have the AmeriCorps Program meet original goals as defined by the
President of the United States--not by anybody in this Congress--by the
goals that he hoped to achieve and the costs of those programs, and the
amount that would come from the private sector and the amount that
would come from the taxpayers.
Unfortunately, while the President has found the time to give
inspiring speeches in support of AmeriCorps, he has found no time to
roll up his sleeves and find common ground with the Congress. It is
unfortunate at a time when I asked for common ground with the President
that he is giving speeches all over the country wanting to find common
ground with the Republican Congress, but never does the common ground
of the President ever seem to be the same common ground that we ask for
from here.
It is unfortunate that many young people could be denied assistance
to go to college because the administration has refused to sit down and
talk with the Congress about reforming AmeriCorps and more efficiently
using scarce tax dollars.
The administration, at the last hour, at least has responded to our
letter today. My letter was sent on August 29. The administration has
finally sent a letter in response. Frankly, the letter says nothing.
The administration has wrapped up its same tired lines and excuses with
a new ribbon. Sadly, it offers nothing new in the way of cooperating
with Congress or finding the common ground that is the President's
watchword of the last 2 months.
In sum, the administration's response says continue to waste the
taxpayers' money on these $66,000 volunteers, continue to hire over
2,000 volunteers to work for the Federal Government, and continue to
spend half of the money on overhead and administration instead of
helping young people pay for college.
It reminds me of the story of the emperor's clothes. Everyone in the
administration is just too afraid to tell the President that AmeriCorps
has no clothes, that it is a boondoggle, at least from the standpoint
of these high-paying jobs, at least from the standpoint that it is not
fitting within the $13,000 of Federal costs that the President defined
as what the programs would cost, at least from the standpoint of $1 of
Federal money not leveraging $1 from the private sector.
The amendment that is before us, as well intended as it might be to
continue the promotion of the communitarian spirit in America, is
really just a continuation of the status quo of business as usual.
My colleagues should clearly understand though that this amendment is
not the life or death of AmeriCorps. This is about whether there will
be a reform of AmeriCorps to stop the waste of the taxpayers' money.
There will be long discussions with the administration regarding the
VA-HUD appropriations bill. I am confident that there will be funding
for AmeriCorps when the day is done. This amendment is about whether we
will undercut efforts to reform this program.
So I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I
want them to vote for protecting the taxpayers' money. I want them to
be able to help more young people attend college. At the same time, I
think we ought to take into consideration that while we are talking
about preserving 20,000 AmeriCorps positions, for every one AmeriCorps
position, you want to remember that there are 190 young Americans,
totaling up I think to 3.9 million Americans, young Americans, I want
to emphasize--that is by our Department of Commerce figures--who
volunteer every year without getting paid for it.
We need to remind these volunteers who do not get paid that their
work is worthy work, even though they do not get paid. The best way I
know to do

[[Page S 14256]]
that is to make sure that the President's objective is met of having
these positions paid relatively small amounts of money to earn a
stipend to go to college, to leverage $1 of private sector money for
every $1 of Federal money spent, and staying within those guidelines
that the President set--not that we set--is the best way to show the
3.9 million young people who volunteer that their work is appreciated
as well.
Perhaps we can accomplish the President's goals of young people being
educated, promoting the communitarian spirit, helping people in need,
without jeopardizing either the public sector attempt to do that or a
gigantic private sector attempt that has been characteristic of
American society for decades before there was ever a President Clinton.
I yield back my unused portion of the 30 minutes and yield the floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I am about to yield 4 minutes to the
Senator from Illinois, a staunch supporter of national service. He has
been waiting patiently.
Before the Senator from Iowa leaves the floor, I would like to say
three things. First, I know that the Senator is not out to torpedo the
program but to reform the program. He was one of the first to raise
concerns about the program, and as he recalls, I joined with him in the
GAO report.
I also have in my possession the letters that he did send to the
President asking for a reformed framework. I would like to recognize
and acknowledge the validity of the Senator's concerns about that, and
I think the Senator should have gotten a better response. I think I was
owed a better response.
Third, I wish to say to the Senator, however, if this amendment goes
down, national service is zeroed out. So it will not be about reforming
national service; it will be about ending national service. So we will
talk more.
But I would like to thank the Senator for his work on this issue. I
think he raises important points. We disagree on the amendment.
I also thank the Senator for the tone in which he presented this
argument. I think good people can engage in this kind of conversation
with civility and keep the focus on the issues. So I would just like to
thank him.
Having said that, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from Illinois is
recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague from Maryland, Mr. President and
Members of the Senate.
First, I wish to say Senator Grassley has contributed in the area of
waste in the area of defense, no question about it. And when he talks
about waste, I think we have to take it seriously.
I should point out that the figure he uses of $27,000 is the total
amount, including tools and equipment. For example, Judy Wagner of my
staff just gave me a report where in one community they built a
farmers' market. That includes all the aid equipment. In terms of
Federal expenditures, it amounts to $17,600 per volunteer. That is a
very different thing.
Second, I point out to both Senator Grassley and my colleague from
Missouri, Senator Bond, that some of the abuses they have cited are of
people who have worked for the Federal Government. The Mikulski
amendment knocks out service for Federal agencies, and I think properly
so. So that moves us in the right direction.
Back when I was a Member of the House, I held hearings on this whole
idea of service, and one of the people who testified was Harris
Wofford, our former colleague, who then was President of Bryn Mawr
College in Pennsylvania. I would, frankly, today vote for a 1-year
requirement for everyone to serve this Nation in some capacity, and if
you wanted to serve in the military, you got a little extra incentive
of some kind or another, but you had to work for a mental hospital or
park district or something. Frankly, it was good for me when I served
in the Army for 2 years to come and be in a mix with a great many
people, and I think it is good for others.
In terms of return on investment, I quote Stan Litow, an IBM
executive, who reviewed the cost-benefit study and came to the
conclusion that this program is sound. ``This program works,'' he said.
Senator Bond made a reference to CETA. The CETA Program, frankly, was
for unemployed people. This is a very different thing, and it brings in
people to work together in areas where they have not often worked. This
is different from the VISTA Program. There is obviously much
cooperation.
I remember being in an impoverished area of Cincinnati. I walked into
a little, one-person store, and there was a man explaining to this
person who was running the store how to keep books. I walked out, and I
thanked him for volunteering to do this. He told me at that point he
was the treasurer of Procter & Gamble, and he said, ``I should thank
you.'' He said, ``I didn't really understand our country until I
volunteered.''
I think we have to learn about one another more than we are. We are
going to have to learn what it is like in another neighborhood. I think
this is part of that. I read in--this may surprise the Presiding
Officer--one of Rush Limbaugh's books--and I confess to having
purchased two of his books and giving him a little bit of royalty--he
said, ``We are not being asked to sacrifice as Americans today.'' I
think he is correct, and this is a way of bringing out the noble in
people.
Government leaders can appeal to either the noble or the greed in all
of us, and too often I think we pander to the greed. It is easy. But we
should be appealing to the noble. And that is what this program does. I
think it is a good program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SIMON. If I may have 30 additional seconds.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I will be happy to yield the Senator an additional
minute.
Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague.
I remember--and I am sure Senator Mikulski will remember--that during
the 1992 campaign when Bill Clinton was going around making speeches,
the one line in his speech that got enthusiastic applause was when he
said, ``We are going to establish a volunteer service corps.'' I do not
imagine the Presiding Officer was at any of those rallies and did not
hear that line, but it was a response from the American people. They
like the idea of appealing to people to volunteer for things.
Now, if there are improvements that should be made in the program--
and there probably are--let us make the improvements. I think the
Mikulski amendment makes some of those improvements. But let us not
kill the program. That is what we do without an amendment. So I hope my
colleagues will vote for the Mikulski amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I support the mission of AmeriCorps. I have
met the people, young and old, participating in Vermont's program, and
I have seen the benefits in their faces and in the benefits in their
faces and in the communities they serve.
Engaging Americans of all ages to help communities solve their own
problems is a worthy goal. AmeriCorps builds a sense of community
responsibility and is certainly a better investment than the $1 billion
this Congress plans to spend for each B-2 bomber.
The greatest threat facing our cities and towns today is the loss of
a sense of community responsibility. The best weapon against rising
crime, hunger, and illegitimacy is for every American to take an active
interest in their community.
AmeriCorps provides inspiration by inviting Americans to give
something back--to reestablish the local ties that have been so
important to this country. I cannot think of a better program to invest
Federal dollars in.
Senator Mikulski has been a tireless advocate of the AmeriCorps
Program, which now has 20,000 participants from all different
backgrounds. The accomplishments of those participants are evident
everywhere.
The 130 AmeriCorps members in Vermont are fighting hunger and
malnutrition, improving trails and wildlife habitat in the Green
Mountain National Forest, and helping rural communities develop fire
protection plans. Others are helping troubled youths get back on their
feet and aiding the blind.
AmeriCorps is an experiment that is working. The least we can do is
to allow that experiment to continue.

[[Page S 14257]]

I urge my colleagues to support Senator Mikulski's amendment
providing funding for the Corporation for National Service in 1996.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Senator Leahy has been a longstanding supporter of
national service. I appreciate his remarks.
Mr. President, much has been raised about the concerns over the
fiscal responsibility of national service, and the GAO report, I
believe, shows that we are getting a dollar's worth of services for a
dollar's worth of taxes. In the interest, also, of not running up the
printing cost of the Federal Government, I would like to include only
the executive summary of the GAO report in the Congressional Record.
I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary of the GAO report
on the Corporation for National and Community Service be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. General Accounting Office, Health, Education and
Human Services Division,
Washington, DC, September 7, 1995.
Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
U.S. Senate.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (the
Corporation) administers the AmeriCorps*USA program, the
largest national service volunteer program since the 1930s.
AmeriCorps*USA participants perform community services that
match priorities established by the Corporation, such as
addressing educational, environmental, and public safety
needs. The Corporation provides grants to individual
programs, which obtain additional resources from other
federal agencies, state and local governments, and the
private sector.
While there has been interest in assessing AmeriCorps*USA's
cost-effectiveness, such an assessment is difficult because
the program has operated for less than a year. We recently
reported on total resources available to support
AmeriCorps*USA programs in the 1994-95 program year and, to a
lesser extent, on benefits of certain programs. We found that
total resources available for AmeriCorps*USA participant
equaled about $26,700 for program year 1994-95.\1\ We also
found that, at seven programs we visited, participants were
providing benefits to their communities, but we did not
attempt to quantify these benefits.
Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, in an effort to provide perspective on the
potential cost-effectiveness of AmeriCorps*USA programs, a
benefit-cost study was conducted of three AmeriCorps*USA
programs based on short-term and projected data.\2\ The
benefit-cost study was commissioned by financial sponsors of
the three AmeriCorps*USA programs it examined. The sponsors
wanted more information about benefits derived from the
programs relative to program costs. These programs were
AmeriCorps for Math and Literacy, which targets at-risk
children from kindergarten through second grade in Ohio and
Texas schools; East Bay Conservation Corps, which addresses
environmental needs in California; and Project First, which
provides access to computers for students in Georgia, New
York, and North Carolina. The study analyzed each program
separately, and it did not claim that the three were
representative of all AmeriCorps*USA programs. The study
estimated that these programs returned between $1.68 and
$2.58 for each dollar invested.
Based on concerns you and others have raised about the
study, you asked us to evaluate it. We agreed to provide an
overview of benefit-cost analysis; evaluate how the study's
specific methodology compares with that of other benefit-cost
analyses, and assess the study's conclusions.
To develop this information, we reviewed the study, held
extensive discussions with the authors and used some of the
study's data to try to replicate its results. However, in
most cases we accepted the study's calculations as given and
did not verify them. We did our work in August 1995 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.

