[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 61 (Monday, April 3, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5049-S5066]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1158) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for additional disaster assistance and making 
     rescissions for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, 
     and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I would like to speak to the proposal 
that is before the Senate, and specifically I want to refer to a 
Reuter's news account that was issued this morning. I am going to read 
from the account. It says:

       This administration believes a strong dollar is in 
     America's interest, and we remain committed to strengthening 
     the economic fundamentals that are ultimately important to 
     maintaining a strong and stable currency.

  That quote, Mr. President, is from our Treasury Secretary, Robert 
Rubin. The story goes on, however, and says that the currency market 
did not pay any attention to our Secretary of the Treasury driving the 
dollar down to yet another record low against the Japanese yen. Since 
the start of the year, the dollar has plunged more than 13 percent 
against the yen.
  The story goes on and says that America's bulging budget--bulging 
budget--and trade deficits to its shrinking savings rate is driving the 
currency lower, and Washington--that is us--seems unable or unwilling 
to do anything about it.
  Mr. President, Chairman Greenspan recently called the falling dollar 
``unwelcome and troublesome.'' He said just recently that ``Foreign 
markets were increasingly distressed about the huge amounts of 
Washington borrowing to pay for deficit spending.''
   [[Page S5050]] The central bank chief--that is, Alan Greenspan--also 
linked last week's projection--now 2 weeks ago--of the balanced budget 
amendment by the Senate with the latest troubles facing our dollar.
  The Secretary of the Treasury has gone before the world to try to 
strengthen the dollar, and the world did not pay any attention. The 
Chairman of the Federal Reserve said our dollar has suffered from the 
failure to pass the balanced budget amendment and it is destabilizing 
our currency.
  In deference to time, Mr. President, I am not going to read from the 
seven different economists who are defining the problem with our 
currency as being directly related, as the Reuter's story acknowledged, 
to our budget deficits; more importantly, to our unwillingness to do 
anything about it, to the defeat of the balanced budget amendment and 
to spiraling trade deficits.
  Last week, in front of Emory University students in Atlanta, my home 
city and State, the President and this same Secretary tried to tell 
those students and America that we really are operating an operational 
surplus. I said at the time that was not factual and, more important, 
it was harmful because by telling the Nation we have an operational 
surplus, you are sapping the will of this country to do the things it 
needs to do.
  Mr. President, in light of these reports about the falling dollar 
today, I would like to call on the President of the United States to 
change his mind and call on the Congress to pass a balanced budget 
amendment. That is one of the strongest actions; these statements 
before the world are not having an effect. The world saw us defeat the 
balanced budget amendment. The world saw the President's budgets with 
$200 billion deficits as far as the eye can see. The world is watching 
us argue about these minimal cuts right here today. Mr. President, the 
President should call on the six Senators on the other side of the 
aisle that voted for a balanced budget amendment 1 year ago who changed 
their mind this year, who participated in what is now happening to our 
currency worldwide. And the best short-term signal we could send to 
this world about our currency is that we are going to stand up and pass 
a balanced budget amendment and send it to the States for ratification.
  The Senators from New Mexico, North Dakota, California, Kentucky, and 
South Carolina decided to vote against it this year. They voted for it 
last year. The President said he was for a balanced budget ``but.'' And 
I would suggest to you, Mr. President, that the world has taken more 
notice of the word ``but'' than any of the other things that are 
emanating from the administration such as we really have an operational 
surplus.
  For Heaven sakes. By the way, the reason they calculated that was 
they said you would not have to add in our interest on debt and then we 
would have a surplus.
  I was speaking to a group of business people today, and I said:

       You remember when you went before the loan officer and the 
     loan officer said, ``I am sorry; I can't loan you any more 
     money because of your financial statement.'' And you turned 
     to the loan officer and said, ``Well, if you just forget the 
     interest payments I am making to you, I would have a great 
     financial statement.'' You know what the reaction of that 
     loan officer would be.

  Mr. President, the world has taken note of the, ``I'm for a balanced 
budget but I am going to oppose a balanced budget amendment. I am going 
to submit budgets to the Congress and to the people with huge and 
unending deficits.'' And the quickest way we could turn this around 
would be for the President to call the leaders of this Senate and say, 
``Pass it.''
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the senior Senator from 
Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I would like to get back 
to what I believe is the business before us. Are we on the Daschle 
amendment as amended by the Dole amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, that is correct.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. It seems as if we have been at this for 
some time, and we have had some very enlightening discussions in other 
areas, but this bill, which the distinguished Senator from South Dakota 
seeks to amend, is an extremely important one. I spent some time last 
week presenting the details of this measure and talking about reasons 
why it was necessary for us to rescind budget authority and outlays for 
the coming year. Having made those points, I do not want to make them 
again. I wish to instead focus on some of the basic underlying 
assumptions in the Daschle amendment.
  You will recall that this bill as we reported it out of the 
Appropriations Committee provides in the current year and next year 
about $6.7 billion for the California disaster relief effort. The 
Daschle amendment cuts $1.3 billion out of that.
  Mr. President, I would have to say what a difference a week makes, 
because last week we heard from our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle that what we needed was an across-the-board cut in all Federal 
agencies as an emergency step in order to pay for the terrible natural 
disasters which have afflicted the country this past year. In 
particular, we heard a very compelling argument from the Senator from 
California about the tragedies in her State and the need to provide the 
money so that the residents of California would get their lives and 
communities back together. Thus, they offered an amendment to provide 
$6.7 billion in disaster funding and cut elsewhere across the board.
  Today, it appears maybe they do not need all that money. Today, just 
a few days later, the terrible California disaster described so 
eloquently is not going to require the $6.7 billion it did last week. 
Now they only require $5.4 billion. Never have I seen $1 billion saved 
quite so quickly.
  I had to ask myself why. Well, I soon discovered it is not that they 
really want to save that money. Instead they want to spend it on some 
of their and the President's favorite programs. Today, instead of 
setting the money aside to help disaster victims, they want to raid a 
rainy day fund and spend it on so-called volunteers or throw more money 
at HUD, an agency in the midst of its own financial and management 
disaster. It is no wonder that many of my colleagues agree with the 
Congressional Budget Office's analysis of what happens when a rainy day 
fund for disasters is set up. I believe we ought to set money aside, 
but there are some questions I have about setting it up.
  Let me quote from the disaster task force report which was issued 
only 3 weeks ago. I had the pleasure of serving with the distinguished 
Senator, Mr. Glenn, from Ohio as co-chair of that disaster task force. 
We brought together all of the information on disasters and asked the 
agencies--CBO, GAO, CRS--about what we might do. In that disaster task 
force report prepared by the agencies there was a very prophetic 
statement. Our report said:

       A tendency to spend accumulated funds might be a problem 
     unless the law restricted the types of disasters that would 
     qualify. Policymakers could become tempted to be more 
     generous in relieving small disasters or to raid the fund for 
     spending in other programs.

  Well, Mr. President, that kind of looks to me like what we had. Only 
3 weeks from the report and days from the discussion of the rainy day 
fund the first raid is being attempted on disaster relief.
  So let me tell my colleagues, if this is what we can expect, regular, 
systematic raids on the disaster relief fund to pay for political 
goals, then I for one, this Senator, is not going to support any sort 
of rainy day fund.
  What kind of discipline does this show to the American people, that 
just days after arguing for a $6.7 billion rainy day disaster fund, the 
same people now want to raid the fund for other purposes? How many 
families set aside funds for emergencies and then successfully resist 
the temptation to raid them? How many communities and small businesses 
set aside funds and then successfully resist the temptation to just dip 
in a little more for some reason? But not our colleagues here today. 
They view the disaster relief fund as a honey pot which lets them avoid 
tough choices of where else to cut in order to spend more on the 
programs they like.
  Instead of standing up and saying, ``We don't like your proposed 
spending cuts; here are ours to replace them,'' our friends on the 
other side of the 
[[Page S5051]] aisle, once again show their colors on spending cuts. 
They say, ``We want to spend first and worry about the deficit and the 
debt later on''.
  Again, I go back to the prophetic words of the disaster relief task 
force. In that report the agency said:

       Requiring the Congress to cut spending and other programs 
     would raise the political cost of providing disaster relief. 
     Now, increases in disaster relief increase the budget 
     deficit, which may impede economic growth over the long term. 
     But the effects on the standard of living of future 
     generations have far less direct influence on political 
     decisions than having to cut programs this year or next year.