benefit-cost analysis: an overview

Economists typically use benefit-cost analysis to evaluate
the worth of particular investment projects. Calculating the
ratio of expected benefits to expected costs is one method
analysts can use to provide policymakers with evidence as to
whether a project is worth undertaking. The analysis results
in a benefit-to-cost ratio that is either greater than 1
(meaning the project returns more than $1 per $1 invested) or
less than 1 (meaning that less than $1 is returned per $1
invested). The analysis may also compare a variety of
investments to see which one returns the greatest benefit per
dollar of cost.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance on benefit-
cost analysis of federal programs \3\ focuses on the entire
economy, thus including net social benefits and costs. Social
benefits of federal programs are the value of the program's
output to private citizens, and this value is typically
difficult to measure. Both direct and indirect benefits are
usually included in the analysis. A job-training program, for
example, may have the direct benefit of preparing individuals
for employment, thus raising their future earnings. It may
also have an indirect benefit of reducing welfare payments or
crime rates, assuming that, had the individuals not received
training, some might have received welfare or committed
crimes. Even when the social benefits of a project are clear,
attaching a dollar value to them is often problematic.
Social costs of a federal program are opportunity costs--
the value of the forgone benefits had the program's resources
been allocated to their best alternative use. Producing an
additional unit of the program's output requires the
reallocation of resources away from other productive
activity. The opportunity cost of an additional unit of the
program's output equals the sacrificed amount of some other
productive activity's output occasioned by the resource
reallocation. For example, if money used for a federal job-
training program were obtained by reallocating funds
earmarked for a federal bridge-building program, the
opportunity cost of the job-training program would be the
value of the services that the new bridges would have
provided.
Comparing social benefits with social costs allows
policymakers to determine whether the value of the output or
services gained from a program is greater than the benefits
sacrificed elsewhere when resources are reallocated. When the
social benefits of a program exceed the social costs, there
is a net gain to society from taking resources from elsewhere
in the economy and devoting them to the program.
The comparison of benefits to costs can be expressed as a
benefit-cost ratio (that is, social benefits divided by
social costs) or as net benefits (that is, social benefits
less social costs). The expression of net benefits is more
straightforward. When the comparison is expressed as a ratio,
decision must be made about costs that can affect the ratio.
For example, if building a bridge will result in time saved
by commuters or delivery trucks, this can be seen as a
benefit--time gained--or as a negative cost--reduced time
lost. Whether it is included as a benefit or as a negative
cost affects the magnitude of the ratio but not the
underlying economic basis for any decision-making process.
Benefit-cost analysis results are typically very sensitive
to the underlying assumptions. For example, a small change in
the interest rate used to discount a stream of future
benefits or costs can have a large impact on the outcome of
such an analysis.\4\ In addition, including or excluding
certain items from either costs or benefits can greatly
change the results.

our analysis of the kormendi gardner study

The goal of the benefit-cost study was to calculate the
ratio of social benefits, net of nonfederal costs, to federal
costs. On the basis of our review of the study and
conversations with the authors, we believe the overall
approach of the study appears to be consistent with this
goal. Rather than dividing gross social benefits by gross
social costs, it subtracted all nonfederal costs from the
benefits and then calculated the ratio of the resulting net
benefits to federal costs. The choice of what costs to
subtract from the numerator, instead of adding to the
denominator, affects the magnitude of the ratio, but it
cannot affect whether the ratio is above or below 1. Given
the goal of the study, the costs that are netted with
benefits in the numerator do not seem unreasonable.
In addition to decisions about the placement of costs in
the numerator or denominator, specific assumptions and other
methodological decisions used to calculate components of the
ratio affected the results of the study. Further, as the
study appropriately recognized, without full program data,
comparisons had to be made with historical data for similar
programs, and the outcome was influenced by the choice of
comparisons.

The study's methodology

The study summed three types of benefits deriving from the
AmeriCorps*USA programs: participant benefits, societal
benefits, and net donor benefits. Participant benefits
included wages, fringe benefits, a ``citizenship''
contribution,\5\ an education award,\6\ and the value of
future education made possible by the award. Societal
benefits, as defined in the study, included all benefits that
accrued to nonparticipants, such as increased educational
attainment or reduced crime and welfare incidence for
children who were tutored by AmeriCorps*USA participants. Net
donor benefits equaled 0, because donor benefits were assumed
to equal donor costs. The study then compared this sum with
federal costs. To illustrate, we present these components,
along with their values for one of the programs, Project
First, in table 1.

Table 1.--Benefits and Costs for Project First

Item Value
Benefits
Participant benefits..........................................$25,976
Wages and fringe benefits.....................................9,804
Federally paid..............................................8,211
Donor-paid..................................................1,593
Citizenship...................................................8,195
Education award...............................................4,725
Future education..............................................3,252
Net societal benefits..........................................26,330

[[Page S 14258]]

Net donor benefits................................................ 0
Donor benefits...............................................10,350
(Less) donor costs..........................................-10,350
__________

Total benefits............................................$52,306
Costs
Federally paid participant costs................................$12,396
Federally paid wages and fringe benefits........................8,211
Education award (federally paid)................................4,725
Federally paid overhead costs.....................................7,789
__________

Total costs.................................................$20,725

To determine the benefit-cost ratio for Project First, the
study netted nonfederal costs and benefits in the numerator
rather than including gross benefits in the numerator and
gross costs in the denominator. For example, the benefits for
donors of matching funds were assumed to equal the costs, and
they were netted in the numerator.
A more complex example is the participant's ``future
education'' component. According to our conversations with
the authors, this component was the difference between (1)
future earnings the participant will have with the additional
education made possible by the education award and (2) future
earnings he or she would have had in the absence of the
award.\7\ The authors also told us they calculated the
difference between these earnings streams net of the
participant's labor costs during the year in AmeriCorps*USA--
that is, the future education benefit component was
calculated subtracting out the participant's labor costs for
the program year. The difference between the earnings streams
did not include the benefits produced during the year; these
were included as societal benefits. Because the costs that
were subtracted were federal costs, they had to be added back
into the numerator to calculate the desired ratio--social
benefits, net of nonfederal costs, relative to federal costs.
While the logic the authors described to us is
understandable, we did not verify the details of all of the
computations.
The choice of which costs to net out of benefits, in the
numerator, and which to include as costs, in the denominator,
is an important one. For example, according to the study, the
net value of future education for a Project First participant
was $3,252. This was approximately the difference, for the
average participant, between a discounted lifetime income of
$745,040 with the additional education and $741,790 in the
absence of the additional education. One way to measure gross
benefits and gross costs would be to include $745,040 as part
of the benefit and $741,790 as the lifetime opportunity cost
of producing that benefit. This methodology would probably
not be an improvement over that of the study; these dollar
figures would dominate the ratio relative to other benefits
and costs, placing undue importance on this aspect of the
entire study.
The valuation of benefits deriving from private donations
would be optimistic if these donations were partly offset by
federal tax deductions. For private sector donors, if part of
the benefit were derived from tax deductions, the lost tax
revenue should be counted as a cost if taxpayers ultimately
have to make up for it. The authors told us that for the
three programs analyzed in the study, this factor was not
relevant because private donations came from tax-exempt
foundations, but this point should be kept in mind for future
analyses.\8\ In addition, as with the value of future
education discussed above, an alternative calculation could
include only donor benefits in the numerator and include
donor costs in the denominator, rather than netting them to 0
in the numerator. While this would reduce the measured
benefit-cost ratio, it could not make it fall below 1, and
the measure of net social benefits would be unaffected.

Other methodological decisions could affect benefit-cost ratios

The study made several other assumptions and methodological
choices that affect the benefit-cost ratios. The study failed
to recognize the costs associated with raising tax revenues
to pay for new government spending programs. We also believe
it may have made an optimistic assumption in one case about
results of AmeriCorps*USA participants' work. In addition, as
the study noted, benefit-cost ratios given in the study did
not incorporate certain unquantifiable benefits, which would
raise the reported ratios if they could be included.

Loss associated with generating tax revenues

Economists recognize that there are costs associated with
raising tax revenues to pay for a new spending program. These
costs can arise, for example, as some people change their
behavior to avoid paying more taxes. OMB cites an estimated
loss of 25 percent due to the process of generating the
revenues, and it recommends calculating supplementary
benefit-cost ratios including this adjustment to costs.
Increasing the programs' cost by 25 percent would diminish
the benefit-cost ratio.

Perry project comparison

As an estimate of future gains for preschool students whom
AmeriCorps*USA participants tutored, the study used results
from the Perry Preschool Project, an intensive intervention
in a particular school in the 1960s on which much long-term
research has been conducted. The intensity of effort in the
Perry Project appeared to be much greater than in the
AmeriCorps*USA programs. Comparison with some prior research
is necessary, but it may have been optimistic to use the
results from the Perry Project. This concern with the study
has been raised previously in another assessment.\9\

Benefits that could not be quantified

As the study notes, some benefits of AmeriCorps*USA
projects could not be quantified and thus were not accounted
for in the benefit-cost ratios. During site visits we
conducted as part of our earlier study, we observed benefits
that may also apply to the three programs the study analyzed,
including strengthening communities and fostering civic
responsibility. Inclusion of an estimate for the value of
these benefits would raise the reported benefit-cost ratios.
One of the limitations of benefit-cost analysis is that
intangible benefits such as these cannot easily be
incorporated into the analysis.

assessment of study's conclusions

The study concluded that programs such as the three
AmeriCorps*USA programs it reviewed ``generally can be an
important societal investment'' because the benefit-cost
ratios exceeded 1 ``by a substantial margin.'' As we pointed
out earlier, the magnitude of the ratios depends in part on
the assumptions and methodological choices that are made.
Even if the three AmeriCorps*USA programs' benefit-cost
ratios exceeded 1, in an era of constrained federal budgets,
the ratios should be compared with those of other programs
performing similar services, such as Volunteers in Service to
America (VISTA), to see whether AmeriCorps*USA is a more
efficient program. As the authors concluded, the three
programs they analyzed would appear to be worthwhile federal
investments. But until comparisons with other programs are
done, decisionmakers will not know whether there are
preferable uses of federal funds.

study authors' comments

In commenting on a draft of this correspondence, the
study's authors told us that they believed we had
characterized the study fairly. They thought our breakdown of
the benefit and cost components was helpful in illuminating
their methodology. They agreed that their results were
sensitive to methodological issues such as the choice of
comparison groups. They emphasized, however, that a balanced
view--which they believed was taken in this correspondence--
recognizes that this sensitivity goes in both directions.
They said that they stood by their overall conclusions that
their results were reasonable and conservative. The authors
believe that this type of study should be undertaken for
other AmeriCorps*USA programs and for similar federal
programs.
We are sending copies of this correspondence to the Chief
Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and
Community Service, the authors of the study, appropriate
congressional committees, and other interested parties. If
you have any questions or would like to discuss this material
further, please call me or Cornelia M. Blanchette, Associate
Director, at (202) 512-7014 or James R. White, Acting Chief
Economist, at (202) 512-6209. Major contributors to this
correspondence were Wayne B. Upshaw, Assistant Director;
Harold J. Brumm, senior economist; and James W. Spaulding,
senior evaluator, (202) 512-7035.

Cornelia M. Blanchette,

(For Linda G. Morra, Director,
Education and Employment Issues).

footnotes

\1\ National Service Programs: AmeriCorps*USA--Early Program
Resource and Benefit Information (GAO/HEHS-95-222, Aug. 29,
1995). This figure excludes private in-kind contributions.
\2\ George R. Neumann, Roger C. Kormendi, Robert A. Tamura,
and Cyrus J. Gardner, The Benefits and Costs of National
Service: Methods for Benefit Assessment With Application to
Three AmeriCorps Programs (Washington, D.C.: Kormendi/Gardner
Partners, 1995).
\3\ OMB Circular A-94, Revised Transmittal Memorandum 64
(Oct. 29, 1992).
\4\ The discount rate is used to compute the present value of
future benefits or costs. Even in the absence of inflation, a
dollar today is worth more than one receivable in the future.
For example, if the appropriate discount rate is 4 percent,
then a payment of $1 receivable in 10 years is worth only 68
cents today.
\5\ The ``citizenship'' contribution was an estimate of the
difference between what AmeriCorps*USA participants received
as compensation for their service and the larger amount that
they could receive if employed at their market wage. The
study counted this as a participant benefit because
participants were assumed to derive a benefit in order to be
willing to accept the lower compensation level. The study
noted that this could be considered a societal benefit
instead, because it was in effect a donation from the
participant to society.
\6\ AmeriCorps*USA participants receive an education award,
which can be used to pay future higher education expenses or
to repay student loans, upon successful completion of their
service. For a full-time participant, the value of the award
is $4,725 per year of service, for a maximum of 2 years.
\7\ The study assumed only a portion of the participants
would actually attain more education because of the award--
the results were for the average--and the income streams were
discounted back to the current year.
\8\ When matching donations come from the public sector, the
issues are more complicated. According to the authors, no
non-Corporation federal, state, or local government funds
were involved for the programs in the study. However, one of
the three was a program we sampled for our previous review,
and much of the matching funds it reported to us came from
local government sources. Our data were gathered more
recently than the data the authors had, which may explain the
discrepancy.
\9\ David W. Murray and Thomas Riley, ``Costs and Benefits of
National Service: Unanswered Questions'' (Washington, D.C.:
Statistical Assessment Service, 1995). See also George R.
Neumann, Roger C. Kormendi, Robert F. Tamura, and Cyrus J.
Gardner, ``Response to STATS' Unanswered Questions''
(Washington, D.C.: Kormendi/Gardner Partners, 1995).

[[Page S 14259]]

Mr. DODD. I am pleased to rise in strong support of the Mikulski
amendment to restore funding for the Corporation for National and
Community Service and for AmeriCorps.
Mr. President, given all of the attention focused on this issue, it
is hard to believe that AmeriCorps is just 2 years old.
However, AmeriCorps has already created a lasting legacy in thousands
of American communities. Through the work of over 20,000 full-time
energetic and talented volunteers, needy children are receiving
tutoring, mentoring and other assistance, our national parks are
cleaner, streets are safer and thousand of homes have been
rehabilitated for families in need.
The Corporation for National and Community Service has also harnessed
the efforts of 500,000 senior volunteers and nearly 350,000 school-age
students who are today working in their communities helping to meet
critical needs in education, public safety, human service and the
environment.
The Corporation's efforts are already making an incredible difference
in America's communities. In my State of Connecticut, AmeriCorps
sponsors 20 different programs. The largest, leadership, education and
athletics in partnership in New Haven, has 164 members working with
needy children providing tutoring and mentoring. During the summer
months, many of the volunteers live in the community housing projects
and work with the children throughout the summer months.
A recent study of the work of just 8 percent of AmeriCorps volunteers
found the volunteers were having an extraordinary impact. Nearly 8,000
pre-school and elementary students were tutored in basic education;
17,000 needy people were fed, and thousands of school hallways were
made safer.
AmeriCorps has also made a significant difference in the lives of
volunteers--who not only gain knowledge and satisfaction from their
work but who also are able to pursue additional education and training
and pay off student loans. After devoting their energies to rebuilding
their communities, volunteers received a modest post-service
educational benefit of $4,725.
This makes a substantial difference for today's students as student
indebtedness rises to alarming levels. More than half of all AmeriCorps
members come from families with household incomes between $15,000 and
$50,000--the average family income was $33,500 overall--the very
families who find the educational award so important in helping to
manage the spiraling costs of college.
Mr. President, I know personally what a difference voluntary service
can make in a young person's life. Over 30 years ago, hundreds of young
Americans answered President Kennedy's call to service in the Peace
Corps. I was one of them, and was sent to the Dominican Republic for 2
of the most rewarding years of my life. I would like to think that the
maternity hospital I helped construct has made a lasting difference in
that community. But I certainly know that the experience made an
incredible difference in my life.
Mr. President, the benefits of national and community service may be
lost here in Congress, but they are not lost on the American public.
The vast majority of Americans support the AmeriCorps Program. A recent
Gallop Poll showed that 91 percent of Americans supported national
service. A Los Angeles Times poll indicated that 70 percent of
Americans like this program--including 60 percent of Republicans and
conservatives.
Mr. President, we cannot afford to lose this program to the pitfalls
of partisan infighting. I would hope my colleagues would join me in
voting for the Mikulski amendment.
Mr. CHAFEE. I want to offer my support for Senator Mikulski's
amendment. I was a skeptic of this program when it was first proposed.
It sounded too expensive, and the concept of stripended service seemed
incongruous with voluntarism.
That was before I had a chance to see the positive impact of this
program on the ground in my own State of Rhode Island. Young people
from all walks of life have gone into a number of communities to help
clean up neighborhoods, improve the literacy of inner city school
children, and to improve public safety and the environment.
Let me give you an example of what we are finding in Rhode Island.
Two years ago, Marilyn Concepcion was a high school dropout. Getting
that far was an accmplisment; no one in her family had ever gone beyond
the sixth grade. This 19-year-old woman joined Rhode Island City Year,
an AmeriCorps program, to earn her GED certificate.
With training from the City Year staff, Concepcion began to tutor and
mentor a group of first graders. She taught them to read, taught
English as a second language, gave them insight into the value of
learing, the importance of an education. Some of these children had
never been given the type of encouragement that Marilyn Concepcion
provided.
The short-term impact Marilyn Concepcion had on these children's
lives has been measurable. They pay attention more in school, their
self-esteem has been increased. But the real impact, the most concrete
effect on their lives may not be felt for another 10 to 12 years, when
these children become members of the work force or go onto college.
Spurred by the positive influence she'd had on her students, Marilyn
Concepcion decided she wanted to go to college. She applied to, and was
accepted by, Brown University. She became the first recipient of
Brown's offer to match the $4,700 AmeriCorps educational award--a
challenge grant program just announced by a number of universities and
colleges in our State.
If this is the kind of results we are obtaining with only 1 year of
experience, I think it is only fair that we let this program continue
for some period of time to better evaluate its performance.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment
offered by my colleague from Maryland which restores $425 million to
AmeriCorps.
Let me begin by saying that if the Senate is interested in engaging
in a productive debate on the accomplishments of AmeriCorps--and on
real suggestions for improving the program --I would welcome that
debate. Very few programs managed by government at any level couldn't
be made better, and wouldn't benefit from an ongoing public review. The
amendment offered by the Senator from Maryland both saves AmeriCorps
and, in my judgement, improves it.
And AmeriCorps is worth saving, Mr. President. It is worth saving
because, as the General Accounting Office stated in its August l995
report, ``at the grantees' sites we visited, we found that the projects
had been designed to strengthen communities, develop civic
responsibility, and expand educational opportunities for program
participants.''
How do we identify the catalysts for vesting our people in our
Nation? How can we encourage our children to feel an obligation and a
responsibility to contribute to the strength and security of America
throughout their lives?
Military service is one way. And civilian national service is
another.
What does America get from a single individual's intense and all
encompassing period of service?
Is it possible that those who work for a year to combat illiteracy
will be forever committed to a good education for each child in the
city or town in which they live?
Is it possible that those who work for a year to fight poverty will
remember forever the importance of opportunity?
Is it possible that those who work for a year to hold together a
crumbling neighborhood will never forget the responsibility of every
man and woman to build and to sustain?
It is my hope that national service will be a catalyst for a lifetime
of community service. It is my hope that experiencing the tangible
results of strengthening and teaching will convince our people that
citizenship has value, that individuals who roll up their sleeves and
enter the fray can personally make something richer and stronger.
With every national service slot we fund, Mr. President, we give
another American an intense, all encompassing, opportunity to serve.
And by investing in them, we gamble that they will then invest in us.
I am willing to take that gamble, Mr. President. I am willing to
reach for something to help fight this giant malaise that seems to
permeate so many of

[[Page S 14260]]
our citizens. I am willing to grab a tiny particle of idealism and see
how far we can take it.
I am willing to work to make AmeriCorps better, Mr. President. And I
am willing to oppose any attempt to eliminate its funding.
Churchill once said, ``We make a living by what we get, we make a
life by what we give.'' In national service, Mr. President, we allow
our citizens to give. I urge my colleagues to support this important
amendment.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to
commend my friend, Senator Sarbanes, for his leadership on this issue,
and lend my support to his amendment which would restore funding for
homeless assistance.
Mr. President, homelessness is a problem that the American people
want solved. The number of homeless Americans has grown steadily over
the last three decades and it will continue to grow until we
responsibly address the issue of homelessness. Studies put the number
of homeless at more than 600,000 people on any given night. It is even
more shocking to find that children are now the fastest growing portion
of this homeless population. As a caring Nation, we must no longer
ignore this growing and often overlooked part of our population. I
firmly believe that every citizen deserves not only a place to sleep at
night, but a real opportunity to improve their lives. Our national
efforts must focus on helping these families.
Senator Sarbanes' amendment restores $360 million for homeless
assistance funding to the fiscal year 1996 VA-HUD appropriations bill,
bringing the funding level back up to fiscal year 1995 levels. These
funds will enable local governments, communities, and nonprofits to
form comprehensive, flexible and coordinated strategies for ending
homelessness. These funds will help local agencies leverage additional
money needed to aid homeless people with disabilities, create more
housing and provide the services and facilities needed to move people
into situations where they can live independently.
Restoring homeless assistance funding to 1995 levels is also an
important part of the authorizing committee's effort to reform HUD in
general and specifically to reform our delivery of homeless assistance.
Last year's Senate Banking Committee bill created a single formula
grant program which would replace the seven different categorical grant
programs at HUD. This formula grant will allow better coordination of
homeless services at the local level and facilitate better planning as
funding levels become more predictable. The VA-HUD bill allows for this
formula but does not provide adequate funding. The funds restored in
this amendment will raise homeless assistance funding to a level that
will allow a formula approach to make sense.
Unfortunately, no matter how we restructure HUD, during the
transition some people are going to fall through the cracks. The
homeless programs are the safety net that catches them.
Mr. President, earlier this year I had a chance to meet with Lucie
McKinney and she reminded me of her late husband's tireless efforts and
determination to end the cycle of homelessness. We must do all we can
to continue Stewart McKinney's work.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the
amendment to ensure the survival of AmeriCorps, today's commitment to
national service throughout the country and in my State of West
Virginia. I was proud to be an original cosponsor of the legislation
that created AmeriCorps.
I know something about the importance of public service because of
the VISTA program back in 1964. After President Kennedy issued his
famous call for serving our country, I went to West Virginia through
the VISTA program and to a place called Emmon that changed the course
of my life.
AmeriCorps is a wise and meaningful investment in our country's
future. Whenever I am home talking to West Virginians of every age, I
see heads nod when the idea of national service comes up. West
Virginians and our fellow Americans believe in the values of service
and responsibility, and AmeriCorps is a very exciting, important way
for these values to have meaning. It is incredible to see this
appropriations bill include a retreat from one of the most exciting
initiatives taken in the recent years. We should be working together to
renew and reinvigorate service, especially by our young people, and not
retreat from it.
There is a great deal of talk about solving problems at the local
level and working in communities. I agree and I believe that AmeriCorps
is one Federal program that successfully delivers on this promise. For
every Federal dollar invested in AmeriCorps, we reap as much as $2.60
in return.
While it is important to note that AmeriCorps is a cost-effective
program, I know it is more compelling to talk about what AmeriCorps has
done for communities.
In West Virginia, the AmeriCorps program places workers at seven
domestic violence shelters to help battered women and children with a
range of issues. I have visited a shelter in West Virginia and was
deeply touched by the need to help women and their children caught in
violent homes. This is important community work, and AmeriCorps is
helping make a difference.
My State also sponsors Project HEALTH--Health Education Associates
Learning to Teach Health--which places 20 AmeriCorps members in 15
sites that focus on promoting health care in rural areas. This is a
unique partnership program with the Kellogg Foundation, my State, and
AmeriCorps. AmeriCorps workers will be promoting child immunizations,
working to reduce the prevalence of low birth weight, and promoting
healthy behaviors.
AmeriCorps members are also involved in a West Virginia project
called Energy Express. This is an innovative summer program for
disadvantaged children that combines remedial education and child
nutrition. Energy Express also works to promote parental involvement
with a child's education which is a goal we all share.
I could go on and on about the extraordinary work by AmeriCorps and
the other service programs sponsored in my State. We have more than
20,000 West Virginians participating in public service initiatives
thanks to the leadership and encouragement of the Corporation for
National and Community Service. There are 189 West Virginians in
AmeriCorps, and others are involved in VISTA, RSVP, the Retired and
Senior Volunteer Program, and ``Learn and Service'' in the schools. The
Corporation for National and Community Service weaves all of these
important incentives together.
As we talk about the need to strengthen our communities and to solve
problems at the grassroots, we should continue our support for
AmeriCorps, which reflects this basic goals.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two West Virginia
articles be printed in the Record. These pieces tell the story of
AmeriCorps in West Virginia more eloquently than I can.
There being on objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Americorps Comes Under GOP Scrutiny

(By Cheryl Caswell)

Americorps, President's Clinton's pet project for
encouraging community service and education, is one the
firing line as Republicans carry out their program to slash
government spending.
But his first recruits may be too busy to pay much
attention.
In West Virginia, nearly 60 Americorps workers are studying
archaeological sites and inoculation records, building
shelters, tutoring children, developing leadership clubs and
drug prevention programs, housecleaning for the handicapped,
studying stream erosion and assisting farmers and domestic
violence victims.
``The great value I got in it is that they are not just
doing work, but developing an emotional tie to the
community,'' said Joan Ambratte, director of the state
Commission for National and Community Service.
``They are getting a sense that they are responsible for
the future,'' she said. ``And these are the people who are
going to take over as leaders in the next 30 years, the ones
who will step forward and serve in the legislature and on
boards.''
Ambroge's commission came under direct assault by some
state Republicans who hoped to end its funding and end
Americorps here, but the appropriations passed.
At the national level, many in the Republican party are
calling for a $416 million cut to the Americorps program.
President Clinton has asked instead for a $300 million
increase and hopes to extend the program to another 27,000
recruits.
``There are many critics of this,'' she admitted of the
program labeled by Newt Gingrich as ``coerced volunteerism.''