  No wonder our debt is nearly $5 trillion. No wonder the President's 
budget thought it would be OK to leave the deficit at $200 billion a 
year for the next 5 years, adding another $1 trillion to our national 
debt. This is a debt, Mr. President, that threatens our economic 
stability.
  Our distinguished colleague from Georgia has already spoken about 
what judgment the international financial markets are passing on the 
value of the dollar. And it is because we just do not seem to be too 
concerned about adding another little $1 trillion to our national debt.
  Well, Mr. President, I think it is very serious for our economy and 
it is very serious for our children and grandchildren who are going to 
be carrying the burden of that debt on their credit card.
  Let me speak about one particular aspect of the Daschle amendment. I 
want to focus on that for, I hope, the enlightenment, perhaps, of my 
colleagues. But maybe they all know it.
  I want to focus on the proposal to restore national service funding. 
I believe this issue highlights the fundamental differences between 
those who would shrink Government and those who still believe in 
business as usual.
  The bill before us proposed a cut of $210 million to bring AmeriCorps 
and other new programs authorized by the 1993 National and Community 
Service Act back to the fiscal year 1994 level. The fiscal year 1995 
appropriation for this year was $575 million; the rescission currently 
in the bill would bring that funding level back to $365 million. The 
National Service Corporation had hoped to have 33,000 volunteers 
enrolled by the end of fiscal year 1995. The bill before us, as 
reported out of committee, would keep the number of volunteers--and I 
say ``volunteers'' in quotes--at about 20,000. I urge my colleagues to 
vote against the Daschle amendment for the additional reason because I 
do not believe the increase in funds for AmeriCorps is justified.
  The cut we have proposed is legitimate. We are not gutting the 
program, as some have suggested. The corporation actually received a 
huge increase for the current fiscal year over the fiscal year 1994 
level. They had $365 million in fiscal year 1994 for AmeriCorps grants, 
education awards, technical assistance, and related activities. They 
received $575 million in last year's appropriation for the current 
fiscal year. That is a 58-percent increase for an untested program. I 
have not seen any increase of that level in any other discretionary 
program. At a time when we are running budget deficits of hundreds of 
billions of dollars each year on top of a debt load of $4.8 trillion, 
we just cannot afford the increase.
  This rescission will not affect any programs now in operation. The 
fiscal year 1995 funds are not scheduled to be spent until the start of 
the school year in September 1995. So we will not have to stop work 
that is now going on. We are simply proposing that the amount available 
to the programs scheduled to begin this fall be the same as for those 
that began last fall.
  Under the Senate bill, none of the volunteers--or, actually, 
employees--currently serving will be affected. The program would remain 
at the same level. The corporation could still increase the number of 
those it hires and chooses to fund in State and local programs next 
year by reallocating the money provided.
  For instance, the corporation is now spending $32 million on 
innovation, demonstration and assistance activities, which includes 
training and technical assistance for AmeriCorps programs. Presumably, 
most not-for-profits that receive funds are already experienced 
themselves in training new employees and providing services. And many 
of them are working with true volunteers.
  The corporation also spent $3 million this year on planning grants. 
Now, those do not fund a single new position, but simply allow an 
organization to plan how they will use volunteers in the future. And, 
both the National Service Corporation and the State commissions spend a 
good deal of money on public relations and recruitment of volunteers--
read ``employees.'' I would argue that we can do less of that since the 
program is now well established, if it is continued, and it is well 
known.
  In addition, the corporation awarded more than $14 million to Federal 
agencies this year, nearly 10 percent of the total amount available for 
AmeriCorps grants. Why are we padding the Federal payroll with paid, 
they call them, volunteers--I call them employees--at the same time the 
administration claims it is downsizing the civil service?
  We cut it on one hand, but we call them volunteers and we spend $14 
million hiring them on the other hand. I think there is a good deal of 
room to make cuts in these areas if the corporation wants to increase 
the number of those serving in State and local programs, under the 
bill.
  I remain a great skeptic of the program. I am looking forward to 
conducting oversight hearings, which we will have in our subcommittee 
during the next few months, to determine exactly where our money is 
going. And, in particular, I am concerned about the money going to 
AmeriCorps national direct programs.
  Under the act, in 1993, there are three different ways that you can 
receive funds. One-third of the funds are available to States according 
to a population-based formula. The States then choose which programs 
receive funds. Another third of the funds are distributed to programs 
that are first selected by the States and then submitted to the 
corporation for competitive consideration. The final third of the funds 
for AmeriCorps are distributed directly to the National Service 
Corporation to programs operated by national nonprofit organizations, 
programs operating in more than one State, and to Federal agencies. I 
would like to focus the attention of my colleagues on some of these 
programs.
  I think America would be surprised to learn where fully one-third of 
the funds for AmeriCorps is actually going. I venture to guess that 
most Americans believe that money in this pot is going to help support 
the efforts of some well-established, reputable, mainstream volunteer 
organizations that we have all come to know and rely on. We would 
expect, Mr. President, the funding would go to the Red Cross, the Girl 
Scouts, Boys and Girls Clubs, Big Brothers and Big Sisters, and the 4-
H; that they would be the ones receiving funds from that source. That 
certainly was my expectation.
  Needless to say, I was surprised to learn that is not where the money 
is going. So I asked, and the Corporation for National Service provided 
me, with a list of all applicants in the ``National Direct'' program 
for 1994, as well as a list of those groups that receive funding.
  I have made a chart of some of the examples that we have found. I 
think they will be illustrative.
  All of these groups applied for ``AmeriCorps Direct'' awards for 
fiscal year 1994, as well as many other groups. This is not the 
exclusive list.
  Here is the list of who was funded and this is a partial list of 
those who were not funded. Many well-established, reputable, and 
noncontroversial voluntary organizations did not receive funds. But 
look at the list of those who did receive funds, in addition to those 
that are Federal agencies. Can you say ``politically correct''?
  Take a look at what we funded. This was our volunteer money. We are 
downsizing the civil service, cutting the Federal Government, getting 
rid of employees.
  So why is the money going to hire people in the Department of 
Agriculture, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, 
the Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, the Department of 
Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department 
of Veterans Affairs?
   [[Page S5052]] Sounds like a good way to cut the civil service. If 
you get a program, call it a ``volunteer'' program and use it to fund 
these.
  And then there are others, ACORN Housing, Legal Services Corporation, 
National Endowment for the Arts, National Community AIDS Partnership.
  These are the programs being funded by the AmeriCorps direct funding 
program.
  These are some of the ones that are not funded, and somehow it 
strikes me as passing curious that they chose not to fund the Future 
Farmers of America, the National 4-H Council, the Girl Scouts of 
America, the American Red Cross, Big Brother/Big Sisters, Boys and 
Girls Clubs, National Audubon Society, Appalachian Mountain Club, 
American Library Association, United Negro College Fund, United Way of 
America, and United Cerebral Palsy Association.
  I have had an opportunity to work with many of these fine 
organizations, and when you are talking about volunteers, this is where 
I think you need support, if you need support, to get people who are 
actually doing volunteer work.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BOND. Yes.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Are those not funded? Did they apply for grants and 
were refused?
  Mr. BOND. These are agencies all of which applied. ``Funded'' are the 
ones which were funded by the AmeriCorps direct program. The ones ``Not 
Funded'' are the ones I just read, beginning with the Future Farmers of 
America.
  Mr. SANTORUM. That is amazing.
  Mr. BOND. That is exactly my point. I do not believe that the 
priorities chosen by the National Service Corps are the priorities of 
the American people. Americans do choose where they give their time 
voluntarily. We know where people want to give and work as volunteers. 
Over 80 million Americans choose to donate unpaid time to charitable 
volunteer work each week and they choose their churches, their schools, 
their hospitals, the Red Cross, the Girl Scouts, the Big Brother/Big 
Sisters. They do not choose to donate their time to the Environmental 
Protection Agency, the Department of Transportation, or the Department 
of Labor.
  I think the American people might well be shocked to learn that these 
Federal agencies were chosen over other well-known, well-established 
and much respected volunteer organizations which were turned down.
  I am sure that if you go back to the State programs, my colleagues 
will undoubtedly show me examples of Girl Scouts and Red Cross programs 
funded through the State commissions, one of two sources of funding, 
but that is not the area of national priorities. The corporation has 
clearly chosen not to fund those groups. The further away from States 
and local communities where the volunteer work is actually being done, 
where people volunteer their time and their resources, that the 
decisionmaking occurs, that is where decisions to fund the Federal 
Departments and those agencies which carry out the politically correct 
goals happen.
  I suggest that the funding decisions of the national corporation may 
not reflect the priorities of American people. I have not examined the 
decision of the State commissions sufficiently to be able to comment on 
those. We will explore those in the VA, HUD Appropriations Subcommittee 
during our fiscal 1996 oversight hearings.
  But for the purposes of the discussion of the Daschle amendment, I 
absolutely do not believe we should restore funding for the Corporation 
for National Service. In fact, considering some of the other tough 
decisions we have made, there is room for further cuts. We are only 
bringing the program back to the 1994 level. Based on what I described, 
I believe that is overly generous.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to turn down the Daschle 
amendment. The Daschle amendment has one provision which has been 
called to our attention by Senator Inouye, the problem with funding for 
Indian housing. I have been working with Senator Inouye and his staff. 
I believe we can accommodate the needs of Senator Inouye for the Indian 
housing.
  I think we need to take special recognition of the problems which may 
arise there at a later time in the discussion of this bill when we have 
an amendment, however we work it out with Senator Inouye, who has been 
a leader on this, and Senator McCain.
  We will attempt to work out a good compromise to make sure that the 
cuts do not fall unnecessarily heavily on our native Americans. I will 
discuss the particular needs of that program. That, too, is included in 
the Daschle amendment.
  But the main point of the Daschle amendment is to cut $1.3 billion 
from what was described last week by my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle as ``critically needed, vitally important, let's-do-it-now 
emergency relief'' so we can go back and spend money on HUD, which is 
already spending too much money, on the National Service Corporation, 
the AmeriCorps direct dollars, which are keeping all those wonderful 
people employed at Federal agencies.
  Mr. President, I just do not believe we need to restore those cuts. 
So I urge my colleagues not to accept the Daschle amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the junior Senator from 
Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I want to commend the senior Senator 
from Missouri for an outstanding presentation. The juxtaposition of the 
funded agencies and the volunteer agencies is a stark and compelling 
contrast. To think that the Future Farmers of America applied and were 
turned down when the Department of Agriculture was funded; to think 
that the 4-H Council applied and was turned down while the Department 
of Energy was funded; to think that the Departments of Interior, 
Justice, and Labor were successful applicants when no ``volunteers'' 
were provided to the Girl Scouts or the American Red Cross. In my mind, 
and I think my good friend would agree, this reflects very poorly on 
the character and quality of the AmeriCorp Program.
  Mr. President, we are not talking about rescinding Federal money in a 
vacuum. I believe this entire debate must be placed in the context of 
America's financial condition. The American people are alarmed at a 
$4.8 trillion debt. Last November, they said ``It is time to stop this 
out of control spending, and put our fiscal house in order.''
  In family budgeting, what father or mother would say, ``Even though 
we are $72,000 in debt, business as usual will suffice.'' Despite our 
massive debt and rising deficits, Bill Clinton has suggested just that. 
The President has projected $200-billion-a-year deficits for as far as 
the eye can see. Mr. President, this type of unrestrained spending must 
stop.
   So, I rise today in support of the majority leader's amendment. If 
enacted, this package would significantly decrease discretionary 
spending for this fiscal year. More importantly, it would achieve that 
end by attacking non-essential government services. AmeriCorp, which I 
discussed earlier, is a perfect example. This so-called volunteer 
program, which costs $30,400 per participant per year, is not a 
volunteer program at all. It is a way of paying individuals to do 
things that people already do.
  Mr. President, out of the $30,000 used to support each volunteer in 
this program, $15,000 goes to administration and overhead costs. That 
means that this is really just a program to support the Federal 
bureaucracy. Then, when you think of the rest of the money--the $15,400 
that is left over for the volunteer after you have paid the $15,000 for 
overhead and costs--you have to understand that 20 percent of all of 
those volunteers are working in the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, 
Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency, or the National Endowment 
for the Arts.
  AmeriCorps. It sounds like you ought to stand up and salute. The 
truth is that the American people ought to stand up and grab their 
wallets because it represents a raid on their resources. And not just 
the American people, but also the yet unearned wages of generations to 
come.
  Mr. President, we hear over and over again from the Democrat party 
that we have to save the children. Well, let us save them from 
bankruptcy. Let us practice a little responsibility. The 
[[Page S5053]] Senator from California earlier today said, ``Say 
goodbye to Big Bird,'' as if we were to curtail funding for public 
broadcasting there wouldn't be any worthwhile children's programming. 
This is nonsense and the American people know it. In fact, a recent Lou 
Harris poll found that public broadcasting is third on a list of 
Federal programs that should be abolished.
  Only $7.5 million of the $300 million spent on PBS goes directly to 
children's programming. Where does the money go? It goes to purchase 
and develop programming for wealthy adults. According to one of its own 
member stations, WMET, ``one out of eight contributors to PBS is a 
millionaire. One out of seven has a wine cellar, and one out of every 
three has spent time in Europe in the last three years.'' This is not a 
social welfare program, it is welfare for the rich. Mr. President, 
these are the types of people taking advantage of PBS, and taking 
advantage of the American taxpayer. As my friend Senator Pressler 
noted, the wealthy donors to public broadcasting could easily make up 
the 14 percent of Federal funding that CPB receives if they simply gave 
an additional $55 a year.
  Mr. President, I believe we also need to look carefully at the 
foreign operations budget. The House suggested rescinding $191.6 
million. The Senate cut only $100 million. Well, I think we ought to be 
rescinding what the House proposed. The additional $91.6 million would 
bring our total Federal foreign operations reduction to 1.4 percent. If 
we are serious about balancing the budget, and if we really care about 
kids, we must at the very minimum do that.
  So, we have an opportunity to say to the American people that we 
heard the message of November 8. We understand that it is important for 
us to make serious cuts. The Senate has a $13 billion rescission 
package. The House was at $17 billion. Thus, we can add the $1.3 
billion in this amendment and still not make it to the House level.
  Mr. President, during the debate on the balanced budget amendment, 
member after member who opposed the bill talked about making tough 
choices. Furthermore, they all indicated that they were ready to move 
toward a balanced budget. Let me suggest that now is the time to begin. 
It is time because that is what the American people sent us here to do. 
Unfortunately, the President continues to takes us down a different 
road, a road of increased deficits and debt. Let this Chamber be 
different. Let this Chamber fundamentally alter the way Washington 
works. We should rescind the funds which were proposed by the committee 
and add to it what the majority leader has suggested. If we do, we will 
begin to demonstrate responsibility, and that brings me to my last 
point.
  I think what Government does is teaches. We all talk about the value 
of education. The most important lesson we can learn is the lesson of 
responsibility. Are we or are we not people who pay our bills? Do we 
live with the consequences of the decisions we make? Are we willing to 
accept responsibility for what we do? If our citizens make that kind of 
commitment, the coming era can once again be called the American 
century. Regrettably, as a Government, we have yet to make that 
commitment. Some of us are concerned that as citizens we have not made 
that kind of commitment either. Maybe our Government is not teaching 
responsibility the way it ought to. Maybe our example speaks so loudly 
to young people that they believe they are not responsible for the 
actions that they take. After all, when we continue to appropriate and 
spend, when we continue to obfuscate and mislabel, government fails in 
its obligation to the citizenry.
  Mr. President, let us instruct the young people of this Nation 
properly. Let us show them that we have the willingness to exercise the 
discipline necessary to succeed in balancing the budget. In my mind, 
this means not only having a rescission bill, but also supporting the 
majority leader's amendment. It is my sincere hope that the Senate will 
do just that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment by 
Senator Daschle, and I am doing so primarily because of my belief that 
we should not make as drastic cuts in the education accounts as the 
majority leader would have the Senate make.
  Let me put this in context, Mr. President. I know there is a lot of 
talk about, are you in favor of deficit reduction, or are you not in 
favor of deficit reduction? I honestly believe that all Members are in 
favor of deficit reduction here in the Senate. We want to find an 
appropriate way to accomplish that.
  In my opinion, the test of whether we are serious about deficit 
reduction will come in two areas. First, our willingness to curtail 
spending in a whole range of areas--not just the areas being addressed 
by this bill, but all areas-- defense, intelligence, community funding, 
agricultural subsidy funding, foreign aid funding, as well as the 
domestic accounts. Entitlements are a key part, when we are serious 
about constraining spending.
  The second area in the test of whether we are serious is whether or 
not we will reject the siren call to cut taxes. There is a major 
effort, on the other side of the Hill this week to try to go ahead and 
cut everybody's taxes, particularly the taxes of the wealthy. In my 
view, that is not a responsible action if we are serious about deficit 
reduction. It does not make any sense to give speech after speech after 
speech here in the Congress about our concern about the deficit and 
then turn around and cut taxes and reduce the revenue that the 
Government is receiving to keep that deficit from escalating. Those are 
the real issues.
  Now I want to talk for a few moments about the impact of the proposed 