[[Page S 14261]]

``But few people can devote this much time to community
service. * * * the local level, all non-profits are going to
need more support. Americorps in the perfect vehicle for
that.''
Americorps recruits workers for 1,700 hours--about a year--
earning $4.50 or more plus day care and medical benefits. At
the end of their term, they get a credit of $4,725 to pay for
education or existing college loans.
In Charleston, Sue Sayre, 50, is trading a year of serving
battered women for that payback. She intends to return to
college next fall.
``The money was an incentive,'' she said. ``But these women
needed help. It's a new experience every day for me.''
There were more than 200 applicants for Sayre's position
alone.
Hopeful recruits similarly stormed all of the Americorps
hiring sites statewide--some federal agencies and some non-
profit organizations.
The federal directive for Americorps did catch many of them
short. It promised lots of money if they would use the
government funded volunteers. The deadlines to submit
requests for money and their plans to use it sent the
hopefuls scrambling to make it work for them.
``Part of the plan was that they were not to do work that
we were already doing with other personnel,'' said Pat
Bowman, who works for the national resources conservation
service. ``It was like, `Hey, it would be nice if we could
have somebody to do this.' ''
Bowen said his federal office greatly needed someone to
travel the state evaluating potential archaeological sites
that might be damaged by development, erosion or other means.
When he secured funds and volunteers, he recruited a young
man with a master's degree in archaeology from the University
of Glasgow in Scotland.
In fact, three of his five volunteers have master's
degrees, but Bowen doesn't see that as out of line with the
Americorps concept.
``If they could come out of school and get a job in their
industry, they'd make a lot more pay than we're providing,''
Bowen said. ``But they all have a desire to provide service
while they gain experience. It's like a domestic Peace
Corps.''
Joetta Wright of Fairmont graduated from West Virginia
University with a bachelor's degree in sociology. She began
her graduate work and then quit for financial reasons.
Now she works as an AmeriCorps volunteer at a domestic
violence shelter in her hometown, answering the hotline and
helping victims.
Tommy Adkins, 21, is working with poor Lincoln County
residents to establish a barter system with their local
businesses. He also spends part of his time in Jackson
County, trying to boost the business community there.
In Kanawha County, five AmeriCorps volunteers have helped
to review more than 5,000 records of pre-schoolers at the
Kanawha-Charleston Health Department in an attempt to catch
them up on their inoculations.
Andy Johnston, coordinator of their work for the Regional
Family Resource Network, said his agency got 18 volunteers
altogether and hopes to see funding increased so they can add
more.
``What AmeriCorps can do is be the pickup piece that
encourages people to go get more education,'' he said.
Among Johnston's recruits, one had once been homeless.
Three currently live in public housing, and two receive
public assistance for their own children. Two are college
graduates, and one is seeking a master's degree.
``In West Virginia, we're exceeding all our objectives,''
said Ambrose, state director.
``The volunteers have broken the belief that one person
can't make a difference,'' she said. ``They are doing real
work and dealing with the real challenges of change.''
____

AmeriCorps Means Win, Win, Win

(By Rachel Tompkins)

Eric Stone, 22, thought he would never be able to save
enough money to go to college. Many people told him he was
bright, clearly college material, but no one in his family
had gone, so he had no example of how to do it. Then he read
about AmeriCorps.
Today, Eric works as an AmeriCorps member at Chandler
School Family Resource Center and the Roger Switzer Community
Center in Kanawha County. He's earning the minimum wage and
at the end of his year of service, he will have an additional
$4,725 in trust to spend on college. One more year of service
and he will have enough to pay his tuition and fees at a West
Virginia public college.
In the past six months since AmeriCorps began in West
Virginia, 30 AmeriCorps members, like Eric, have been working
in two community-based organizations: the Regional Family
Resource Network in Kanawha County and the Coalition Against
Domestic Violence based in Sutton, Braxton County. An
additional 30 AmeriCorps members work in West Virginia for
various U.S. Department of Agriculture agencies, the
Children's Health Fund in Cabell and Wayne counties and the
National Multiple Sclerosis Society.
West Virginia AmeriCorps members range in age from 19 to
55. Some have GEDs, or are just out of college, while others
have been out of school many years. All are committed to
obtaining more education. Some of those working for the
Coalition Against Domestic Violence are victims of abuse
themselves.
Some examples of AmeriCorps work in West Virginia include:
Reviewing 5,000 immunization records and scheduling 1,000
children for overdue immunizations.
Scheduling two community health clinics in underserved
areas.
Expanding the Parents as Teachers program.
Creating two new after-school programs serving 84 children.
Helping 100 families use a common application for a variety
of social, health and education services.
Expanding programs about domestic violence awareness in
high schools in Southern West Virginia leading to four
specific referrals.
Providing multiple assistance to victims of domestic
violence on hot lines and in shelters in eight communities.
Unless the national budget cutters prevail, this program
will expand in West Virginia during 1995 and serve twice as
many AmeriCorps members. As a taxpayer, an educator and the
parent of two college-age children, I'm convinced this
program ought to be continued and indeed, ought to expand.
AmeriCorps is a win, win, win program. First, local
community groups apply for AmeriCorps members to support
local projects that need extra help. No one in the state or
federal government tells communities what they need. Second,
AmeriCorps members who go to work for local groups get things
done. The jobs are real work that simply wouldn't get done
without the time and talents of AmeriCorps members.
AmeriCorps members also get important work experience that
will help in future job searches. Finally, each AmeriCorps
member puts away $4,725 toward post-secondary education or
toward paying off college loans.
During the just concluded legislative session, Gov.
Caperton proposed, and the Legislature enacted a bill
continuing the West Virginia Commission for National and
Community Service to oversee the implementation of AmeriCorps
and to promote service and volunteering in West Virginia.
Debate on that bill reported in this newspaper suggested that
AmeriCorps members were merely overpaid baby sitters. That is
simply not it.
I know it is fashionable today to be against government
programs and especially fashionable for Republicans to oppose
this program so closely identified with President Clinton.
But AmeriCorps builds on America's tradition of volunteerism
and community service, and adds a new program to the more
than 30 years of positive experiences of the Peace Corps,
VISTA, the National Senior Corps and Learn and Serve. All of
these programs have had strong bipartisan support over the
years.
My hope is that West Virginia's elected representatives
state and federal, Republican and Democrat will visit these
programs, talk with AmeriCorps members, and consider the
value of the program to West Virginia citizens and
communities. Eric Stone and his colleagues will be happy to
share their stories.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of my
colleagues from Maryland's amendment that would restore funding to
AmeriCorps.
I stand behind this program not from reading the glossy brochures
that highlight its achievements. I believe in the work that AmeriCorps
does from seeing young adults in my State coming together for a common
goal. I have met these students and witnessed their accomplishments,
and must tell you that communities throughout my State are praising
their work.
From AmeriCorps members providing gang intervention in Olympia
schools to rehabilitating damaged watersheds in Lacey to providing
emergency assistance to disabled elderly in Pasco to delivering meals
to HIV-positive patients in Tacoma, Americorps is working across my
State.
Let's put the partisan politics behind us. This is not anyone's
program. It is America's program serving our Nation by making our
streets safer, our environment cleaner, our children healthier, and our
schools better.
Certainly, cries of deficit reduction have wrapped themselves around
this debate. However, the return on America's Federal dollar has been
proven to be quite substantial in recent studies. A research report
conducted last year by the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
looked at two Washington State Americorps projects in Hoquiam and Lake
Chelan.
For every Federal dollar spent on these two AmeriCorps projects, a
$2.40 return can be expected. Even beyond the many direct skills and
experiences derived from AmeriCorps participants that cannot be
measured in dollars and cents, monetary benefits were still found to
substantially exceed costs.
Mr. President, I wonder how my colleagues can look these young people
in the eye and tell them that Congress has pulled the plug on an
opportunity that shapes their future while improving our communities. I
strongly urge

[[Page S 14262]]
my fellow Members to think critically about what we fund that truly
makes a difference in the lives of our next generation. Americorps is
the answer that provides a cost-effective solution to meeting many of
our Nation's concerns.
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.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Does the Senator from Massachusetts wish to speak?
I note the absence of a quorum, and ask that it be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask the Presiding Officer, how much time does my side
have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 20 minutes, 51 seconds.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I would like to yield 8 minutes to the Senator from
Massachusetts. And I look forward to his discussions, as well as the
chart.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator from Maryland very much.
Mr. President, I welcome the opportunity to respond to some of the
issues and questions that have been raised about the AmeriCorps and the
costs for this program. And I listened, even though I was not on the
floor, to both the response by the Senator from Maryland as well as the
Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon, about some of the points that
have been raised about AmeriCorps working with governmental agencies
and how that issue is addressed in the Senator's amendment.
That has been an issue that had been brought up and examined during
the course of the review of the AmeriCorps. And I believe that the
amendment that has now been before the Senate responds to that
particular issue and question.
Second, I listened to those who have talked about AmeriCorps and the
cost of the program, and also how much is expended in costs that are
related to the AmeriCorps volunteer. I think it is important that we
understand the terms that are being used and the costs that are being
allocated to the different projects.
I have a chart here, Mr. President. I understand that this presents a
breakdown of the total cost per member by category. I think there is
some confusion about what the costs are in terms of the member. And I
thought I would review this chart because I think it illustrates by
this chart exactly what is being expended for the AmeriCorps and the
costs which are related to the service of an AmeriCorps member. We are
talking about two different items, and it has been very easy for those
who have been opposed to this program to try to somehow lump all of
those together and give a distorted view as to actually what is
expended on behalf of the AmeriCorps volunteer.
For each AmeriCorps volunteer the Corporation spends $6,200 on the
stipend over the course of the year. This represents 33 percent. We
have the education award, which is $4,700. We have the health care,
which is $1,200. Those all go into the costs. And then we have the
AmeriCorps overhead at 7 percent.
I wonder how many of the governmental agencies are able to have an
administrative cost at that figure--at