rescissions on education, because I believe very strongly that not only 
should we try to maintain funding in education but wherever possible we 
should try to increase funding.
  As I travel around my State, Mr. President, and ask people in town 
hall meetings, ``What percentage of the Federal budget do you believe 
is committed to improving education?'' Some say maybe 5 percent, others 
say, maybe 10 percent, and we get into discussions over how much money 
is spent on education. I respond, ``Let me tell you, it is 1.7 percent 
of the Federal budget that is committed to improving education in this 
country.''
  That is a figure which is down substantially from what it was a 
decade ago. In 1985 we committed 2.5 percent of our Federal outlays to 
improving education. This last year, it was 1.7 percent.
  Mr. President, education is not the cause of our large Federal 
deficit. It has been taking its share of cuts all along and, in fact, 
even if the amendment of Senator Daschle is approved, there will be 
substantial cuts in education as part of this rescission bill. We are 
willing to accept that.
  There are 19 different programs that the Department of Education 
operates dealing with education. The proposed amendment of Senator 
Daschle would try to restore funding to the level we appropriated and 
authorized last year in 7 of the 19--not in all of them--but in 7 of 
the 19.
  Programs such as the title I grants which go to schools with 
disadvantaged children; the school-to-work opportunities, which help 
students to transition from school into employment; the Safe and Drug-
Free Schools Program; and the Immigrant Education Program, aimed at 
those people who are legally here in the United States legally working 
with green cards and their children need to be educated.
  The Head Start Program. Mr. President, there are many students, many 
children in my State who would like to participate in the Head Start 
Program. However, there is inadequate funding for them to do that. In 
most cases, these are children of very low-income families. I think 
that the Head Start Program is a good investment for our country. I 
think we can legitimately be for deficit reduction without cutting back 
on the funding for the Head Start Program.
  I want to urge my colleagues to think about priorities as we go about 
this cutting exercise. It does not do any good to rush ahead with cuts 
in all areas. The American people want Members of Congress to be very 
selective in the cuts that we make. The Wall Street Journal and NBC 
News did a poll recently that said that 79 percent of Americans believe 
that cutting Federal 
[[Page S5054]] spending for education takes this country in the wrong 
direction.
  That is exactly what the majority leader is proposing that we do here 
today. He is proposing that we go ahead with major cuts in the Federal 
funds for education. I think it is a shortsighted approach. I think we 
will at some stage down the road regret our action.
  This year, we are spending 1.7 percent of the Federal budget on 
education. We can continue to ratchet that down. We can get it down to 
1 percent. We can get it down below 1 percent and we will still have a 
very large Federal deficit. Mr. President, we are kidding the American 
people if we suggest to them that cutting our funds for Head Start is 
going to solve the deficit problem. It is not going to solve the 
deficit problem. We need to acknowledge that upfront and go after some 
of the areas where real money is being spent in our Federal budget. 
There are many of those areas.
  I urge my colleagues to join in some of the other proposals which 
will undoubtedly be made as we get into consideration of the budget 
resolution, which involves serious cuts in Federal spending for the 
future.
  Mr. President, it is not as easy as just saying ``Cut, cut, cut,'' 
regardless of the impact on whoever in our society, and ``Cut, cut, 
cut'' regardless of what priority is thrown out the window in the 
process. We need to be specific about where cuts make sense and where 
they do not make sense. Clearly we need to find ways to conserve 
funding and to restrain Federal spending.
  I expect by the end of this legislative session, I will have done at 
least as much as most of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support cuts in funding for a variety of Federal activities.
  However, cuts in education at this stage in our Nation's history do 
not make sense. They are not supported by the American people. Senator 
Daschle tries to restore a few of the funds that are otherwise proposed 
to be cut. I support him in that effort. I wish we could restore more. 
However, we are not able to.
  Even if the amendment of Senator Daschle is adopted, there will be 
rescissions in virtually all the programs, lesser rescissions than are 
proposed by the majority leader but rescissions still. There are 12 of 
the 19 programs that are in the Education Department which will take 
significant cuts even if the Daschle amendment is adopted.
  Mr. President, I will not belabor the point, but I do think the least 
we can do here in the U.S. Senate this evening is to try to maintain 
last year's level of funding in some of these key programs that relate 
to education. That is what Senator Daschle's amendment does. That is 
why I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I thank the Chair. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes of the remaining 20 
minutes of the majority time to the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl.
  Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Let me take a couple moments, first of all, to address some of the 
comments of my colleague from New Mexico, because I think the debate is 
fairly framed by some of the things which he had to say. It does 
demonstrate the difference in approach that we take to this matter of 
reducing the Federal spending and trying to find ways to rescind 
spending from last year which is what the Dole amendment is all about.
  The Senator from New Mexico makes a primary point that education 
funding should not be further cut. I would like to make two points with 
respect to this.
  The first is, as far as I am concerned, it is not a matter of cutting 
spending. It is a question of who does the spending. Our idea here is 
that the Federal Government should do less of the spending and that the 
families of America should get to do more of the spending.
  As a result, when we talk about a $500 tax credit for children, for 
example, what we are saying is, who would you rather have spend the 
money on your children? The Federal Government or the family who is 
responsible for their care?
  We would rather give the family the $500 per child and let them 
decide whether they are going to enroll their child in a special 
education program, buy a new computer, get some books or in whatever 
way they feel it best to spend that money for their children's 
education--to do that, rather than to assume that the Federal 
Government can put better use to that money than can the families of 
America. That is the theory for our approach to this question of 
Federal spending.
  Second, to get right to the point of the rescission package that is 
before us, the Dole amendment, says that we should add about $1.3 
billion in rescissions, in other words in cuts to the package that has 
been put before the body from the Appropriations Committee. This would 
conform, or get close to conforming, the Senate package of rescissions 
with the House package, at roughly $16 or $17 billion.
  Let us talk about how it might affect education. One of the items we 
would like to rescind more of the money on is the AmeriCorps Program 
that the Senator from Missouri was talking about a moment ago. The 
AmeriCorps program in the House rescinds, or has rescinded in it, about 
$416 million to a level of $158 million, close to $159 million, for 
next fiscal year. The Dole amendment would conform the Senate position 
to the House position. Right now, the Senate position is to only 
rescind half that money.
  How does the AmeriCorps program affect education in our country? Here 
is one way. The AmeriCorps Program spends as much money on one person, 
one so-called volunteer--who, of course, as we know is not a volunteer 
at all but is paid for work, $20,000 to $30,000 a year, $40,000 in 
Alaska--as could be spent to fund eight Pell grants for needy students 
to come to school. As we know, the Pell Grant Program is based on need; 
it goes to needy students. So we could send eight needy students to 
college for what we are spending today on one volunteer in the 
AmeriCorps Program.
  This chart makes the point. At this level here, you have the 3.9 
million young people in America who are volunteers today, not being 
paid a penny for their volunteer service, and here you have the maximum 
of 20,000 young Americans who will participate in the AmeriCorps 
Program.
  What is the cost? Bear in mind, these almost 4 million people get 
paid nothing. These are the youngsters, the youth of our country, young 
men and women, teenagers and young people who are doing volunteer work 
who are between the ages of 16 and 24, as compared to these 20,000. 
What is it costing? This makes the point about the Pell grants, as I 
said. Here are the number of people, Pell grant recipients, who could 
be funded with the money for one AmeriCorps volunteer in the State of 
Alaska.
  Incidentally, we might ask the question, why does it cost over 
$40,000 a year for an AmeriCorps volunteer in Alaska, but we will leave 
that for another day, perhaps.
  The point is, with this Alaska volunteer, if we rescinded the money 
for that AmeriCorps volunteer, we could send over 28 needy young 
Americans to college next year. That is what education is all about. So 
when some of our colleagues say we need to pay more attention to 
education, I say you bet we should, in two respects:
  First, we should not waste it on programs that really do not help the 
needy. We should put it where it does the most good. That means going 
along with our package of rescissions here with respect to AmeriCorps.
  Second, instead of talking about cutting education funding, we ought 
to talk about who actually does the funding. Who does the spending? It 
ought to be the families of America, not the U.S. Government.
  I was curious about the chart that was behind the Senator from New 
Mexico, and I gather has been used by some of the Senators on that side 
of the aisle. The whole point of the chart is who gains and who loses, 
and that is the way a lot of liberals look at the American Government. 
It is a zero sum game. We need to take from them so we will have 
something over here. It is never taught that John F. Kennedy used to 
engage in trying to expand the pie. Remember what he said, ``A rising 
tide lifts all boats.''
  His point in saying that, by the way, was we needed to have a capital 
gains cut for corporations. It does not sound like the Democratic 
rhetoric that we hear today. But this was a Democrat 
[[Page S5055]] President who understood if we are all better off we are 
all better off, and you cannot be employed if there is no employer, and 
employers need money to pay for people, to pay for their employees. So 
he understood that making everybody better off is the name of the game, 
not arguing over the size of the existing pie.
  That is what the chart that the Senator from New Mexico was standing 
next to basically tries to portray--who gains and who loses.
  Our idea is that is the politics of envy. As I said, it is a zero sum 
game. Our general point should be to reduce Federal spending generally 
so there is more left over for the American family to spend so there is 
more left over for savings and for investment, for growth in the 
American economy so that our children and grandchildren will have a 
better future.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Will the Senator from Arizona yield?
  Mr. KYL. I will be delighted to yield.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. This bill cuts $13 billion from the Federal budget. 
That is roughly 1 percent.
  If we cannot muster the fortitude to take 1 percent out of the budget 
here and now, what does it say for future deficits?
  Mr. KYL. I say to my colleague from North Carolina, that is the same 
question I had been asking all last week when various people said to 
me, ``My goodness, you are cutting something out of this and cutting 
something out of that?''
  I said, ``This is just the beginning. If you do not have the 
fortitude to do this, how are you ever going to balance the budget?''
  By the way, these were the same people who were against the balanced 
budget amendment on the basis we were elected to make the tough 
decisions. Looks like they are running for the woods now.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. What it amounts to is not only have we failed to pass 
the balanced budget amendment, we are here in deep debate over whether 
we can take 1 percent out of it. We saw, by failure to pass the 
balanced budget amendment, very clearly that the value of the dollar 
against every other industrialized currency throughout the world took a 
deep dive. The Senator from Georgia talked about it earlier. Now we are 
further reinforcing the idea throughout the financial communities of 
the world that we do not intend to reduce the budget. We are simply 
going to talk about it.
  Mr. KYL. I think the Senator from North Carolina makes an excellent 
point there.
  Mr. President, might I inquire how much time remains on this side, 
for the Senator from Missouri?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Nearly 12 minutes remain.
  Mr. KYL. Let me sum up. If the Senator from North Carolina has more 
to talk about here, that will be fine. Otherwise, let me take a minute 
to sum up because I know the Senator from Pennsylvania has something to 
say about this, as well.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I thank the Senator for allowing me to ask the 
question.
  Mr. KYL. Let us just sum it up this way, because there are a whole 
list of programs that are the subject of the rescission in the 
amendment of the Senator from Kansas, the distinguished majority 
leader.
  The majority leader's amendment--what we will be voting on tomorrow--
is to add some rescissions, some additional reductions in spending to 
programs like AmeriCorps, as we pointed out, foreign operations, the 
foreign aid program that the Senator from Missouri talked about, the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting that the Senator from Pennsylvania 
has talked about, the Internal Revenue Service--there are a whole 
variety of them. My colleague from Arizona, John McCain, had suggested 
about $337 million in cuts that the President himself requested and 
that this body has not seen fit to include in its rescissions package.
  Let me conclude with this. It is not as if we are trying to do 
something rather odd here in suggesting a little more in the way of 
rescissions. On the AmeriCorps Program that we were talking about, what 
was the vote in the House of Representatives for rescinding twice as 
much as the Senate is proposing to rescind? Was that a partisan vote? 
Democrat and Republican? The vote was on March 15, 382 to 23. This is a 
bipartisan understanding of what we need to do to get our budget 
deficit under control here. So, by a vote of 382 to 23, the House of 
Representatives voted to rescind about $416 million from AmeriCorps.
  It seems to me that the Senate could do just as well.
  So I hope that our colleagues will support the Dole substitute when 
it comes to a vote, and I appreciate the Senator from Missouri yielding 
time.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes of the time allotted 
to the majority leader's amendment to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I thank the Senator from Missouri for yielding. I would like to 
follow up on what the Senator from Arizona and others have spoken about 
with respect to this amendment by the Senator from Missouri, both the 
senior and junior Senators with respect to the AmeriCorps Program.
  I would first like to touch on the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting. We are proposing in this amendment to increase the amount 
of rescissions--in other words, to reduce the deficit--by an additional 
$1.3 billion, restore the California disaster relief funds of $1.3 
billion, and add $1.3 billion in cuts with the Dole amendment.
  The principal area that we are trying to deem the cuts, so to speak--
the biggest one--is the President's own rescissions package, which is 
$337 million of what he termed pork, special interest demonstration 
projects put in by Members of Congress, both the House and Senate. They 
are the President's own rescission. We are saying let us vote on your 
President's own rescissions, and let us reduce the deficit as he would 
like to have seen done with these rescissions.
  Another big area is the AmeriCorps Program, which is the national 
service program, which we have heard some talk about, which I will 
mention briefly.
  But the one that I think has gotten a lot of publicity which I think 
is just an amazing program that gets funded here is the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting. This is a very controversial measure. I think I 
have received more mail on attempts to cut the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting than any other single issue that has been before the U.S. 
Congress.
  That is interesting in the sense that it is only $285 million in the 
budget. I was reminded by a television station in Pennsylvania, WHYY, 
that it is only .003 percent of the national budget, so it is not 
significant. ``Why are you picking on us?'' I heard the Senator from 
New Mexico say, ``Well, education overall is only 1.7 percent of the 
budget. Why are you picking on us?'' We are not going to balance the 
budget on education. We are not going to balance the budget on the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, nor on AmeriCorps. If you keep 
going down, do you know what are going to come up with? We will not 
balance the budget because we will never get any of this stuff. We will 
never balance the budget.
  What is the answer? Let us cut the big programs. OK. Let us all line 
up here. Everybody who wants to cut Medicare, come on down the aisle. 
Come on. Come on down the aisle. There is nobody coming down the aisle. 
Nobody wants to cut Social Security? Come on. It is a big program, $200 
or $300 billion. Come on down the aisle. Where is everybody? Where is 
everybody who wants to cut Medicaid? Where is everybody that wants to 
cut national defense? Where is everybody who wants to cut the big 
programs? The Government is made up of a few big programs but lots of 
little programs. A lot of these little programs are very good programs. 
A lot of them are well-meaning programs. But, frankly, a lot of them 
need to be pared back or need to be eliminated.
  I happen to believe the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is one. 
The reason we are having so much trouble, frankly, is because of 
letters like this sent out by the president of WHYY-TV in Philadelphia, 
and as a result of numerous public broadcasting infomercials and public 
broadcasting, both on radio and television, to write your Congressman 
and Senator and 
[[Page S5056]] say, ``Do not let them take Barney and Big Bird off the 
air. Do not let them take our subsidy away. Go out there and lobby on 
our behalf,'' hiring lobbyists and people to come down here and try to 
convince us to keep the money flowing. Keep that money flowing to the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
  I have written a letter of I think three or four pages in response to 
the constituents who have asked me. It is a letter that I gave a lot of 
thought to, and I said here are all the reasons why I think the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting should be cut.
  These stations in Pennsylvania decided they are going to write a 
letter responding to my letter and lobbying and pointing out all the 
flaws in my letter.
  I ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record following my 
statement a copy of this letter and a copy of my response point by 
point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I will tell you that, while he says all these things are in fact not 
true, the fact of the matter is they are all true. Everything that I 
have in that letter is exactly right. He is providing information. I 
can go through just some of them. I suggest in my letter that there are 
many private sector sponsors who would like to be involved, and who 
could--and in fact are--supporting public broadcasting. And we could in 
fact privatize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is the 
entity by which the Federal funds flow through.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  Mr. GRAMS. I yield an additional 2 minutes from the time allotted to 
the majority leader for his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you. I thank the Senator from Missouri.
  I say you can privatize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 
which is an entity located here in Washington that the Federal dollars 
are allocated through. He responds and says that public broadcasting 
stations may not by Federal regulation be for-profit enterprises. Well, 
I did not say anything about for-profit stations beings owned by the 
private sector. What I said was that we could privatize the 
organization that provides some funding to those stations, which in 
fact we can, and which the Senator from South Dakota, Senator Pressler, 
is in the process of trying to do by statute.
  This is the bait and switch which is going on in this letter. In his 
letter he says:

       The Senator describes American public broadcasting--an 
     effort in constant threat of financial starvation, forbidden 
     to sell anything and forbidden to make a profit--as ``well-
     endowed.''

  I do say they are well endowed. I justify that by saying that 
``Barney'' and ``Sesame Street'' combined have royalties of about $2 
billion of which the Corporation for Public Broadcasting gets virtually 
nothing.
  Various other programs--I have my share of ``Shining Time Station 
Puzzles'' for my 4-year-old and my 2-year-old. I have my share of other 
things from the ``Puzzle Kids,'' whatever they are called, something 
like that. I do not know--``The Puzzle Gang.'' I have a bunch of this 
stuff--Mr. Rogers, a wonderful man from my hometown of Pittsburgh, who 
does a tremendous job for the community, does a tremendous show. But 
these assets can and should be used, instead of going to public 
broadcasting, go to the taxpayers, who go out and work darned hard for 
their dollars, to have it funneled through here to pay for the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, to pay for a lot of the other 
things.
  He mentions one other thing. He says the Senator's comments are 
ideological, that I come at it from an ``ideological standpoint.'' He 
is absolutely right. I do come at it from an ideological standpoint. My 
ideology is that the Federal Government should not be supporting these 
things, that we need to reduce the size of Government. But it certainly 
is not from the ideological standpoint that I do not agree with what is 
on there. That is irrelevant. Does the Federal Government, when we have 
limited resources, have a role of supporting broadcast television in an 
era where broadcast television is almost as much a dinosaur as the 
crank phone when we are going to cable and direct satellite 
communications? We should support public broadcast television? It is 
ridiculous. We have to move into the 21st century in the U.S. Senate 
just like public broadcasting has to move in the 21st century in 
telecommunications.
  That is what this is all about. I can tell you that we are going to 
have a battle about this. I do not know if we are going to win. I tell 
you, if we do not win, I question the sincerity of the people in this 
Chamber to really do anything about reducing the deficit. I really 
question whether we are really willing to stare at children who are 
facing 82 percent tax rates, as Paul Coverdell says, in 10 years only 
having five Federal programs left if we just do nothing. How can we 
stare those children in the face, that we say, as in the Daschle 
amendment, we care about so much? How can you care about someone and 
let them keep 18 percent of what they earn? How can you care about 
someone if you are not willing to stand up and defeat the special 
interests and do what is right for the long-term interest of the 
American children? This Daschle amendment, putting more money in 
programs today, is not the answer. Preserving the fiscal integrity of 
tomorrow is what really is going to help America's children.
  I yield the floor.
                               Exhibit 1

         Text of Senator Rick Santorum's Letter to Constituents

       Federal funds for public broadcasting are administered and 
     distributed by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). 
     The CPB makes direct grants to public television and radio 
     stations, as well as grants to the Public Broadcasting 
     Service (PBS) and national Public Radio (NPR) for program 
     projects and productions. In 1994, the CPB received $253 
     million from Congress.
       The majority of funding for public television and radio 
     does not come from the CPB, but rather from member stations, 
     educational institutions, corporations, and private citizens. 
     For example, in 1993 the CPB provided only 14.2% of the 
     industry-wide spending for public broadcasting. It is also 
     important to note that PBS and NPR are not divisions of the 
     CPB; they are private, nonprofit organizations that utilize 
     federal funds to supplement their operating budget. In 1993, 
     the CPB provided only 13.9% of the total PBS budget and 4% of 
     the total NPR budget. It is therefore not accurate to suggest 
     that ``Sesame Street'' and other popular PBS shows would be 
     forced off the air if CPB funding were reduced or eliminated.
       In this time of federal downsizing and fiscal reform, tough 
     decisions need to be made about government spending. Last 
     year Congress reduced funding for the Low-Income Home Energy 
     Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which is vital to Pennsylvania 
     senior citizens. Congress has also taken steps to close the 
     Philadelphia Naval Shipyards, which employs thousands of 
     Pennsylvania residents. With cuts of this nature taking 
     place, it is hard for me to justify the continued use of 
     federal resources to subsidize the well-endowed public 
     broadcasting industry.
       If Congress acts to scale back, privatize, or eliminate the 
     CPB, I am confident that the resulting loss of funds for 
     public television and radio will be compensated by new 
     corporate sponsorship and public support. Several major 
     corporations have already expressed interest in supporting a 
     privatized Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
       In addition, PBS, a major contributor and supporter of 
     public television, has yet to utilize its full range of 
     funding options. You may or may not be aware that commercial 
     products related to Barney, the amiable children's character 
     on PBS, grossed almost $1 billion last year. PBS receives 
     almost none of these profits because it chose not to secure 
     licensing rights for commercial products related to PBS 
     shows. PBS will also receive very little of the $800 million 
     grossed by ``Sesame Street'' products. To put it bluntly, I 
     do not think taxpayers should pay to put Barney on public TV 
     for Barney to make billions of dollars. If PBS were to secure 
     even a small percentage of these earnings through product 
     licensing, the lost share of federal funds would be easily 
     replaced, or even doubled.
       Congress has also provided other means of support or public 
     broadcasting besides direct funding through the CPB. Over 
     thirty years ago, Congress directed the Federal 
     Communications Commission (FCC) to designate specific VHF 
     television channels for educational broadcasting. This FCC 
     frequency allocation program continues to allow public 
     television and radio stations to remain exempt from the 
     sizeable fees and costs paid by private commercial stations. 
     Congress has also given non-profit status to public 
     broadcasting stations, allowing them to receive 
     [[Page S5057]] tax-deductible contributions and avoid paying 
     corporate taxes, which amounts to a federal government 
     subsidy. I continue to support these significant 
     accommodations made by Congress for public broadcasting.
       After considering the factors of private funding, 
     commercial licensing, and additional federal supports for 
     public broadcasting, I have reached the conclusion that the 
     future of public broadcasting in the United States is not 
     dependent on continued funding through the CPB. The CPB has 
     played an important role in expanding access to public 
     broadcasting and improving program quality since its 
     establishment in 1967. Now that these primary goals have been 
     achieved, I believe it may be time for Congress to evaluate 
     proposals to downsize, privatize, or discontinue this 
     organization.
       Americans have shown a strong commitment to supporting 
     public television and radio. This commitment will continue as 
     long as PBS, NPR, and their local affiliates remain committed 
     to the production and broadcasting of programs that enrich 
     the educational and cultural life of our nation.
                                                                    ____

                                               (tv 12 WHYY 91 fm),


                                       Independence Mall West,

                              Philadelphia, PA, February 21, 1995.
       Thank you for sending the copy of the letter you have 
     received from Senator Santorum. It seems clear that the 
     national conversation about public broadcasting is based more 
     on political posturing than on reasoning and fact. That 
     conversation needs to be elevated.
       The Senator suggests that ``tough decisions need to be made 
     about government spending.'' He's right, and most Americans 
     agree. Why, however, does he join those who aim so fiercely 
     at a national instrumentality that provides educational and 
     cultural services and earns the great majority of its money 
     from non-federal sources? Why does he join those who single 
     out, with great fanfare, a national educational effort that 
     accounts for only .0003 of the national budget?
       To me, the answer is that Senator Santorum writes from an 
     ideological standpoint, and his arguments are the common ones 
     in the current national discussion about public broadcasting. 
     The danger is that misinformation is too often treated as 
     fact.
       The Senator describes American public broadcasting--an 
     effort in constant threat of financial starvation, forbidden 
     to sell anything and forbidden to make a profit--as ``well-
     endowed.'' The facts are, simply and clearly, otherwise.
       The Senator suggests that ``several major corporations have 
     already expressed interest in supporting a privatized 
     Corporation for Public Broadcasting.'' This is a pretty far-
     fetched notion, since CPB is merely a funnel for federal 
     money. Does he mean that a private corporation will provide 
     the $285 million each year currently appropriated by CPB? It 
     seems unlikely. In addition, public broadcasting stations may 
     not, by federal regulation, be owned by for-profit 
     enterprises.
       He goes on to suggest that commercial products resulting 
     from the Barney series could fuel PBS, which shows a basic 
     lack of understanding concerning public broadcasting and how 
     is subsists.
       The Senator's suggestion that ``Congress directed the 
     Federal Communications Commission to designate specific VHF 
     television channels for educational broadcasting'' is 
     incorrect. The FCC's Sixth Report and Order of 1952, which 
     set aside both VHF and UHF channels for educational use, was 
     not ordered by Congress.
       He goes on to suggest that the ``non-profit status'' of 
     public broadcasting stations was ``given'' to them by 
     Congress. That is untrue. The nonprofit status was ordered by 
     the FCC, which prohibited commercials on the new stations, in 
     order to eliminate possible competition between commercial 
     and educational stations. He also claims that ``private 
     commercial stations' pay ``sizable fees and costs'' that the 
     educational stations do not. This is simply not so.
       It's important that the current conversation about public 
     broadcasting in America be elevated to a reasonable, civil 
     level, a level on which fact, opinion and fantasy can be 
     separated, a level on which ideology plays a minimal role and 
     a level on which service to Americans is the goal.
       We appreciate your continued interest.
           Sincerely,
                                       Frederick Breitenfeld, Jr.,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                       The Erroneous WHYY Letter