[[Page S 14263]]
some 7 percent--which is very impressive, and indicates that for every
dollar that is actually expended, only a small amount of that dollar is
used for program administration.
The State commissions that ensure that the programs are actually
going to be a service in the State--really a State function for the
AmeriCorps programs--is a small percentage, 2 percent.
Now, the other programs which are related in terms of the general
costs are what are considered local program operations. This is the
$4,300 over here. These are the tools by which the AmeriCorps volunteer
is able to make the voluntary contribution. This is for projects like
housing rehabilitation. These are the saws, the hammers, the nails, the
equipment the AmeriCorps member is using.
There have been those on the floor of the Senate who have taken this
figure, whether in this average figure where it is $4,300, 24 percent--
or whether it would be even larger, depending on the particular program
and have put it all in overhead to somehow say that the costs of the
AmeriCorps Program is far in excess of what was estimated and far out
of control.
That kind of confused calculation has been done with regard to the
Navy's Seaborne Conservation Corps program. We have heard about the
costs per participant being $66,000. I have the excellent response by
Congressman Green that analyzes those figures to show that at the
bottom line, the actual costs were $16,641.
Now, people can come on this floor and use this other figure which
represents funding for the organization, so to speak, in which the
AmeriCorps members are actually working. They can repeat it and repeat
it and repeat it, but it does not make it any more accurate.
I think that it is important that we understand that.
Mr. President, earlier when I spoke about the participation of the
private sector, there was a comment made about the contributions that
were being made to match the AmeriCorps. I think it is important to
have a complete response on that, as well.
We know that the 7 percent, which is actually the figure named in the
legislation authorizing AmeriCorps, requiring leveraging of private
support was far exceeded. In its first year, AmeriCorps raised $91
million in matching funds, nearly three times the amount required by
law; $41 million came from the private sector, more than $32 million
legally required from all sources. Over 600 businesses, from local
concerns to national corporations like IBM and General Electric, have
directly contributed money, uniforms, tools, equipment, and training.
And therefore, again, if you use selective figures to try to downplay
the private sector's contribution, you can make a debater's point, but
it is not an accurate reflection of reality. The figures I have given
show the real participation and contributions that have been made. And
I think, Mr. President, an even a greater indication of the value of
AmeriCorps is not just what I say about this private-sector
participation, but what the leaders of the various voluntary agencies
and the other project leaders have said about AmeriCorps. There have
been the most commendable and enthusiastic statements, across the
board. In a number of instances these statements come from some by
those who were skeptical about the whole program and ended up being
enthusiastic about what these volunteers really mean.
Mr. President, both those who have supported AmeriCorps and those
opposed to it have evaluated the service and the corps. You find out
that even by the minimum evaluation, about two and a half times the
benefit comes back from the expenditures. This is demonstrated by a
cost analysis of the program.
So, Mr. President, I think the points that have been made earlier by
the Senator from Maryland in terms of the costs of the program, in
terms of the private participation, and responding to the criticisms
that are made about involving the AmeriCorps with governmental
agencies, all are extremely important issues that should be responded
to. And I think we have tried to do that this afternoon.
I just say, finally, we want to keep our eyes on one important point,
the $4,700, the educational award, is also eliminated in this
appropriations bill. And this is at a time when we are cutting on
student loan programs. We reported out of our committee earlier today
what is effectively a tax on every college in this country, based upon
the amount of the student loan programs.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. Can I have 2 or 3 more minutes?
Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the Senator from Massachusetts 2 more minutes
to conclude his remarks.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, at a time when we are cutting back on the
student loan program, or at least making it much more expensive, this
program is out there. These individuals, by and large, are involved
because they want to give something back to the community. Their
greatest reward is not only their personal satisfaction and service to
the community, but an opportunity for education, which is certainly a
matter of national interest.
Finally, I will include in the Record, Mr. President, the number of
colleges that are matching these education awards. Hampshire College in
my own State--and I will include in the Record a number of the schools
and colleges that are matching these education awards two and three
times in recognition of the service these young and old people are
providing for the community. I thank the Senator from Maryland.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-nine minutes, 43 seconds.
Mr. BOND. I am happy to yield the Senator from Arizona 8 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the Senator from
Missouri yielding time.
I appreciate what both he and the Senator from Iowa have done in
pointing out some of the problems with this new program that is called
AmeriCorps. My position is that at this time of severe budgetary crisis
in this country, at a time when we are trying to balance the Federal
budget, it is not the time to be starting new Federal programs with
substantial expenses which, frankly, are not cost beneficial in terms
of the degree of support that it provides to the American people.
As a brand new program, AmeriCorps costs American taxpayers $367
million in 1994, and the GAO estimates that AmeriCorps costs nearly
$27,000 for each volunteer. It is not an effective jobs or education
program, and I submit, Mr. President, that it is not going to increase
voluntarism in this country or in my home State of Arizona.
For example, the Arizona AmeriCorps Program, called the Border
Volunteer Corps, was one of the largest programs. It received $2.6
million in the 1994 and 1995 service year. But it will not be federally
funded this year through the Corporation for National Service. The
reason is because the Arizona-Mexico Commission, the Arizona sponsor,
pulled out because of alleged mismanagement of this program.
It seems to me that groups such as the Salvation Army, groups in
Arizona like Arizona Clean and Beautiful, Crime Victim Foundation, St.
Mary's and Andre House food bank, and others that provide volunteer
service in the State commit millions of hours to voluntarism every
year.
We know today, Americans 18 and up volunteer 19.5 billion hours of
their time, which is a 50-percent increase in the number of hours since
1981. Turning voluntarism into a wide-scale public jobs project, it
seems to me, will undermine public philanthropy. We are doing well in
volunteering in this country, not paying people to be volunteers.
Moreover, as other speakers have pointed out, AmeriCorps is not based
on need. Certainly, today in our effort to prioritize where Federal
dollars are going, Federal higher education dollars, if that is what
these are targeted to be, should be targeted toward those who are most
in need of assistance. AmeriCorps does not promote voluntarism because
it is not a volunteer program. Students are paid $7,400 for work and
given $4,750 toward education costs for 2 years. In addition,
recipients are guaranteed health and child care benefits.

[[Page S 14264]]

For the average $20,000 to $30,000 cost per year per student in
AmeriCorps, eight needy students could receive Pell grants at $2,400
each. Eight needy students--and that is the definition of the
qualification for Pell grants--could be served with this same amount of
money, in other words, that we pay for one AmeriCorps volunteer.
A $20,000 stipend is worth more than the individual income of nearly
40 million working Americans. That is what we are paying these
AmeriCorps so-called volunteers.
Examples of AmeriCorps spending: The National Civilian Community
Corps, funded through AmeriCorps, provides 1,000 AmeriCorps volunteers
with meals, tuition stipend, health care, child care, and housing at
four closed military bases in Maryland, South Carolina, Colorado, and
California.
So this volunteer program will cost $26 million for these 1,000
participants. Of course, the taxpayers fit the bill for AmeriCorps and
not just for the good work that they do, but also for everything else
associated with their work, including their training and a lot of
interesting kinds of seminars.
According to John Walters of the New Citizenship Project, AmeriCorps
volunteers spend one-fifth of their time in training, education and
other nondirect service activities. So the taxpayers pay for nonneedy
students to participate in self-esteem and other government classes and
seminars.
It is also, I think, a problem here because, Mr. President, at the
time we are trying to reduce the Federal bureaucracy, AmeriCorps
volunteers are becoming part of a Federal bureaucracy. Over 2,800, in
other words, about 20 percent, of the 20,000 AmeriCorps volunteers are
assigned to Federal agencies, including Agriculture, Interior, National
Endowment for the Arts, and others.
The federally funded Legal Services Corporation, for example, has
been awarded funding for 44 AmeriCorps volunteers, costing taxpayers
$959,000.
I think the bottom line is that for fiscal reasons, we have to limit
AmeriCorps spending, and that is why I support what the Senator from
Missouri is trying to do today. It simply costs the American taxpayer
too much for the benefits that it provides, and I suggest that it
should be eliminated.
We ought to examine the intent and the costs of the program. For
example, we should get answers to why the AmeriCorps program costs
$42,000 per person per student in Alaska. More than 16 students in that
State could participate in the Pell grant program for the same amount
of money that is used to sponsor one AmeriCorps volunteer.
Or why $1.7 million of the AmeriCorps budget has been spent on an
AmeriCorps advertisement campaign. This year alone, the Government will
pay more than $3 billion in interest on our national debt. That is
about $1,100 for every man, woman and child in the country, enough to
pay a year's tuition for a young woman or young man, for example, to
attend Arizona State University.
Reducing funding for AmeriCorps is one small but very important way
that we can begin to prioritize how Washington spends the taxpayers'
money. That is why, Mr. President, as I said, I support what the
Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Iowa have been saying today.
It is time to cut the AmeriCorps program down to size.
I appreciate the Senator from Missouri yielding me this time. I
reserve the remainder of the time.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
amendment offered by my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski,
which restores $425 million to the Corporation for National Service.
Two years ago, I was very proud to be a lead Republican sponsor of
the National Community Service Trust Act. My support for this endeavor
comes from a long-held belief that national and community service is
essential in addressing many of our unmet social and educational needs.
Community service is the cornerstone of democracy, where those who have
much have a responsibility to help those who have little. Providing
public service as a means of training individuals, while at the same
time supplying benefits to a community, is a win-win initiative.
It is interesting to note that the critics of national service have
never criticized the goals of the program. They focus their criticism
on the cost of national service activities with figures which are
highly debatable, but not the worthiness of the efforts.
I beg to differ with those who say we do not have the dollars for
national service activities. We do have the resources to devote to this
worthy effort. For example, since 1980, we have downsized our military
enrollees by 184,790, representing 54 percent drop. The savings
generated from curtailing new recruits by 184,000 is close to $2.7
billion per year, much more than we spend on this program. And yet we
have reduced the opportunity to 184,790 individuals each year, who
otherwise would get help from the Federal Government to assist them in
learning skills and being able to participate in a more meaningful way
in our society. All we are doing with this amendment is taking a small
proportion of those who now no longer have that opportunity,
approximately 20,000, and give them the chance to take part in this
program.

Although we are downsizing our military, many young people still have
the desire to become involved in public service. We are not providing
them an opportunity to contribute if we do away with national service.
National service enables not only young people but schools, community
organizations, towns and cities to develop programs that will meet
their own unmet needs while giving invaluable education to generations
of our future leaders.
I point out that those 184,000 no longer in the military would have
had an opportunity to get the same kind of scholarship they could get
with national service through the military. Now due to downsizing of
our Armed Forces, that opportunity is no longer available to them. So
the elimination of national service will effectively remove another
avenue for a large number of young people to obtain educational
opportunities.
Let us remember that national and community service is not a program
that young people engage in because they are free for the summer or
because they have nothing better to do. Participation in service
requires true commitment. This is a program that demands that youth
spend at least 1 year in full service, or 2 years in part-time service
in an area of national need.
Although we all support spending cuts, this does not mean we should
forsake our responsibility to develop necessary Government programs,
especially those that help our young people.
We must commit ourselves to redirecting our priorities to make clear
that unless we address the concerns of this Nation, our children will
not have a future. National service is a cost-effective program that is
meeting many urgent local and national needs not being met through
traditional means.
An example of the program's cost-effectiveness is an AmeriCorps
project in New York. For each hour that AmeriCorps members update
computer equipment, they save the New York City Board of Education $100
in labor costs.
Through a combination of hard work and commitment, National service
has surpassed the expectations we all had when this legislation was
enacted almost 2 years ago. National service was not designed to result
in miracles on a grand scale, but there are many examples of minor
miracles occurring daily throughout the United States. Some of these
examples include, Youth Conservation Corps participants who have
assisted Midwestern families afflicted by this spring's floods, the
Teach for America participant who not only taught children in Watts how
to read, but also how to love, and the Battleboro, VT, Independent
Living project participants who assist the elderly and individuals with
disabilities so they can remain in their homes instead of being forced
to live in an institutional setting.
National service is a program that has served our Nation well, and
therefore I rise today to lend my voice in supporting the Mikulski
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

[[Page S 14265]]

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
Mr. President, I was struck by the comment of my friend from Vermont
that we do have the resources to fund AmeriCorps. I think this
amendment, which I have now had an opportunity to study a bit more,
reflects just how difficult these funding choices are. I said earlier
that when I made my recommendations, I had to weigh AmeriCorps versus
community development block grants. I was interested to see what the
sponsors of this amendment show as their offsets because we have to
keep this amendment budget neutral.
Well, this amendment uses two accounts for offsets, both of them from
Housing and Urban Development. The first cuts the annual contributions
for assisted housing accounts by an additional $383 million by taking
an unspecified reduction. This could affect section 202 housing for the
elderly, or the section 8(11) program for the disabled, or even housing
for AIDS victims.
Other activities in this account include vouchers for displaced
families. Incidentally, when we are looking at family vouchers, for
each AmeriCorps volunteer, four low-income families could be given
housing for a year. Is this truly our priority? Is it truly our
priority to pay one young person what otherwise could go to providing
assisted housing for four families needing housing? I do not think so.
That is part of the problem I have with AmeriCorps in this budget.
In addition, in the rescissions bill which was adopted by this body
and signed by the President earlier this summer, there was already a
$1.12 billion reduction in this housing account. And the Department of
HUD is telling us of their difficulty in identifying those reductions.
To impose a further $383 million cut could impact real programs and
real housing assistance for low-income families, the elderly and the
disabled. One of the great complaints I have heard about this bill, as
it has been submitted by the committee, is that it cuts HUD too much.
This amendment would cut HUD further. Frankly, I was not willing to do
that. I do not think it is a good idea.
The other offset proposed in this amendment is achieved by increasing
the individual limit on mortgages for the FHA-guaranteed program. Now,
this is a very controversial provision. Under this amendment, mortgages
as large as $175,000 would be eligible for Government guarantees. That
is raising from the current limit of about $152,000. These are not and
should not be the sector of the housing market that the Government
guarantees should cover. Moreover, private mortgage insurance is
readily available in those mortgages. This proposal would expand the
role and scope of Government. It is something that has been debated in
the authorizing committees. I believe it is not wise because it would
place the Government in greater competition with the private mortgage
insurance market and likely increase FHA's market share in the area at
a time when the private market is doing more and more.
President Clinton has talked about reinventing Government and
bringing it under control. The Republicans who were elected in 1994
talked about limiting the scope and the role of Government. This
amendment goes in the opposite direction from both of those objectives.
To make the argument that we should increase the maximum allowable loan
amount because it generates more money is to say that the best reason
for a Government program is that it makes money. That is not the right
approach.
I think the only valid justification for a program is a public
purpose that can only be achieved by Government. There is no public
purpose served by expanding Government's role into the already served
private market. I believe this proposal is corporate welfare for
lenders who currently receive servicing fees far higher than market
levels for handling loans with no risk. Actually, it is a risk assumed
by the taxpayers, not by the lenders.
I think there is real reform needed in the AmeriCorps, National
Service Corps. I am very pleased that the sponsors of the amendment--
and I congratulate the Senator from Maryland for putting in a proviso
that none of the funds available shall be used to administer,
reimburse, or support any national service programs run by Federal
agencies. We were astounded earlier this year to learn, Mr. President,
when we wanted to find out where the money was going at the national
level, that AmeriCorps had been funding the Departments of Agriculture,
Energy, Interior, Justice, Labor, Transportation, EPA, and the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Well, according to the letters that we have received from OMB
Director Rivlin and from Mr. Segal, they are not willing to talk about
any reforms. I strongly support and commend the Senator from Maryland
for agreeing to take out all of these Government agencies. AmeriCorps
was funding these governmental agencies, and they were passing over
Future Farmers of America, National 4-H Council, Girl Scouts of
America, American Red Cross, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, the Boys and
Girls Clubs, National Audubon Society, United Negro College Fund,
United Way of America, United Cerebral Palsy Association, Goodwill
Industries International.
These are the traditional volunteer agencies that most people think
of in America when you talk about volunteers. Yet, they were passing
over those. They were passing over those, in some instances, to go to
Federal Government agencies. I am glad and I congratulate the sponsor
of this amendment for knocking out those Federal agencies. But I also
want to point out that there was strange scoring done. When you look at
the independent assessment made by an outside agency who ranked these
applicants, they had to reach way down in the rankings--from an
impartial ranking group--to find some of the organizations that were
funded. They overlooked Big Brothers/Big Sisters, National Urban League
and Student Conservation to provide funding for an ACORN project.
Well, as Senator Grassley has learned--and I believe he may have a
statement later on--the ACORN project was involved directly in
political activity. They were soliciting votes, actually involved
directly in a campaign against a city councilman in Denver.
I think it is time that we had a commitment from this administration
for a thorough reform of AmeriCorps before we even consider putting
funds that are badly needed in other agencies into that program. I
received a letter from Peter Hoekstra on the House side, chairman of
the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee. He was an original
supporter of the Corporation for National Service. He said, at the
time, ``I believed that this would be an efficient and effective use of
taxpayer dollars. However, after conducting an independent evaluation
of how money flows from the Corporation to AmeriCorps programs and how
these funds are spent, I have grave concerns about the continuation of
this program.''

He states that he has begun a dialog but he finds that it is safe to
say that AmeriCorps has been and likely continues to be an avenue for
partisanship. ``The recent move by the Corporation to defund ACORN and
Cole Coalition only serves to highlight the seriousness of this
problem. In the case of ACORN, AmeriCorps' IG has pointed out numerous
cases of lobbying, fund raising, and even voter registration carried
out by AmeriCorps members.''
Congressman Hoekstra goes on to say, ``Finally, our subcommittee is
in the process of reviewing CNS' grant-making procedures. Our
preliminary findings reveal a less than comprehensible procedure,
whereby grant scoring often has little to do with who receives the
final grants.''
I really believe that before we consider trying to take money away
from HUD, from assisted housing for those who are in grave need, for
the people who are elderly, who are disabled, or the people with AIDS,
that the administration at least owes us a good-faith effort to make
sure that the dollars that are spent in AmeriCorps are not being spent
for political purposes, they are not being wasted on high-cost
projects.
I reiterate my point that in these very tight budget times, I do not
think that paying money to volunteers in this program is a higher
priority than taking care of the needs of those who depend upon HUD for
federally assisted

[[Page S 14266]]
housing. I reserve the balance of my time.
I yield the floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Delaware 3
minutes.
Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator from Maryland.
Mr. President, I will be necessarily brief.
There is very little the Federal Government can do about moral
values. That is something that is shaped by families and communities
and churches. One of the things we can do is the Government can help
teach young people that they owe something to their country and to each
other and that membership in the community conveys both rights and
responsibilities.
The Senator from Georgia is on the floor. He had a national service
piece of legislation which I and several others supported over the
years. The notion that we are going to instill in our children that
they have an obligation to their community and to their country--my own
experience, we focus, I believe, too much on just what the benefit to
the recipients of this service is.
I suggest one of the greatest benefits of AmeriCorps is what it
teaches those who participate in AmeriCorps. My son was in the Jesuit
Volunteer Corps. No relationship, no remuneration, but he spent a year
in a community service project in a homeless shelter out in Portland,
OR. I know he benefited more from that experience, quite frankly, than
almost anybody he helped benefit.
That is one of the payoffs of this program. One of the payoffs is a
generation of young people who, in fact, are instilled with a sense of
obligation and responsibility to the community.
I heard my friend from Arizona stand up and talk about this as if it
were need-based. There is nothing need-based about the military; the
Peace Corps is not need-based. The point is to pass on these values to
children or young people of all economic strata.
We need broad-based support from the next generation in terms of what
their responsibility to the communities is. I think that is the most
overlooked aspect of this program.
I also add, Mr. President, that I hear some of my friends--not the
chairman of the subcommittee, but some of my friends on the floor--
talking about the need for other programs. I notice they also cut those
programs. I find it somewhat interesting the talk about this could pay
for x amount of Pell grants or y amount of this. I notice from their
records they do not vote for the Pell grants, they do not vote for the
other things.
I find it somewhat interesting that they use as a straw man--I am not
speaking about the Senator from Missouri but others who have spoken and
talked about this off the floor--they use as a straw man the idea if we
just were not spending the money on AmeriCorps, we would be spending it
on other worthwhile programs that I note they also vote against and
voted to cut.
Mr. President, I must admit that I find this debate--and the
opposition to AmeriCorps--somewhat fascinating.
We have been hearing for about a year now--including the last few
weeks during debate on the welfare reform bill--that we need to return
power to States and local communities. That the Federal bureaucracy
needs to get out of the way of local solutions to problems, that we
need to make better use of nonprofit community organizations and church
groups in addressing the problems this country faces. And that
individuals helping each other, not the paternalism of big government,
is the ultimate answer to our problems.
Fine and good, Mr. President. And, to an extent, I agree. But, that
is exactly what AmeriCorps does.
AmeriCorps says to States and communities, you decide how to meet the
needs of your people how to solve the problems you face. AmeriCorps
says, private, nonprofit organizations should be the main focus of the
program. And, AmeriCorps teaches young people about responsibility,
opportunity, and citizenship.
The fact is, President Clinton's national service program is probably
the most Republican program ever enacted by a Democratic President.
It is not the Federal bureaucracy trying to solve problems, it is
State, local, and private organizations working together to solve
problems.
It is not solutions conceived inside the Washington Beltway. It is
solutions conceived where the problems are, at the local level.
It is not government taking over the role of charities. It is, as
almost all local charities will tell you, a way to make volunteer
efforts more useful and effective.
All the Federal Government does is to provide some money and some
dedicated young people to help.
Let me tell you about some of those people from my State of
Delaware--both those who help and those who are helped.
Tammy is a single parent who used to be on welfare. Today, Tammy is
an AmeriCorps member who helps teenage mothers do what she did--move
from welfare to work. Tammy says, ``AmeriCorps gave me my voice back.''
Dora is another woman supporting her two children. After leaving the
military, she took a job waiting tables. But, this past year, she spent
working for AmeriCorps, helping elderly public house residents get
preventive health care.
Dora will be using her tuition voucher to go back to school,
something she admits she never would have done without AmeriCorps. As
she put it, ``AmeriCorps gave me direction.''
Jeff was a Maryland AmeriCorps member, but he did his service by
tutoring at-risk elementary school children in the Colonial School
District in Delaware. For many of the boys, Jeff was their only male
role model.
And, the boys could hardly wait for Jeff to show up each day. After
just 1 week, one of the teachers said, ``There's already been a
difference.'' Many teachers are now begging the principal to have an
AmeriCorps member in their classroom.
And, finally, let me tell you about Camille, who is a homeless
teenage mother who dropped out of high school. She met an AmeriCorps
member named Chan. And, Chan gave her hope.
Chan got Camille to sign up for an adult education program. He
supported her and tutored her. And, Camille will soon graduate from the
adult education program and receive her GED.
Mr. President, there is very little the Federal Government can do
about moral values. That is something that is shaped by families and
churches and communities.
But, what each of the examples I just gave proves is that the Federal
Government can do at least a little bit about this country's values.
The Federal Government can help teach young people that they owe
something to their country and to each other, that membership conveys
both rights and responsibilities.
And, what these examples also show is something I have long believed
about community service--and I saw it with my own son after he served a
year with the Jesuit Volunteer Corps. Those who benefit from community
service are not just those who are helped, but also those who do the
helping.
AmeriCorps helps instill the values of responsibility and
citizenship. It makes a difference in lives of thousands of Americans
and makes our problems just a little bit smaller.
There are children who will walk through their neighborhoods today
safer because of the AmeriCorps members who are helping the police in
community policing.
There are neighborhoods tonight that are safer because AmeriCorps
members closed down the crack houses.
There are children in school today because an AmeriCorps tutor gave
them hope and they did not drop out of school.
There are families who have homes today because of houses built by
AmeriCorps members.
There are senior citizens in nursing homes whose days are just a
little bit brighter because of the work of an AmeriCorps member.
Mr. President, AmeriCorps is not the solution to all of our problems.
And, it is not the entire answer. But, I dare say, it is making a
difference. And, it would be truly regrettable if AmeriCorps was
eliminated after just 1 year.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Georgia. I wish
to tell the Senate this is one of the founding fathers of national
service.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge support of the amendment of the
Senator