     From: Frederick Breitenfeld, Jr., President, WHYY, TV12, 91 
         FM, Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  WHYY/Frederick Breitenfeld, Jr.             Facts/RJS Position        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Why . . . does [RJS] joint those   My aim is fierce at deficit        
 who aim so fiercely at a national    reduction. Government spending    
 instrumentality that provides        cuts should be even handed. CPB   
 educational and cultural services    can't be excluded from deficit    
 . .''.                               reduction cuts affecting all      
                                      federal spending.                 
``Why does he join those who single  Should Congress only single out    
 out . . . a national educational     massive federal programs? Should  
 effort that accounts for only        CPB, merely because it's a small  
 .0003 of the national budget?''.     program, not contribute its share 
                                      to deficit reduction?             
``To me, the answer is that Senator  Yes? Less federal government and   
 Santorum writes from an              eliminating the deficit are the   
 ideological standpoint . .''.        ideological reasons underlying    
                                      these cuts. I believe the vast    
                                      majority of Pennsylvanians share  
                                      this view.                        
``The Senator describes American     It sounds as if Mr. Breitenfeld    
 public broadcasting--an effort in    agrees that the CPB should be able
 constant threat of financial         to reap the commercial rewards of 
 starvation, forbidden to sell        its educational ventures such as  
 anything and forbidden to make a     ``Barney'' and ``Sesame Street,'' 
 profit--as `well-endowed.'''.        all the more reason for reduced   
                                      federal funding.                  
[Regarding RJS's mention of          No. I mean there are many          
 corporate support of CPB             corporations which, through tax   
 privatization]: ``Does he mean       incentives, would readily support 
 that a private corporation will      an independent, privatized CPB.   
 provide the $285 million each year                                     
 currently appropriated to CPB?''.                                      
``He goes on to suggest that         Fact: Barney grossed almost $1     
 commercial products resulting from   billion dollars in 1994, PBS      
 the Barney series could fuel PBS,    should be allowed to reap the     
 which shows a basic lack of          reward of its product.            
 understanding concerning public                                        
 broadcasting and how it                                                
 subsists.''.                                                           
``He goes on to suggest that the     Congress passed the following:     
 `non-profit status' of public        ``There is authorized to be       
 broadcasting stations was `given'    established a non profit          
 to them by Congress. That is         corporation, to be known as the   
 untrue. The nonprofit status was     `Corporation For Public           
 ordered by the FCC . .''.            Broadcasting,' which will not be  
                                      an agency or establishment of the 
                                      United States Government.'' 47 USC
                                      395(b)                            
``He also claims that `private       Commercial stations pay taxes.     
 commercial stations' pay `sizeable   Commercial stations pay processing
 fees and costs' that the             and regulatory fees.              
 educational stations do not.''.                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Just a reminder, there are 2 minutes remaining 
of the majority leader's time.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I observe the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to reiterate why 
we believe this amendment is important.
  Fundamentally, it goes to the heart of what it is that we as 
Democrats believe we are here for: protecting working families, 
investing in children, and doing that in a meaningful way without 
reducing the overall commitment to deficit reduction one iota.
  That is really what this amendment does. It provides the kind of 
commitment we need for working families, and the commitment especially 
we need for children. But it also recognizes the need for deficit 
reduction because children and working families are directly affected 
by that as well.
  We do so by restoring some of the cuts that were made in areas that 
directly affect children in the most significant way--children 
dependent upon child care, so that working families can meet their 
obligations at the workplace; Head Start for children who depend upon a 
program that has now been in use for more than 30 years, clearly which 
has shown to be one of the most important ways with which to prepare 
children to be better students and to be more able to cope with all of 
the challenges in early life.
  We also protect young adults interested in national service. These 
young people are committing themselves to their country in a way that 
makes a significant contribution to our country through national 
service and community assistance, and at the same time to generate the 
ability to go back to college or to go to college in the first place to 
advance their education in as many ways as they can.
  We also recognize that women, infants, and children of all ages 
really depend upon adequate nutrition. If they do not have adequate 
nutrition, they really do not have the ability to ensure good health. 
If we learned anything in the debate over the last couple of years 
about health care, it is that perhaps the best investment we can make 
is an investment in preventive care. Making sure people stay healthy is 
the best way to ensure that they are not going to need expensive care 
later on.
  That is exactly what the Women, Infants and Children Program does. It 
assures adequate nutrition, adequate nutrition assures adequate good 
health, and with good health we assure the opportunities for young 
people and for women to be productive citizens in this country.
  Aid to schools, of course, is something that we have long felt is 
perhaps the single best investment this country can make. As we look at 
the real defense of this country, as we look at ways to maximize the 
security and the strength of this Nation, there is no better way to do 
it than to ensure that our schools have the resources they need to 
prepare young children to be good adults later on.
  Obviously, we have gone through some very disappointing days last 
week, in that we thought we were going to have a good debate as early 
as last Thursday on this very issue, whether we ought to be able to 
protect 1 million children who are affected by all of these programs. 
We were denied that debate. And, unfortunately, as well, the majority 
has now offered a 
[[Page S5058]] second-degree amendment that would gut this amendment 
and would further the attack on some of these programs directly 
affecting kids and families.
  So we are anxious to debate priorities as we go about the difficult 
task of balancing the budget. But I hope that we would not replace a 
vote on the priorities we place on kids and families with a vote on 
cutting the deficit further. We really ought to accomplish both things.
  We recognize the importance of deficit reduction. We recognize the 
importance of investment in children and families. That balance is 
really what we are trying to strike in the first place. We agree that 
the deficit has to be reduced. We agree that the $15.3 billion that 
bill now provides is a significant reduction and ought to be supported.
  Where we apparently disagree is whether or not we could take some of 
the funding in the out years for FEMA, funding that goes beyond what 
even the House has proposed, and use it to direct resources to people 
who are really dealing with emergencies right now.
  It is an emergency if you are a young family and cannot get child 
care. In some cases it is going to be an emergency if some of these 
schools do not get impact aid funding or some of the money that they 
are counting on in this year's budget to ensure that they meet their 
obligations later on.
  So it is really a very fundamental question of providing the delicate 
balance between addressing those concerns, the investments in the 
families of 1 million children, and investing, as well, in meaningful 
deficit reduction over the course of the next 24 months.
  We also, of course, had an opportunity to address the issue of 
billionaires who renounce their citizenship in order to avoid paying 
taxes on their fortunes. I am very pleased that the distinguished 
Senator from Massachusetts has indicated his determination to 
ultimately resolve this issue. I think the Senate will go on record one 
way or another, hopefully sooner rather than later, that that is not 
something that we support; that we recognize that, as we are trying to 
make very tough decisions about priorities and about kids and where the 
resources ought to go, to say no to child care, no to Head Start, no to 
AmeriCorps, but yes to billionaires who renounce their citizenship is 
not a set of priorities I think anybody in this Chamber is very 
comfortable with. So we want to find a way to deal with that issue, as 
well.
  I applaud the effort that others have made to talk about priorities 
as we deal with the rescission package and the offsets required for 
FEMA. I hope, as we go through this whole debate, we will be very 
cognizant of the need to ensure a proper balance between that 
investment and meaningful deficit reduction.
  We want some bipartisan cooperation here, as well. We want to ensure 
that our amendment is adequately debated, that we have a vote on this 
amendment; not one in the second degree, not on some substitute, but an 
up-or-down vote on this amendment, so we can say, without equivocation, 
these are our priorities, unaffected by whatever additional amendments 
others may want to offer.
  We want to have a clear statement of priorities and a clear statement 
of intent with regard to what our investment truly is.
  We are at a crossroads. I think that crossroads, to a certain extent, 
is going to be affected by decisions we make on this particular bill. 
We can choose to work together and find ways with which to ensure that 
Democrat concerns can be addressed as well as Republican concerns.
  But second-degree amendments used to prevent us from having an up-or-
down vote on something we hold to be very important sends the wrong 
message, I believe, about our desire to work together to accommodate 
both sides as we take up very serious legislation.
  We have legitimate amendments that reflect our thoughts about the 
direction our country should take on balancing the budget. Whether it 
is in this bill or whether it is in bills that will be taken up at a 
later date, I hope that the majority would allow votes to be cast on 
each and every one of these issues.
  We have a difference of opinion with the majority over how best to 
cut $1.3 billion. We have about $1.2 trillion to go as we balance the 
budget over the course of the next 7 years. We are not going to get 
there unless we work together.
  The approach taken by the majority on this bill so far does not bode 
well. The overwhelming majority, if not all of our colleagues, on the 
Democratic side support the amendment that we have laid down.
  Let there be no mistake. This was not done at the behest of the 
President of the United States, as has been suggested. This proposal 
was the response of our caucus. We feel compelled to stand up for 
children. We feel compelled to speak up for working families.
  If the other side moves to table our amendment and has the votes, 
there will be others offered to address the needs of working families 
by cutting other less urgent priorities. But we are willing to offer 
them in a deliberate process that can be performed expeditiously, and I 
hope the majority would respect that.
  If, on the other hand, our amendment would be agreed to, we could 
complete our work on this bill even more expeditiously. And I hope that 
remains a possibility. I hope that Republicans and Democrats could 
agree that, indeed, we must reduce the deficit, indeed we must find 
ways with which to maximize the opportunities to fund FEMA, but I think 
we would also agree that respecting the investment that we have made in 
our commitment to kids and our commitment to schools and our commitment 
to working families ought to be respected, as well.
  So, we really have a choice here, Mr. President. I hope that we could 
support both the need to ensure that the Federal Emergency Management 
Administration has the resources necessary to continue its 
extraordinary work in providing emergency assistance to communities all 
over the country, and I hope that we could also move ahead with 
meaningful deficit reduction.
  But I also hope that in addition to those two priorities, what I have 
said about our commitment to investment in kids in education could be 
at the top of the list as well.
  There have been calls on the other side of the aisle to privatize the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the majority leader's 
amendment is the first step in laying that groundwork by cutting the 
funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That is another 
issue. I hope that those of us who are opposed to taking that draconian 
approach toward public broadcasting will have the opportunity to debate 
it up or down.
  But the issue here is not public broadcasting; it is not anything 
other than what we have listed on this chart. The issue here is child 
care; it is Head Start; it is giving kids an opportunity to earn 
college access and college tuition by participating in national 
service; it is ensuring we have good preventive care; it is ensuring 
that we have the kind of investments in schools that we really need if, 
indeed, we are serious about maintaining the commitment to schools to 
maximize their educational opportunities to the children who walk in 
the doors each and every day.
  So those really are the issues here, Mr. President. We hope that 
people understand the need to restore the child care opportunities for 
5,000 children, as we have listed. It tells working families that we 
want them to continue to work and to generate all the income their 
talents will allow and we are going to assist them in their child care 
needs. Without child care, many low-income parents may find themselves 
on welfare. Our amendment will enable those parents to continue work.
  We had an opportunity just last week to meet a couple who 
participated in a news conference with us on minimum wage. It was a 
couple from Pennsylvania who had been on welfare who came to the 
conclusion less than a year ago that they were not going to allow 
themselves to be dependent anymore, who decided they were going to go 
out and find jobs, and find the kinds of opportunities in the private 
sector we have been admonishing them to go out and find.
  Unfortunately, all they could find were minimum-wage jobs or 
something slightly above minimum wage. I think, in one case, one of the 
jobs they had paid $5 an hour rather than $4.25. They did not have 
health insurance. They 
[[Page S5059]] have two children. The children get sick from time to 
time. They have no way with which to address their children's illness. 
They try to keep their health care bills low, but they said, ``It was 
so much easier when we were on welfare. We had Medicaid. We could go 
into the hospital and we knew at least we had minimal coverage. We had 
income that was almost as good as what we have right now, and we did 
not have to worry about child care.''
  That is exactly the dilemma a lot of young families are facing. They 
do not want to be on welfare. They want to find alternatives. What we 
are trying to tell them is if you go out and do the right thing, we are 
going to reward work. We want to reward work by making sure that your 
income at the end of a hard-working week is not going to relegate you 
to poverty, even though you may be struggling.
  We know that you have to go out and find perhaps a second job, and we 
are willing to accept that. But if you go out and make sure you do what 
we expect you to do, that is, not rely upon welfare to meet your needs, 
we want to the extent we can help you with meaningful child care, and 
with meaningful pay for the work that you do each and every day. We 
want to send you the message that we are glad that you made the 
decision not to be on welfare and that you are going to continue to be 
productive citizens within your community by working at jobs that we 
hope will begin paying more.
  But that is really the issue here with regard to taking care of their 
children, with regard to educating their children, with regard to 
providing them with adequate nutrition, with regard to ensuring that 
once their children go to school that they have the necessary resources 
to be taught and to be as competitive in the United States as they need 
to be, given the competition in other countries.
  So, Mr. President, that is really what our message is. We want to 
make work pay. We want to make work pay by providing meaningful 
opportunities for children who may need child care support. We want to 
provide meaningful opportunities for children who are beneficiaries of 
the Head Start Program. And we also, as I said, want to help 36,000 
young people who will benefit from national service by the continuation 
of a program that, in our view, has worked exceedingly well in the very 
short period of time that we have seen it in operation.
  If our amendment is not adopted, a promise will be broken to tens of 
thousands of young Americans, the communities they serve, and the 
charitable groups they help. These organizations and communities have 
now been told we are going to have this program there; it is going to 
work; you can count on people assisting you as you go through the 
difficult decisions you have to with regard to how you are going to 
cope with your budget and how you are going to address many of the 
operational challenges that you face every day.
  This program is really a partnership, a partnership with communities, 
a partnership with organizations, a partnership with young people who 
recognize that when there is an expectation that assistance can be 
provided for college that, indeed, the reciprocal responsibility is to 
ensure that those children and those young people understand that there 
is a commitment required of them, as well.
  So national service is something I hope is around for a long period 
of time, a program that I believe deserves our full support. Simply to 
eliminate it, to forget its success already, would be very 
shortsighted, indeed. In fact, I hope that Republicans can join us, as 
they have in the past, in recognizing just what a tremendous 
opportunity it is for a lot of young people.
  So, Mr. President, I think the message is very clear; it is pretty 
simple. The message is simply that we want to do what everybody here 
says we ought to do, and that is reduce the deficit to the extent that 
we can; provide the funds necessary to ensure that the Federal 
Emergency Management Administration is given the adequate funds 
necessary to continue in their role; but then, third, we also recognize 
the very delicate balance that we have in providing the investment that 
we need to provide in ensuring the continuity of a lot of the services 
that we now provide schools, children, and working families.
  So I hope that as we make our decision about this amendment, we 
understand that there is a need to maintain that balance; we understand 
that it sends exactly the wrong message to say no, we are going to have 
to cut child care, Head Start, cut funding for something as valuable as 
national service, but somehow we are going to protect those expatriates 
who renounce their citizenship in order to save tax dollars. We should 
not say that we are going to protect the billionaires, but we are not 
going to protect the children.
  I know that there are many people in this Chamber who would support 
that notion, but I think it sends the wrong message if we are on record 
as willing to allow the billionaire expatriates to avoid paying taxes 
and yet vote to cut successful children's programs as dramatically as 
this.
  So I hope, Mr. President, we can be cognizant of the message our vote 
on this amendment will send. We want to ensure that deficit reduction, 
that FEMA funding, and that investments in kids and working families 
are all protected. This amendment does that. It does that by restoring 
some of the balance that was lost, especially in the House, restored in 
part in the Senate Appropriations Committee, and now can be restored 
almost in its entirety by voting in favor of the amendment we are 
offering now.
  We will have more to say about it certainly tomorrow morning and in 
the coming debate over perhaps the course of the next day or so. I hope 
we can convince our Republican colleagues that this is an amendment 
worthy of their support.
  I would like to see a strong bipartisan message that Republicans and 
Democrats support the commitment we have made to kids, the commitment 
we have made to working families. I certainly hope that before the end 
of this debate, Republicans and Democrats can demonstrate that support 
and vote in favor of this amendment.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 40 minutes 
to be equally divided on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, can the 
President inform the Senate as to what the current unanimous-consent 
agreement allows with regard to remaining time on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are nearly 26 minutes left under the 
unanimous-consent order on this debate.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I ask the Senator from Iowa whether it is his intent to 
seek 40 minutes in addition to that 26 minutes? I have not yielded back 
the 26 minutes, so I want to protect that in case other Senators may be 
interested in coming to the floor to speak on the amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. My request would be in addition to the 26 minutes.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong support of the committee's 
actions regarding AmeriCorps. I particularly want to commend Senator 
Bond for his work in this area. But I also have had an opportunity to 
hear Senators Kyl, Ashcroft, Santorum and Faircloth speak very 
eloquently on the very same subject. I compliment them for their fine 
remarks.
  I know that Senator Bond has been closely reviewing the AmeriCorps 
Program and has found, as I have, that there are many unanswered 
questions concerning AmeriCorps, and further increases at this time do 
not seem to be advisable.
  I have been looking closely at AmeriCorps since last July when I 
began a series of letters requesting information and data about 
AmeriCorps. Unfortunately, I did not receive answers to many of the 
questions that I asked, or the information I received was either 
misleading or incomplete.
  Recently, AmeriCorps has promised me access to much of the data that 
I requested, and I hope this reflects a genuine change of attitude and 
a willingness to cooperate.
   [[Page S5060]] However, even from the information that I have been 
provided, there are many reasons to question the merits of this 
program. Let me first focus on the cost of the program, because in 
reviewing the actual AmeriCorps grant awards, we have found program 
after program where costs are $30,000 to $40,000 per AmeriCorps worker.
  For example, the organization ACORN recently received a grant of over 
$1 million from AmeriCorps. ACORN also receives funds from Fannie Mae 
as well. This program is for 42 AmeriCorps workers, and the cost per 
worker of over $41,000.
  In comparison we could help 20 young people go to college through the 
use of Pell grants with that same amount of money. Let me add that the 
costs of the ACORN program do not include the significant Federal 
overhead, nor the fact that many AmeriCorps workers drop out of the 
program. Thus, the cost per successful worker, which ought to be the 
true cost measurement of this program, would be significantly higher 
than $41,000.
  As I mentioned, the cost of $41,000 per worker is by no means out of 
the ordinary for AmeriCorps. Legal Services Corporation received almost 
$1 million from AmeriCorps with the cost per AmeriCorps worker of over 
$48,000. Recently, AmeriCorps finally admitted that in one grant to a 
Los Angeles school district the taxpayers were paying a consultant $50 
an hour--that is an hour, Mr. President.
  We are being told that AmeriCorps is beneficial. I do not know what 
benefit the taxpayers are getting by having somebody on an hourly wage 
earning the equivalent of over $100,000 per year. This is outrageous 
and, of course, it gives other boondoggles a bad name.
  Mr. President, let me compare AmeriCorps workers with the Boy Scouts, 
for instance--a well-known group of people who are out doing good every 
day. They do not receive any money from AmeriCorps. In fact, they were 
turned down for funding by AmeriCorps so that funding could be provided 
to such traditional volunteer groups as the EPA and the Department of 
Agriculture.
  The Boy Scouts have over 5.3 million young people and adults 
performing volunteer work and helping in their communities. According 
to the Boy Scouts' 1993 annual report, for the National Capital Area 
Council, their total expenses were $4.8 million, for over 50,000 
Scouts, that is $95 per Scout per year.
  Well, that sounds about right, does it not? The Federal Government 
pays someone $50 an hour for 750 hours of work for a total of $37,500 
to consult about volunteering. And the private sector can give you 
almost 400 actual volunteers with the same amount of money without a 
dime of cost to the taxpayers. Let me say that these Scouts are doing 
just great work. For example, last November, 40,000 Scouts in the DC 
area distributed 1 million bags to doorsteps of homes in their 
communities to help a food collection effort. The next week the Scouts 
returned to collect the filled bags and to bring them to a central 
distribution center, which was distributing the bags then to the needy 
during the holiday season.
  I want to now clarify a few points regarding AmeriCorps. First, 
AmeriCorps workers are spending a significant amount of their time 
doing work other than helping their communities. For example, under 
AmeriCorps' own regulations published in the Federal Register, 
AmeriCorps workers can spend taxpayers' money studying for the GED. I 
do think that it is fine and good that young people are taking time to 
study for the GED. However, it is questionable whether our taxpayers' 
money should pay some young people to study for the GED, when hundreds 
of thousands study for it without receiving a single dollar from the 
taxpayers.
  The second point I want to make, in summary, is that AmeriCorps was 
presented to Congress as a way to help young people pay for college. 
Yet, according to AmeriCorps' own admission, at least a fifth of the 
workers have not attended college and probably will not attend college. 
They are not receiving an educational award. They are instead getting 
cash awards, as was revealed by NBC news very recently. For many, this 
is just another Government jobs program.
  Mr. President, AmeriCorps is a program with costs that are far 
exceeding the estimates provided by the administration. It is a program 
that may not be managing the taxpayers' money properly. In many 
respects, it is a questionable use of taxpayer funds. Since we could 
certainly stretch these dollars a lot further in programs such as Pell 
grants.
  Finally, AmeriCorps is a proposal that is duplicating, at enormous 
expense, services that are being provided by the private sector. I, 
like Senator Bond and so many others, am a skeptic of this program. I 
am holding off final judgment until I receive the information promised 
me by AmeriCorps and by the results of the General Accounting Office 
report that is reviewing the cost of the AmeriCorps Program. Once the 
data is in, the program may need reinvention. Certainly, we can 
accomplish the goals of this program without awarding grants with costs 
of $40,000-plus per worker.
  To increase funding for AmeriCorps at this time, with so little known 
and with so many problems that are known, is not in the best interest 
of the taxpayers. We need to proceed cautiously with this program until 
all of the data is in.
  So I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against any efforts to 
increase funding for this program.
  I yield the floor and yield back any of my unused time.
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SANTORUM. How much time is remaining on the Republican side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Just over 12 minutes remain in the debate.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I want to continue the discussion on the 
Dole amendment which, again, provides an additional cut in spending of 
$1.3 billion for this fiscal year, the year we are in right now. It 
would supersede the Daschle amendment that would put back another $1.3 
billion in spending, and it leaves in place the $1.3 billion that was 
going to be taken away from the original purpose of this bill, which 
was a disaster relief fund.
  So $1.3 billion is scheduled to go to California under this bill. 
Again, the reason for this bill even being here is because of the 
earthquake disaster in California.
  The amendment of the Democratic leader takes $1.3 billion, takes that 
away, and replaces it with a whole bunch of other programs.
  What we do is leave the money there, take his programs away and, in 
fact, reduces the deficit by $1.3 billion more.
  We think that is the general direction that we should try to reduce 
the deficit and programs that we believe merit further scrutiny and 
reduction without being disruptive here in the middle of a fiscal year.
  One of the programs, as the Senator from Iowa just very articulately 
said, is the AmeriCorps Program. This is the one area where not only is 
there a contention whether we should cut it, but where the Democratic 
leader wants to increase funding for AmeriCorps from the current bill, 
and the majority leader wants to decrease funding from the bill.
  It is the one area we have in common on the two amendments, but we 
are going in opposite directions. I think it is appropriate, because it 
probably represents the best discussion of the differences between the 
direction of the two parties when it comes to the role of Government in 
providing services to individuals, and, really, the concept of what 
Government should do and what can be left to the private sector.
  Interestingly enough, we have a program such as the AmeriCorps 
Program which hires Corps volunteers. Most people say, if you hire 
someone, they are no longer a volunteer.
  That is somehow lost on the people who created the AmeriCorps 
Program, because hiring a volunteer is, in fact, part of the 
vernacular. They hire volunteers in the AmeriCorps.
  What do the volunteers get paid? We heard the number around here, I 
will give you a number, from Wisconsin, which is put together by 
Representative Tom Petri from Wisconsin. That AmeriCorps volunteer, the 
one who was, in fact, mentioned by President Clinton, I guess it is 
Kentucky, a woman who was mentioned by President Clinton in his speech 
on the state 
[[Page S5061]] of the Union, who teaches second-graders to read in 
rural Kentucky, a compelling story that the President used during his 
State of the Union Address. This person gets paid $9,000--not a lot of 
money--but $9,000 in stipend pay. In addition, she gets a voucher to 
pay for her higher education of a little over $5,000; she gets roughly 
$8,000 in child care benefit paid to by the Government under this 
program; she gets Medicaid coverage which is $4,000 for her family of 
five; because most of her benefits are tax free she qualifies for 
another $3,200 in earned income tax credits, making this job that she 
has equivalent to a job that pays $34,000 in the private sector. Now, 
that is a lot for a volunteer.
  I happen to agree with what the President of the Ohio-West Virginia 
YMCA said:

       The national service movement is about institutionalizing 
     Federal funding for national and community service. It is 
     about changing the language and the understanding of service 
     to eliminate the words ``volunteer'' and ``community 
     service'' and in their place implant the idea that service is 
     something paid for by the Government.

  That was someone from the YMCA.
  This is dangerous program. People say, wow, dangerous program. Is 
that not extreme? How can this program be dangerous? This is dangerous 
to the whole philosophy of who America is, what we are all about.
  Are we a country that is a great country because we have great 
Government employees? I would think that the people around the world 
look at America and they say we are a great country, but probably not 
anywhere in their top 50 of their reasons is that we have great 
bureaucrats, that is the reason America is a great country.
  I can guarantee on the top 10 of any list is that America has a great 
spirit of community and helping your neighbor and voluntarism. As de 
Tocqueville said, ``America is great because it is good. When it ceases 
being good, it will no longer be great.''
  Paying volunteers decreases our goodness. It is not the American 
spirit. It is not reaching out to help your neighbor just because they 
are neighbors, not because you get paid for it.
  Do not tell me all these compassionate stories of how these people 
are so wonderful because they are helping. They are wonderful. It is 
great to help. But they are no different than the insurance agent who 
helps someone who comes and has their car wrecked and comes and helps 
then. It is their job. It is a wonderful job. It is an important job. 
It is necessary for the insurance person who helps. But do not raise 
this to some elevated standard of national and community service when, 
in fact, it is paid bureaucrat.
  I have a suggestion. I happen to agree that there is a lot of work 
out there that can and should be done by folks in the genre of the 
AmeriCorps Program. We have a solution for that. It targets the people 
who need the jobs. It targets the people that need the training, who 
need the work experience.
  I heard the Democratic leader say ``all these young people in 
AmeriCorps.'' Again, talk to the facts. You can be 60 years of age and 
be in AmeriCorps. It is not focused at young people. You can be a 
multimillionaire and you can be in AmeriCorps. There is no age other 
than up to 60, and there is no income qualifications.
  Now, I can tell Members that we have a pool of people who desperately 
need help, who desperately want to work to feel that they can give 
back. The community needs them as much as they need the community. It 
is people on public assistance. People on welfare.
  We create a program as we do in the Republican welfare reform bill 
that puts people needing job skills, training, and just some success in 
their life, give them the opportunity to go out and work that job. Why 
not give them the chance? Why give some rich doctor's kid $34,000 a 
year to go to school?
  That is not what this program should be about. That is not a program, 
I do not think, this body wants to defend. It sounds so grand and it 
sounds so wonderful when they talk about how wonderful voluntarism is, 
but, folks, look at the facts.
  As well-meaning as this program is, this is a program that is another 
social experiment based in Washington that is destructive of our nature 
and our character as Americans. We should end it. Quickly, decisively, 
and hopefully, tomorrow.
  I reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on behalf of the minority leader, I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. President, as has been mentioned during the course of the debate 
on the Daschle amendment, part of the Daschle amendment applies to 
restoration of some $210 million for the AmeriCorps Program. This 
program has been addressed earlier, in the course of the afternoon, and 
I will take a few moments to comment upon it.
  First of all, Mr. President, I welcome the opportunity to hear from 
my colleagues who talk about how even a stipend which effectively is 
the minimum wage should not be available for individuals who want to 
volunteer in their community.
  There are many in this institution who would evidently like to 
preserve voluntarism just for the very wealthy individuals in our 
country. There are a lot of needy kids, a lot of poor people, who have 
a sense of idealism and a commitment to service, and who would like to 
be able to take the time that others who have the financial resources 
can take in order to volunteer and to do good works.
  The AmeriCorps concept is to give people an opportunity to work in 
their communities. It does provide a stipend which is basically the 
minimum wage. It does provide an award at the end of service to 
encourage people to go back to school, or to go to school. These are 
people who otherwise probably would not be able to afford it.
  The educational award is about $4,700. We basically took what was 
going to be an average cost for tuition in State universities across 
the country. Most of those State universities' costs have gone up. But 
it is still a good start. So AmeriCorps lets young people go there--it 
combines service and education.
  I am so interested to hear some people say that some of these 
programs are not going well. Talk to your Governors. This is a State 
and local responsibility, not a Federal program. Ask your Governors how 
it is working. I know that in Massachusetts, the participants do a 
superb job.
  There are outstanding business men and women. There are local 
community leaders and activists--all of whom are involved in the 
shaping and the fashioning of the program.
  If there are some programs that are not working, I am sure Eli Segal 
wants to know about them. We will get busy trying to do something about 
them. But the fact of the matter is, this is not a Federal program 
controlled from the top down. This is a program that is developed and 
run in local communities, with local support and initiative.
  I would like to mention a recent study which surveyed what 1,654 
AmeriCorps workers accomplished in 5 months. These 1,654 workers are 
only 8 percent of the 20,000 total AmeriCorps participants.
  These 1,654 people taught and tutored 15,480 children from preschool 
to junior high school. These children had no other opportunity to get 
this kind of additional educational help and assistance.
  These 1,654 people established afterschool programs for 4,650 
children. Those are children of working-class and working families, 
children who probably would have been left unattended if they had not 
been involved in those afterschool programs. The AmeriCorps 
participants work under supervision to develop tutorial programs and 
other effective programs.
  These 1,654 people organized community service projects for 4,400 
children.
  These 1,654 people escorted some 8,500 children in schools through 
safe corridors. We can say, what does that really mean? The fact is, if 
you get children who live in difficult areas with high crime rates, the 
AmeriCorps people work out a system so the children can go safely to 
the school and return to school. Maybe it is difficult for us to 
understand what is happening out there in many of the urban areas--in 
the inner cities. But you have thousands of children who are so 
intimidated that they will not go to school. The AmeriCorps members 
have developed programs that have the broad support of the children and 
the parents, programs that permit the children to go to school through 
safe corridors.
   [[Page S5062]] These 1,654 people have been doing work with gangs to 
reduce gang violence, as well as work with victims of domestic violence 
and other troubled teenagers.
  The list goes on--a number of immunization programs as well. I will 
include in the Record a list of the accomplishments--these are all 
accomplishments of only 1,654 volunteers, or 8 percent of the total, 
and these were randomly selected.
  I should also mention the work that has been done in southern Texas 
on immunization programs. There are thousands and thousands of children 
today who are immunized, and without that program they would not have 
been immunized.
  A study recently released of the first 5 months of the AmeriCorps 
program surveyed 52 program sites--or about 8 percent of the total 
sites. 1,654 participants--out of a total of 20,000--were working at 
these sites. Here is a sample of what they accomplished.
  On education, the 1,654 AmeriCorps members worked largely in poor 
urban and rural areas;
  They taught and tutored 9,068 pre-school, elementary school, and 
junior high school students in basic educational skills;
  They developed or ran enriched learning programs such as computer-
based instruction, scientific experimentation, and peer tutoring for 
6,414 children;
  They established after-school and vacation programs for 4,656 
children;
  They organized community service projects for 4,469 children;
  They provided literacy or employment training for 694 adults; and
  They provided intensive educational support--including regular 
counseling--to 30 troubled teenagers living in group homes and 22 
homeless preschoolers.
  On public safety, the 1,654 AmeriCorps members worked to reduce 
violence in families, in schools, and on the streets;
  They escorted 8,500 children to school through safe corridors;
  They started 258 neighborhood safety programs and patroled 250 vacant 
buildings;
  They resolved 414 school conflicts that might otherwise have ended in 
violence, and taught conflict resolution to 8,119 children;
  They counseled 1,350 potential or actual gang members and taught 
alternatives to violence;
  They answered crisis hotlines and made referrals for 878 victims of 
sexual and domestic violence, and provided counseling for 470 such 
victims; and
  They counseled 1,180 teenagers about alcohol and drug abuse.
  On health, the 1,654 AmeriCorps members provided medical services and 
information to low-income families;
  They trained 1,144 inner-city residents in CPR;
  They provided emergency medical services to over 1,500 people;
  They screened 1,100 low-income children for lead toxicity and other 
health risks;
  They distributed 150 car seats to low-income families, and immunized 
158 people;
  They provided health counseling and transportation to 220 low-income 
families and over 5,000 individuals, and provided health information to 
over 4,500 individuals; and
  They conducted workshops and distributed information on AIDS and 
tuberculosis to over 7,000 people, and conducted 301 HIV tests and 
counseled patients on the results.
  On meeting basic needs, the 1,654 AmeriCorps members provided food, 
shelter, and support for senior citizens, low-income families, and 
homeless people;
  They helped 123 elderly persons, 50 visually impaired adults, and 9 
visually impaired children to live independently;
  They organized weekly social activities for 400 nursing home 
residents;
  They built wheelchair ramps at five low-income homes, four public 
buildings, and three parks;
  They trained and supervised 58 volunteers and then repaired the homes 
of 256 senior citizens;
  They renovated 238 inner-city housing units and 99 rural homes, and 
are working on the renovation of 121 more;
  They refurbished 2 homeless shelters and began to renovate a home for 
senior citizens, a home for battered women, and a home for the formerly 
homeless;
  They distributed food to more than 16,625 low-income people and 
packed 7,000 dinners and 32,000 breakfasts for the hungry;
  They found shelter for 400 homeless families, and they sorted and 
distributed clothes to 350 homeless individuals;
  They secured hospice housing for 27 people with AIDS and helped 
weekly to feed 1,250 people who are HIV-positive;
  They provided housing information to over 500 low-income and homeless 
families; and
  They found donated furniture, repaired it, and delivered it to 300 
newly housed families;
  On environmental and neighborhood restoration, the 1,654 AmeriCorps 
members responded to emergencies, restored the natural environment, and 
improved urban neighborhoods and parks;
  They inspected and repaired 87 small dams, protecting 200 farms;
  They provided disaster recovery assistance to 350 small land owners 
recovering from a flood, including advice on floodplain management;
  They fought 2 major forest fires, saved 1 national park road from 
washing out, and joined 5 search and rescue efforts;
  They planted 212,500 trees;
  They restored 320 acres of wild land and 27 miles of riverbed and 
stream banks;
  They removed 2,000 pounds of trash from an urban river;
  They surveyed 5,700 acres of National Forest land and monitored 
reforestation efforts;
  They built, restored, or maintained 311 campsites, 88 miles of 
trails, and 17 bridges, 4 beaches, and 3 duck blinds;
  They converted 29 overgrown lots into green space, built 7 community 
gardens, and planted trees along 30 city blocks;
  They created 4 playgrounds and restored, repaired, or maintained 19 
historical landmarks;
  They distributed 1,375 water-conserving toilets and 1,700 water-
conserving showerheads in low-income neighborhoods; and
  They renovated 11 community buildings, including an inner-city 
medical clinic, community centers, and public schools.
  This is only a small sample of what community service participants 
have done. These examples are from a survey of 52 randomly selected 
AmeriCorps sites between September 1994 and January 1995. In 5 months, 
just 1,654 participants accomplished all this.
  In all, there are 20,000 AmeriCorps participants in the field this 
year--and they will work for at least 9 months. They are doing 
important work--work that makes their communities and the Nation a 
better place.
  In addition, hundreds of thousands of children are learning about 
community service through their schools with the help of grants from 
the ``Learn and Serve'' part of the Federal legislation. These children 
are learning the ideal of service, and they will keep it all their 
lives.
  They are also getting things done in their communities. In 
Springfield, MA, Putnam Vocational High School had the highest dropout 
rate in the district. It received an $1,800 grant through the ``Learn 
and Serve'' part of the program, and a group of students built a health 
facility for the school and the community.
 The students did the carpentry, electrical wiring, and construction 
work as part of their vocational courses. The result is a new health 
clinic that includes four examining rooms, two counseling rooms, a lab, 
and an auditorium for health education classes.