[[Page S 14267]]
from Maryland, and I commend her for taking this leadership and also
commend the Senator from Missouri for pointing out things that need to
be corrected in this program.
That is what we ought to be doing. We ought to be correcting the
faults, not killing the entire program.
Mr. President, we have heard comparisons of how many Pell grant
programs we could fund, how many job training programs we could fund.
These criticisms are valid as far as they go but what they forget is a
very important point.
That is, we are requiring service, and service is being rendered. A
good analogy is our Nation's Armed Forces. We do not maintain Armed
Forces in order to provide valuable skill and help develop good
character in young men and women. Rather, Armed Forces personnel
develop skills and character in the military as they carry out their
primary mission for providing for our Nation's security.
The same is true of national service. Would critics have us disregard
the benefits to society of national service participants helping flood
victims in Montezuma, GA, last year, a town completely overcome by the
flood? Should we ignore the benefits of the first-time immunization
program of 33,000 children in Fort Worth, TX, in 1 month?
Mr. President, independent studies verified by the GAO found recently
that AmeriCorps returns between $1.68 and $2.58 for every $1 invested.
I think it is important that we continue this program. National service
says to the participants, along with society's opportunities come
duties. If you will provide your honest sweat and elbow grease to
improve society, we will help you attend college or acquire a skill.
This is a win-win-win situation. The question I have for my
colleagues is what other program is aimed at accomplishing these social
ends without a handout, without stifling bureaucracy, and with such
enormous benefits to our communities?
As my colleagues know, the idea of national service is one in which I
have been involved for several years. In 1989, I introduced with
Senator Robb, Glenn, Breaux, and Sasser introduced legislation to
demonstrate the concept of national service in a small number of
programs nationwide. President Bush signed that legislation into law in
1990, and the effort yielded a number of highly-successful
demonstration programs, including two in my State. In 1993, Congress
passed President Clinton's National and Community Service Act to create
thousands of young people serving their communities. While the scope of
AmeriCorps is much larger than our original demonstration project, the
philosophy behind it, supported by Democrats and Republicans, is the
same--make plain the essential connection between rights and
responsibility by putting Americans to work meeting the unmet needs in
their communities.
At present this Congress is involved in a great debate over how to
reverse the fraying of our Nation's moral fabric. The question which
confronts us is how to stop the rising tide of crime, illegitimacy,
falling test scores, and rising despair that plague our communities. I
do not pretend that funding national service is the answer to all of
these problems. What I can say with great conviction, however, is that
national service is one of the few Government enterprises with the
potential to inspire large numbers of young people against this tide.
In Georgia, success stories are not hard to find. In my State,
AmeriCorps members alone have contributed more than 300,000 hours of
service, and served more than 19,000 individuals. In addition to their
required service, AmeriCorps members have volunteered 7,500 hours to
community-wide philanthropic efforts and traditional volunteer
programs. They have also recruited more than 2,500 community volunteers
to help in their community service efforts. Members are working with
the Macon police department to patrol communities and establish
neighborhood watch programs. In Douglas, members are helping to erect
road signs to ensure that emergency crews can respond quickly to calls
on the newly-installed 911 telephone system. In Atlanta, members mentor
and tutor low-achieving students in schools and recruit volunteers for
further community service efforts. In Atlanta, the principal of Ralph
McGill school in a low-income area of Atlanta informed me on a visit
that since AmeriCorps young people started working as teacher's aides
discipline problems have declined at his school by 70 percent. This
list of accomplishments is mirrored in virtually every State in this
Nation.
Critics have tried to attack national service in a number of
different ways. With the recent release of the GAO report on the costs
of national service we have heard cries of how expensive the program
is. I would caution the program's critics to examine the benefits of
the program as well as its costs before issuing such casual independent
studies. The GAO study often quoted by critics found that AmeriCorps'
per-member costs to the Federal Government are in fact lower than the
estimates the Corporation set for itself. In addition, the benefits
generated by the program, as reported by an independent accounting
agency and verified by GAO, have yielded excellent ratings for cost-
effectiveness. Most importantly, however, the program receives high
marks from the beneficiaries of the service, like the teacher of Ralph
McGill school, who is better able to teach his students through
AmeriCorps' efforts. In this way AmeriCorps is living up to its slogan,
``Getting Things Done.'' I hope that the program's critics, many of
whom were singing the praises of cost-benefit analysis on this floor in
a different debate on regulatory reform just a few weeks ago, will
practice that preaching for this program as well.
Our Nation's Armed Forces provide another good historical analogy to
national service--the GI bill. This program, which began in the mid-
1940's as an effort to provide an education to those who fought for our
Nation's survival in World War II, has been judged one of the most
successful investments of public funds in our history. The program
continues today as the Montgomery GI bill. The GI bill gives the
participants an education benefit in exchange for their great service
to this country. Like the GI bill, national service provides a triple
payoff in terms of the service performed, the service experience, and
the post-service benefit. Do my colleagues who criticize national
service believe that the GI bill was a mistake? Here, Mr. President, is
a program that has just as much potential to help our society.
Finally, Mr. President, I would point out that since its initial
authorization in 1993, AmeriCorps has had only one full year of
operation. As with any newly created enterprise, there are growing
pains of varying degrees, and I am the first to express my willingness
to search for ways to make the program more effective. The time for
such debate and change, however, is during the program's scheduled
reauthorization next year. That way we can have a systematic, rational
consideration of whether this program has provided sufficient ``bang''
for the Government's buck, and whether structural changes are needed.
To kill this program in this appropriations bill would be a costly
mistake.
Mr. President, as our distinguished colleague Senator Byrd often
points out, one of our primary duties as Senators is to exercise the
``power of the purse'' and be good stewards of the taxpayer's dollar. I
have been watching AmeriCorps' work in my State, and I am pleased to
inform my colleagues that AmeriCorps is achieving its goals. This is an
innovative, nonbureaucratic, decentralized approach to one of our
Nation's most important tasks--creating citizens who understand that
responsibilities accompany rights and who provide real services to
individuals and communities. I urge my colleagues to look at the
benefits as well as the costs of this program, and to support the
Mikulski amendment.
Mr. President, we are developing leadership and we are also serving
communities and individual needs. I urge this program be retained.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, acting on behalf of Senator Bond, I yield
Senator Santorum 5 minutes.
Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank the Senator from
Oklahoma.
I rise, and I hesitate to come to the floor to talk about this issue
although I have talked about it in the past. I wanted to make a
statement because the former Senator from Pennsylvania,

[[Page S 14268]]
Senator Wofford, is in line to be the next head of the AmeriCorps
Program.
I stand as someone who has been a critic of the program. I wanted to
make it clear that I am critical of the program--not of Senator
Wofford. In fact, I have said to the Senator that I will support him
for that position and wish him well.
He has a big job ahead of him because I believe this program is a
misguided program, is a program that is on a values level--the Senator
from Delaware talked about values. I think it teaches the wrong values.
I think it teaches the value of not voluntarism.
My definition from looking in the dictionary, voluntarism is unpaid
labor. This is paid labor. That is not voluntarism. You can call it a
lot of things, but not voluntarism, any more than me deciding to run
for the U.S. Senate and therefore being elected, being a volunteer
because that is what I decided I wanted to do.
You are compensated for your work and therefore you are not a
volunteer. Call it what it is. It is a Federal paid taxpayers' position
that you have, working many places in a government job, or through some
government-sanctioned organization, or approved organization.
I do not see anything particularly noble about a job paid for by
taxpayers' dollars, that is any more noble than someone who goes out
and sells insurance or someone who works on Wall Street or someone who
grows cotton.
Those are all noble jobs. They are providing valuable services to
this country. To suggest that somehow we instill the value in people,
working for the Federal Government for taxpayers' dollars is somehow
noble, and that going out and trying to start a business or raise a
crop is not noble, that those values are not important.
I think that is really what is fundamental. I think we are missing
the point. Yes, there is a lot of good work being done by people, but
they are being paid to do it by the Federal Government, and it is the
Federal Government's design as to what role they should be filling.
I think that is a very dangerous value to somehow elevate Government
service above all other aspects of our lives in our society. I think
that is why you see so many people on our side of the aisle come up who
feel this is a real hot button issue, because I think it is a
distortion of the American value.
I would also add, having just been very actively involved in the
welfare debate over the past few weeks, that there are a lot of people
who are very strong supporters of AmeriCorps who are not supporters of
requiring people on welfare to work. I find that incredible. Here we
have people who desperately need work. You talk to employers. What do
employers tell you they are looking for an employee? Are they looking
for someone who has a lot of skills, someone who is exceptional in a
particular area? No. What most employers look for in employees is
someone with a good attitude and good work ethic. What people on
welfare in most cases do not have as a result of having grown up on
welfare--I am talking about the chronic welfare recipient--is instilled
a good work ethic.
What we could provide instead of paying volunteers in AmeriCorps is
we could be putting the people who are on welfare who need jobs the
same things AmeriCorps people are doing. Remember, people on welfare
are receiving the money. They are already getting the benefits. It does
not cost any addition and gives the people who really need the work,
not someone whose daddy is a CEO of some company who signed up for
AmeriCorps because he wants to do the good thing and be a volunteer and
get $27,000 a year, but someone who actually needs the work experience,
needs to learn the skills.
Let us talk about what we can do to take this program and apply it in
a sense in the welfare context. That makes a lot of sense. That is
really a direction that I think the American public could support.
Mr. President, I want to read a quote from Father Robert A. Sirico,
who is president of Action Institute for the Study of Religion and
Liberty in Grand Rapids, who wrote an article on AmeriCorps and how it
falsely teaches people what service is all about. His concluding
paragraph is:

Idealism led me to the priesthood. Another sort of idealism
leads people to the business world. Here's some advice for
young idealists. If you want to serve others, don't be bought
off by a Government program. Try something voluntary that is
personally challenging, socially beneficial, and doesn't cost
the taxpayers one dime.

I think that sums up the mood of most of us on this side of the
aisle. We want people to be challenged. We want young people to be
involved in voluntarism. We want people to care about their community.
But we want them to do it because they care about their community, not
because they are getting paid $30,000 a year by Federal taxpayers.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield Senator Ashcroft 3\1/2\ minutes.
How much time is remaining on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A total of 6\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. NICKLES. I yield 6\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. President, I am pleased to speak on AmeriCorps.
Before I begin, I would like to thank my colleague and my good
friend, Senator Bond, for his management of this bill as well as his
unending commitment to the taxpayers of Missouri. His opposition to the
Corporation for National Service is another example of the fiscal
integrity that has marked his career in the Senate, and I am honored to
join him here.
Americans constitute a community of service. Last year 90 million
Americans of all ages gave their time to civic and religious
organizations. They cared for the poor, sick, the broken, and the
lonely. They gave their time without regard to benefit or pay. They did
it as a matter of personal devotion and out of their regard for each
other as part of the way we live our lives as Americans. Their personal
sacrifice is, in my opinion, mocked by a Government program with a
catchy name like AmeriCorps.
Mr. President, we have for most of this Congress been debating
Washington's legitimate role in our daily lives. Some cases are tough,
tough debates--debates on welfare, crime, and education. Others are
not. This is not a tough case. AmeriCorps is a $27,000 per participant
boondoggle for kids trying to find themselves. AmeriCorps is welfare
for the well-to-do.
Mr. President, for what AmeriCorps costs annually we could send two
poor students to the University of Missouri for 4 years, all expenses
paid, for everyone person we send through AmeriCorps. We could give 18
Pell grants to needy students for the annual cost of one AmeriCorps
participant.
AmeriCorps is wasteful and bureaucratic. At least $15,000 per
AmeriCorps participant goes into overhead and administration here in
Washington. Only in Washington could $15,000 a year be paid for paper
turning, and as a result that would be considered volunteer service.
Of the AmeriCorps participants, 1,200 serve--volunteer--at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture; 525 volunteer at the Interior Department;
and 60 serve at the National Endowment for the Arts. This is not in the
spirit of volunteering. This is not in the spirit of service that we
normally find for American communities.
I rise to oppose this because I believe that a volunteer program
should be a volunteer program. It should not be a way to subsidies the
Federal bureaucracy and send individuals into the bureaucracy at rates
of pay that deprive other needy programs, that displace the ability to
meet other needs in our culture.
So I am pleased to support my senior Senator's motion which would
defund or otherwise take AmeriCorps out, because I do not believe we
should be spending money at this level in an enterprise which
masquerades as a volunteer program but is a very expensive program.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from
Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from
Maryland.
I ask unanimous consent that I be added as an original cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S 14269]]

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Mikulski
amendment, and I ask to be added as a cosponsor.
As a former college professor and community organizer, I was proud to
be a part of creating and now implementing the National Service
Program. I was also proud to bring the vast experience of people and
programs in my State to Washington as Congress was considering this
original legislation.
People across my State of Minnesota and the rest of the country have
worked in National Service programs which has helped our Nation and
local communities solve social problems while at the same time
strengthen democracy and citizenship.
From all I see, this is a program that works.
Over half of the AmeriCorp members in Minnesota signed up for another
year of service.
This is not about paid service at all. Service in Minnesota is about
citizenship, to be part of a community, stepping forward to serve.
These people are not getting rich by any means. The participants are
making $4.50 an hour. This is essentially minimum wage.
If you think today's youth are cynical; if you think they are
disengaged and apathetic, you are wrong. I have met them. This program
is all about participation and citizenship.
Listen to what some of these young people in Minnesota have said
about the program:

David Jacobsma: ``It has meant meeting new people with a
wide variety of backgrounds. It has meant money for my
education. It has meant new life experiences.''
Holly Sirjord: ``I feel I have contributed to my community.
I not only worked with the personal aspects of the community,
but I feel in return I have learned a lot by working with the
natural aspects as well.''
Katherine Musch: ``AmeriCorps is a wonderful service
organization that helps people help themselves build futures.
This past year I have learned so much working with people and
nature. It was great to feel a part of something so
worthwhile. I am proud to be a member and would love to see
AmeriCorps continued.''
Aaron Neubert: ``It has given me the opportunity to use my
college degree. I am anxious to show future employers that I
have experience.''
Kelly Engen: ``Being a member of the AmeriCorps program has
meant a great deal to me. It has given me a sense of pride
knowing that I am giving something back to the local
communities that have given so much to me.''
Tim Reese: ``An opportunity to experience resource
management on a watershed scale, frustration, a valuable
experience, good training, an understanding of the workings
of a Federal agency and a way to help pay for graduate
school.''
Russell Boheim: ``AmeriCorps has given me the opportunity
to use the knowledge and experience I've gained on a natural
resources project benefitting the people in the region, where
I was raised.''
Tony Kroska: ``AmeriCorps is, and has been, an excellent
opportunity to use and test my skills to further the
improvement of a region that I consider to be a valuable
resource.''
Shelly Eckblad: ``AmeriCorps--group of Americans forming a
body of persons, acting together in a common direction. That
direction is to solve problems facing our country--the United
States.''
Tracy Guthmiller: ``AmeriCorps to me means opportunity.
AmeriCorps has given me the opportunity to assist others
while at the same time gain valuable experience for myself.''
Linda Dahl: ``To me AmeriCorps has meant helping those who
are willing to work toward improving their stewardship of the
land. I believe this will lead to a better informed rural
community and a healthier living environment.''
DiAnn Koening: ``Being an AmeriCorps member has given me
the opportunity to serve local communities through individual
and team efforts, acquire new skills, and become more
knowledgeable of the local agencies and what services they
provide.''
Melissa Stommes: ``Being an AmeriCorps member has given me
a lot of opportunities to test my talents, explore more
options, and meet new people.''
Graeme Belcher: ``AmeriCorps has given me the chance to
make my community and myself better. The results of my
actions will affect the environment so that everyone can live
healthier and happier lives.''
Joy Swenson: ``I have learned many things in my AmeriCorps
stint, so far. I have been trained in some things that will
be a definite help to me in my future career--along with some
things that will help out my life in general. Things such as
team spirit and working with a range of attitudes and
personalities. I cannot really say all I want to in 25 words
or less, but I will end with this thought. I believe that
being an AmeriCorps member will be an experience that I will
always remember.''
Dean Lutz: ``The AmeriCorps program has been beneficial to
me in helping me develop and achieve my goals. The NRCS and
other surrounding people are fantastic to work along side.''
Jeff York: ``Being a AmeriCorps member has allowed me to
return and serve the area I grew up in. As a member, I have
enjoyed the responsibility and commitment it takes to serve
others. I have also been introduced to a new, diverse group
of Americans that, without this experience, I would not have
been able to otherwise meet.''
Brian Krzmarzick: ``Being an AmeriCorps member is having a
chance to learn new things and meet fun and exciting people
while doing something that will help my community and
country.''
Michael Aho: ``AmeriCorps has provided a way for me to face
the challenges of the future by taking the first of many
steps after college.''

I think what some in Washington who are trying to dismantle this
program because they are afraid that it makes people think. It makes
people who are working with homeless people to ask why is there
homelessness. People who are working in the inner city are asking why
is there poverty? And those who are working to clean up our environment
are asking why is there pollution?
Every program in Minnesota is in a partnership with either a State
and/or private partners. All these new partnerships were spurred by
this program. It has leveraged a lot of private funds.
Community service programs in Minnesota and across the Nation have
offended hundreds of thousands of young people the opportunity to learn
while serving their communities. Community service programs have
provided important and necessary services to communities all over the
country. Programs have empowered students to improve conditions in
their own communities by encouraging them to become a part of their
community.
Service-learning programs have taught young people about the skills
of citizenships, responsibility, and democracy while teaching them
math, science, civics, English, history at the same time. Students
through these wonderful programs have had their eyes opened to new
opportunities and to diversity and multiculturalism in society. They
have taught people how to utilize community resources to improve their
lives.
In Minnesota, we have combined State funding under the Youth Works
Program and the Federal dollars in the AmeriCorps Program to create an
excellent program.
People of all ages, but especially our young people, have been
encouraged to help their communities and get involved in their
communities. We created a program that empowers people to participate,
to make changes in their communities, and a program that teaches the
skills of citizenship, responsibility and democracy.
I urge my colleagues to support the AmeriCorps Program and service
learning and support the Mikulski amendment.
Mr. President, I find the description of this program as kids trying
to find out who they are insulting. I do not even recognize the program
my colleagues are describing. In Minnesota, AmeriCorps is really an
exceptional program. It is quite a wonderful thing to see the work done
in a child care center, the work done in the environment, the work done
for senior citizens, the work done for communities, combined with a
whole lot of young people who are able then to begin to build the
resources to attend higher education. Mr. President, I would call this
a marriage. It is well worth it. It is the very best in this country.
As to deficit reduction, why do we not cut the subsidies for the oil
companies, the coal companies, the tobacco companies and the
pharmaceutical companies? Why do not we go after the military
contractors, and what do we do when there is a $245 billion tax
giveaway mainly to wealthy people? But instead, when it comes to
community services, young people and higher education, and that kind of
marriage, that is where we want to cut.
That is not a Minnesota standard of fairness, and I am proud to stand
on the floor and speak for AmeriCorps.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from
Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first I would like to compliment my
colleagues and friends from Missouri, Senator Bond and Senator
Ashcroft, for their statements, as well as Senators

[[Page S 14270]]
Santorum and Grassley. I hope our colleagues had a chance to listen to
them because they were right on target.
National service is basically paying volunteers. I find that to be a
little bit of an oxymoron--paid volunteers. We have thousands, we have
millions of volunteers who are doing great work, and they do it without
the Federal Government saying, ``Here, we are going to give you a
check.''
Many of us stated our opposition to this program at its inception
because we said it would cost enormous sums. I looked at my notes, and
I was computing, given the figures that we received from the Clinton
administration, and estimated this program would cost $22,000. I
remember debating Mr. Segal, and he said it would not cost that much;
the cost would be something like $17,000 or $18,000. According to GAO,
the cost is almost $27,000. I was talking about total cost, the cost to
the Federal Government, the cost to State and local governments, and
private.
It turns out to be, if you add the total cost, $17,000 from the
AmeriCorps; other Federal support, $3,000; State and local
contributions, governments, $4,000; and private, $1,800. So the private
supports only 7 percent.
They stated that this was going to be largely privately funded. It
has not been. It is largely Government funded at a cost of $27,000.
Mr. President, some people said, ``Well, this is good so it will help
people be educated.'' The average cost of a Pell grant is $1,300. It is
about one-eighteenth the size of this program. And that is a grant. The
average cost of a student loan is $416. That compares to this program's
average cost of $27,000. There is no comparison.
Mr. President, in my opinion, this program is a failure as an
education tool. It is a failure as a tool promoting service or
volunteers. We do not need the Federal Government to micromanage a
program. We see that all the Federal Departments--the Veterans
Department, EPA, Department of Transportation, Labor, Justice,
Interior--are receiving assistance and funds to train volunteers. We do
not need that.
And then when you find out that Big Brothers and Big Sisters and Red
Cross and Girl Scouts have been denied funds, this does not make sense.
We cannot afford this program. Let us put the scarce resources that we
have in the programs that will help thousands.
Actually, we have millions; we have 9 million students that benefited
under the guaranteed student loan program or the Pell grant program. We
can help millions in those programs, and we have been doing so. We are
wasting millions of dollars under this program. It is a time to defund
it, and I hope that this amendment by our friend from Maryland will be
defeated. I thank my colleague from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma and the
others who have spoken on this side so eloquently. I think we have had
an excellent debate.
Because we have had so many people debating on this measure, we have
used up all of the time. I would now ask unanimous consent that there
be 3 minutes for the proponent of the amendment and 3 minutes for me as
an opponent of the amendment to wrap it up, and then that I be
recognized for a tabling motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. President, we have heard I think some compelling arguments
against the AmeriCorps Program. I think in this vote it is important
for our colleagues to focus on the fact that everybody agrees this
program is vitally in need of reform. This program has to be changed.
There have been too many problems with it. Even if you accept the fact
that paying for volunteers is a good idea, I think that taking the
money from assisted housing or those who badly need assisted housing is
unwarranted. I think that raising the FHA mortgage limits is an idea
that should be left to the authorizing committees.
Serving on the authorizing committee, I can tell you that there are
many good arguments against doing that. I recognize the difficulty that
the proponents have had in finding funding for it. This was my problem
when I chose to fund CDBG rather than this program.
I urge my colleagues to join with me to table this amendment. We will
continue to discuss AmeriCorps in the conference and beyond. We are
waiting for a response from the administration.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. We have been through a lot of ups and downs already
today, and I would like to thank all the Senators for offering their
amendments.
Mr. President, I know I have 3 minutes for summing up. Let me just
say this. There is much to be said in favor of national service and
much criticism in terms I think of the need for a tighter ship. I think
we would agree with the need for a tighter ship.
Let me just say in conclusion, my life has been devoted to creating
an opportunity structure. I am absolutely committed to giving help to
those who practice self-help. My great grandmother came to this country
from Poland for a prearranged marriage with $16 and a feather bed
mattress. She came with no guarantees. She came seeking opportunities.
And she came because she believed in the United States of America there
would be access to something called the American dream. The triad of
the American dream was homeownership, access to education, and personal
freedom.
The reason that I was one of the leaders in establishing national
service was that we would have an opportunity structure for access to
the American dream.
There were those who said these are not volunteers because they earn
a voucher. They do not get paid. They get a living stipend and a
voucher.
We use the term ``volunteer'' to mean that they are not drafted or
coerced into it. Perhaps that is not the right language, but it is the
right intent.
The important part of this is that we know for most Americans their
access to higher education is closing. Student debt is increasing. What
this bill essentially does is follow the framework of a principle I
believe in, that if you are middle class the role of Government is to
try to help you stay there or do better and, if you are not middle
class, to be able to get there through hard work, effort, and merit.
That is what national service is all about. That is what its intent
is, and that is why we have been advocating this bill.
I know that we are in a very skimpy budget time; that the chairman of
this bill and I struggled over this. I know that originally as we
looked at this bill the question was, How can we fund it?
The chairman felt we needed money to go into the community
development block grant funds, and I could not fault him for that--
empowering cities to make local decisions for economic development.
Absolutely.
What we face here is not should we or should we not support national
service. We have a very skimpy budget allocation. I know that there are
those who say, ``Well, we can do Pell grants; we can do four more
housing subsidies.'' The fact is, I believe under the skimpy
allocations we are now coping with there will not be the money to do
these things. I hope we continue the support of national service.
I thank the chairman for the courtesies given to us on this and
really the civility of the debate. I hope that my colleagues will vote
to continue national service.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have seen the wisdom and I shall not offer
a tabling motion. I shall ask my colleagues to vote against this
measure.
I could not agree more strongly with the goals and the views
expressed by my ranking member about the American dream. But I do not
believe it involves AmeriCorps or paid Federal Government volunteer
service. I am very much concerned, and I think all my colleagues should
be. I hope they would vote against this amendment, even if they support
the concept of AmeriCorps, because it takes money from housing
assistance, from the elderly, the disabled, those with AIDS, and it
raises the FHA mortgage limit.
I do not believe it is the time or the amendment on which we should
move forward with AmeriCorps. I ask for the

[[Page S 14271]]
support of my colleagues in opposing this amendment.
Now, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOLE. I ask further proceedings under the quorum call be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment No. 2781 offered by the
Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski].
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 464 Leg.]

YEAS--47

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Campbell
Chafee
Cohen
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Snowe
Specter
Wellstone

NAYS--52

Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Byrd
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Frist
Gorton
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kohl
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Gramm

So the amendment (No. 2781) was rejected.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, was leader's time reserved?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has been.
Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent to use leader's time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________