  Is this the kind of initiative Republicans want to stop?
  To my colleagues who say that we need to be spending our tax dollars 
wisely, I ask, isn't it wise to give young people the opportunity to 
tutor young children, build low-income housing, and work to prevent 
gangs?
  We must not let partisan politics derail this important initiative. 
If you want to know whether community service is a good investment, ask 
the 20,000 Americans who are participating in full-time service though 
AmeriCorps or the more than 300,000 students from kindergarten through 
college who are doing service that is integrated into 
[[Page S5063]] their academic studies through ``Learn and Serve.''
  Even more important, ask the people whose lives they have touched. 
Ask the homeless preschoolers who received counseling and education. 
Ask the chidden who can go to school with less fear of being shot. Ask 
the senior citizens who received support and home repairs. Ask the low-
income families who received hot meals or new homes. Ask the small 
farmers whose land was protected from floods. Ask the parents who lived 
next door to the polluted river.
  I do not know where the opposition to this program is coming from. 
With all the problems we have in this country, we are trying to give an 
opportunity to some 20,000 young Americans who want to do something for 
their communities. I can't believe the hours that are being taken to 
try and demolish that program. Surely we have other needs in our Nation 
and better things to do than trying to dismantle the voluntary service 
programs in this country.
  Yet, Mr. President, it seems that there are those who want to do 
this. I think it is appropriate that we have a chance to debate this 
issue.
  I want to just mention some of the businesses that are involved in 
partnerships with the nonprofit organizations that develop and sponsor 
the AmeriCorps programs.
  In my own State, Timberland is a well-known and enormously successful 
corporation. It helps pay for participants' uniforms, sponsors 
individual teams of young people, provides employment opportunities for 
City Year graduates, and runs a national marketing campaign to benefit 
the program.
  Timberland invested some $5 million to be used over the next 5 years 
to help City Year expand in new communities across the Nation. They 
know that this is not just some program that is not worth its salt. 
They are not in there to just throw $5 million around--throw $5 million 
away. This is one of the really outstanding companies that has decided 
that City Year is a good, valuable program, and they are down there, 
working with these young people and helping to develop, on the basis of 
success in Boston, this program in other cities around the country.
  The Bank of Boston is also allied with the City Year Program in 
Boston. The bank director, Ira Jackson, told the Boston Herald last 
week, ``Our commitment to City Year has been the most successful 
philanthropic investment this institution has made in its 208-year 
history.''
  This is the Bank of Boston, and its association with the City Year 
Program is their best philanthropic investment in 208 years.
  J.P. Morgan supports a program called AmeriCorps Leaders which places 
experienced graduates of community service programs in new programs to 
help them get started.
  IBM helped develop an AmeriCorps program called Project First that 
aims to improve students' technology skills. Community service 
participants serve alongside retired IBM retirees in public schools to 
help bring the new technologies into the classrooms and integrate 
computers into the curriculum. In Boston, for example, they might work 
with children and with computers in the many schools that do not have a 
great range of electronics. They work with them, tie them into graduate 
students--for example, over at MIT or other technical institutes--to 
help those children work, to help them figure out their homework, to 
give them additional assistance with school. It is a very creative, 
imaginative program that is already paying off significantly with 
enhanced academic achievements and accomplishments. It is also an 
enormous source of satisfaction for the volunteers.
  General Electric, in partnership with the United Way, has invested 
some $250,000 in national community service.
  These corporations I am mentioning, if they had listened this 
afternoon to the critics of these programs, they would not have 
understood what they were hearing. They would not have recognized the 
program that these critics were describing. They would have wondered 
what they are doing with their dough. These are major American 
companies and corporations that generally get value for every dollar 
that they spend. They have been enthusiastic about investing money in 
national and community service programs.
  This is a partnership program. These programs are developed in local 
communities, with the help of businesses and nonprofit organizations, 
and then they are approved at State level.
  Mr. SANTORUM assumed the chair.
  Mr. KENNEDY. You know, this has been a modest program. We agreed to 
phase it in over 3 years--$300 million, $500 million, $700 million. We 
are not saying this program will answer all the problems facing us. But 
certainly, we as a country ought to be able to challenge our young 
people to give something back to the community in return for all it has 
given to them. That is basically what this program is about. We are 
saying, ``Look, during the period of the 1980's and early 1990's, we 
did not provide a lot of opportunities for young people who wanted to 
be a part of the process and be involved in the community.''
  Sure, voluntarism is a time-honored tradition and of significant 
value. Sure, it is taking place. Sure, there are a lot of young people 
in this country who do not need this kind of stipend and do not need 
this support. But I do think that, when you review these programs, you 
will find--I know in my own State, with which I am more familiar than 
with other parts of the country, although I have met AmeriCorps workers 
from all over--you will find that the participants are outstanding.
  Maybe some of my colleagues who have been the most critical have 
spent a good deal of time in their States and in their local 
communities visiting these programs and talking with the participants. 
Maybe they have. I see my friend and colleague, the Presiding Officer 
now, from Pennsylvania. I should tell him that I have heard good 
witnesses from Philadelphia who talked about this program. Pennsylvania 
has been an important leader in developing these programs, both in 
cities and in rural areas. We have had inspirational testimony about 
the difference that this program has made in those young people's 
lives.
  I think we ought to be able to reach out to young people across this 
country who are trying to make a difference for their communities and 
for their Nation. I think we ought to support them in their efforts. I 
am proud of the AmeriCorps Program. I am proud of the young people who 
serve in this program, who are trying to give something back to their 
communities. I think the program deserves the support of this Congress. 
I am very hopeful it will have that support.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield myself time from the distinguished 
minority leader's allocated time. How much time is remaining under 
that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 33 minutes and 48 seconds.
  Mr. BREAUX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, my colleagues, I have listened with a 
great deal of interest this afternoon, and last week to some extent, to 
my colleagues speak on the program known as National Service or 
AmeriCorps. Unfortunately, I think it has become more of a political 
debate than it has been a debate on the merits of this concept.
  I was thinking the other day that if two Members of Congress, perhaps 
two Members of the Senate, would have the opportunity to sit down one 
evening and pretend that they were neither Republicans nor Democrats 
and they would say to each other, ``Well, let us for the sake of 
argument see if we can in the privacy of this room sit down and come up 
with a program, not thinking about who gets the credit, but come up 
with a program designed to bring about new ideas and how we might teach 
to our young men and women in this country something about community, 
something about opportunity, and something about responsibility, what 
type of a program would we write, if we were not concerned about who 
gets the credit?''
  I would think that in that room perhaps they would look out over the 
history of our country and say, ``All right, when Congress had that 
opportunity in the past, what type of programs did 
[[Page S5064]] Congress write?'' I think they would think back to one 
of the most successful programs being the GI bill. The GI bill was 
based on a very simple premise; that was, people who served their 
country have an opportunity to get back something from their Government 
but that they got something from their Government because they had 
given something to their Government in the first place. That was what 
the GI bill was based on. It said to returning GI's who had served this 
country in the military that because of your service, your country is 
going to help you. We were going to help you go to the college of your 
choice. And as a result of that program, we gave literally hundreds of 
thousands of young Americans the opportunity to go to college, not 
because it was a handout, not because it was a grant, not because it 
was some sort of entitlement, but it was based on the theory that they 
had given something to their country and, therefore, their country was 
going to give them something back. And what we gave them was an 
opportunity for an education.
  I would think then that the two Senators would say, ``All right, let 
us see if we can now craft a program that builds on that GI bill, that 
concept that has served so many millions of Americans who have gone to 
college under the GI bill, let us see if we can craft a program that 
teaches young Americans something about responsibility, teaches them 
something about the communities that they live in, and something that 
also gives them an opportunity to better themselves. And, oh, by the 
way, let us make sure that program that we write will cost no more than 
one-thirtieth of 1 percent of our national budget.''
  That would be a real challenge. But I guarantee you, if the two 
Senators did not care who got the credit, they would come up with 
something that is very close to the National Service Program, the 
program known as AmeriCorps, which today is facing the prospect of 
being slashed and burned and killed before it has a chance to ever-
present young Americans with opportunities, to teach them 
responsibility, and teach them something about their community.
  Suppose people when we talked about the GI bill had said, ``We are 
not going to do that. Let them go out and earn their own living, let 
them work. We are not going to have a GI program to help kids get to 
college. We don't care what their status is. We are not going to do 
that.'' How many young Americans would not have had the opportunity to 
be as successful as they are as a result of that program?
  So what we have, I think, Mr. President, is a National Service 
Program that should be allowed to continue. It should be allowed to 
prosper. It should be allowed to flourish. What that program says to 
young Americans is that we are going to ask you to work in your 
community, not in a far-off country in another part of the world, 
although those services are needed, but we are going to ask you to work 
in your State, in your city, in your county. We are going to ask you to 
work with your local people who have identified what their problems 
are, what their concerns are, where they need help, if they need help 
in education, if they need help in police protection, if they need help 
in environmental cleanup programs, if they need help in health services 
for their local community. We are going to ask you to go back to your 
local community, and we are going to ask you to work in that local 
community. We are going to pay you a minimum wage stipend because we 
know you are not going to be able to do it if you do not have some form 
of assistance to allow you to feed yourself and clothe yourself and 
help you live your life.
  We are going to pay you a minimum wage and ask you to do that, 
knowing that you could be making a lot more money in some other job, 
particularly if you have already graduated from college and are now 
paying back these loans. But in return, if you do that, we are going to 
help you go to college. We are going to help you with a grant to go to 
college based on the fact that you have worked in your community to 
make it a better place to live. That is the concept of reciprocal 
responsibility. That is saying to young men and women that your 
Government is going to help you if you give something back, if you give 
something back to your community and this country right here in 
America.
  That is the whole essence of what the AmeriCorps Program is all 
about. It is not a giveaway program. It is not saying we are just going 
to give you money because that is what Government is all about and go 
to college because your Government is giving you something and asking 
nothing in return.
  Those two Senators, who would not care about which party got the 
credit, would be very proud of this new direction, of this new 
partnership, of this new way of thinking, that says, yes.
  We have programs that give grants to go to college. In most cases you 
have to show that you are poor. In most cases you have to go through a 
lot of paperwork to show that your parents do not have enough money. 
But this program will be based on the fact that we want to help anybody 
who believes enough in their country to believe in working in their 
local communities, assuming some responsibility at a time in their 
lives when that is very, very important, connecting that young person 
to their community in a way that perhaps they have never had the 
experience in doing before. And based on what they do, your Government 
will help you go to college with assistance. I would suggest that 
program would be one that we could all be very proud of.
  We know, unfortunately, the problem is Congress sometimes gets 
involved with who gets the credit, who gets the blame. I think a good 
program like this should have enough credit for everybody to take claim 
for it.
  I was interested just the other day in reading an article by one of 
our Republican colleagues from the House. He said in talking about this 
program and the Republican effort to slash it and to kill it and to, in 
effect, terminate it, this Republican House Member said, ``We have a 
wounded President.'' He further said that AmeriCorps ``is something 
that this President deserves to be proud of, but it is a target for 
those people who do not even want to give him that.''
  I would suggest that is the real message that we are leaving on the 
floor today, not that this is not a good program, not that it does not 
teach a young person something about his own community or her own 
community, not that it does not teach them responsibility, that a 
government will help you if you do something. There is no free lunch. 
And I would not suggest they are not going to have it because it gives 
a young person opportunity by allowing them to have a college 
education. No. I would suggest that this House Member hit the nail on 
the head when he said that we have, in his opinion, a wounded 
President, this is a program that this President can and should be 
proud of, but that it is a target and it is a target not because of the 
merits; it is a target because of the politics. I would suggest that is 
not how we should legislate the future of young men and women in this 
country.
  We have heard a lot of numbers thrown out on the floor today about 
how much the program cost. It is costing us one-thirtieth of 1 percent 
of our national budget.
  Is that too little to invest in giving young men and women an 
opportunity, a sense of community, and teaching them about 
responsibility? I think not. In return for each full year of 
commitment, a 2-year maximum, a volunteer can receive $4,725 in tuition 
assistance and health care and a stipend which is approximately the 
minimum wage.
  So we pay young men and women a minimum wage to work in their local 
community doing things that are extremely important in that local 
community, and then, after they have done it, we say we will now help 
you with tuition for you to go to college.
  I think that is a bargain. I think that is a new way of thinking 
about the role of individuals and their Government, that their 
Government is going to help them when they show responsibility and a 
willingness to contribute to their local community. I would suggest 
that is much better than just sending them the check and saying, 
``Well, we are the Government; here is the check; go to college.''
  What we are saying with this program is that we are going to help you 
if you do something in return. I think that makes a great deal of 
sense.
   [[Page S5065]] Some people say, ``Well, if you pay someone a minimum 
wage, they are not a volunteer.'' The former distinguished chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee, the Senator from Georgia, Sam Nunn, my 
good friend, almost laughed at that suggestion because we all know now 
we have a volunteer army. Does anybody suggest it is not voluntary 
anymore because we pay them a salary? Of course, not. We pay everybody 
who volunteers in the military. We pay them more than a minimum wage. 
We pay them a livable salary. But the whole military is voluntary now. 
No one is drafted. No one is required to serve. It is an All-Volunteer 
Army, and yet we still pay men and women who voluntarily join the 
military.
  So I would suggest that paying a young person a minimum wage stipend 
in order to work in their local community does not detract from the 
fact that this is a voluntary program. Many of these young graduates 
who return to work in their local communities are voluntarily doing it. 
They could earn a great deal more if they would go right into the 
private sector at a high-wage job. But, no, they are saying this is 
what I wish to do. This is a way to pay back my Government for what it 
has done for me. It is still clearly a voluntary program.
  I do not understand why we are arguing about this. Some of the polls 
that I have seen say that over 90 percent of the American public, when 
they are explained in a rational and reasonable tone what the national 
service program is all about, say this is a good idea; why did we not 
think of it before? Why do we only have grants coming out of Washington 
that you have to go through weeks and months of paperwork to make sure 
you have the right income level to finally qualify? Why not say to all 
Americans we are going to help you if you are willing to serve in your 
community?
  That is the essence of what national service is all about. That is 
the essence of what AmeriCorps is all about. The Peace Corps was a 
successful program. We sent men and women from our country to far-off 
lands to help improve conditions in those far-off countries and people 
thought it was a good idea. It was and it still is.
  Here is a Peace Corps Program for our own country to help urban 
areas, to help rural areas, to help local officials who desperately 
need young, talented, future leaders of this country working in their 
communities. I think the beautiful thing about it is that it is a 
partnership, it is a reciprocal partnership between you and your 
Government to help people quit thinking the Government owes them 
something, that just because they are born the Government owes them 
something and is going to pay for it. It is a partnership.
  Again, if I could have those two Senators who did not care whether 
they were Republican or Democrat, who did not care that this was Bill 
Clinton's idea, I guarantee they could walk out of that room and say we 
thought of something that really makes sense. Let us make sense.
  Is it perfect? Of course, not. Nothing is perfect. Are there some 
examples of how things should not have been done? Of course. But the 
program is in its infancy stage. Let us let it breathe for a few years 
to try to get it on track. If there are some problems with it, let us 
fix the problems and make sure they do not occur again. But do not kill 
the program. Do not say to the young men and women of America, we are 
going to continue to try and teach you there is something like a free 
lunch, because this program is just the opposite. This program says you 
will get from your Government help and assistance when you agree to 
give something back.
  Funding was $575 million for fiscal year 1995, one-thirtieth of 1 
percent of our budget. Can we not invest one-thirtieth of 1 percent in 
the lives of future Americans, young men and women who want to learn 
about community, who want to learn about responsibility, who want to 
have opportunity given to them for what they have invested?
  I think that is a wise expenditure of tax dollars. I think we are 
going to see great dividends paid, maybe not right now but in future 
years; that when somebody sits back and compares some of the good 
programs that Congress has done they will point to the GI bill as one 
of our most wonderful programs, but at that time, if we are successful, 
they can also say that when Congress had the opportunity in the 1990's 
they built on the GI bill and passed a national service program, and 
now, maybe 10, 20 years later, it is producing the results we would 
like to see.
  Mr. President, I will be offering an amendment to help restore some 
of the draconian cuts that were passed by the House on this program. My 
amendment would allow for still a 20-percent reduction in the spending 
from last year. Most programs come in and say we need more money, more 
money, more money. My amendment is going to say, all right, in this 
time of fiscal balance and concern about deficits, let us reduce last 
year's spending by 20 percent even though we have more money and more 
requests than we did before. Let us reduce by 20 percent the 
President's request for the National Service Program, but let us keep 
it viable. Let us keep it working. Let us keep the innovative ideas 
that are coming out of that program so that we can say, when we had the 
opportunity to teach our young men and women in this country the things 
that are needed in order to make this country great, we stood up and 
were counted and voted in favor of my amendment.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 16 minutes and 7 seconds.
  Mr. BREAUX. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the minority leader's 
time.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Daschle amendment. 
This amendment is essential to restore funding for critical national 
education and children's needs that were disproportionately targeted 
for reduction in the rescission bill.
  Last week, the Children's Defense Fund released its annual report, 
``The State of America's Children.'' CDF reports that child poverty has 
reached its highest level in more than 30 years. Last year, one in 
every four children in our Nation was poor.
  CDF reports:

       An American child is reported abused or neglected every 11 
     seconds; is born into poverty every 32 seconds; is born to a 
     teen mother every 62 seconds; is arrested for a violent crime 
     every four minutes; and is killed by guns every two hours.

  Mr. President, no great nation can long survive if it does not 
provide adequately for its children. I know of none of my colleagues 
who would disagree with this statement. But, I know of too many who are 
prepared to violate its spirit by reducing funding for proven and vital 
programs, by slashing welfare programs to save money, and by 
elimination the safety net that protects American families.
  The rescission bill before us today contains $13 billion in cuts in 
Federal programs. Overall, this is a much better bill than the one that 
passed the House. But, nonetheless, a large and disproportionate share 
of these cuts are targeted at programs that benefit children and youth.


                                children

  This bill contains a 20-percent reduction in the President's 
investment programs. That reduction translates into a $42 million cut 
in Head Start.
  Mr. President, last year I authored the Human Services Act that 
reauthorized the Head Start Program. At the time, I was prepared for a 
real challenge and a spirited defense of the legislation on the floor. 
Instead the legislation passed unanimously with no dissension and no 
acrimony. Head Start is a proven program that gives disadvantaged 
youngsters an early and important step forward in their educational 
development--yet this rescission bill goes after it.
  The bill before us also includes an $8.4 million cut in the child 
care and development block grant. Currently, eight States have more 
than 10,000 children on child care assistance waiting lines. And many 
more child care slots will be needed as we seek to move people from 
welfare to work.
  The Women, Infants, and Children's Program takes a $35 million hit in 
this bill. WIC has always been a popular and bipartisan program. The 
program is a wise investment providing nutritional assistance to low-
income pregnant women and children. It saves money and lives in the 
process. Last year, I 
[[Page S5066]] joined with 70 of my colleagues in requesting full 
funding for this vital program.
  The Daschle amendment would restore the cuts in these three important 
programs, and it would pare back cuts in education.


                               education

  Today, our Nation faces tremendous and unparalleled economic 
challenges. Increased global economic competition and rapid advances in 
technology have created major structural changes in our work force.
  If we are to meet the economic challenges of the 21st century, it is 
critical that we invest in the education and training of our work 
force--even if it takes us a little longer to get our budget fully into 
balance.
  Yet at precisely the time in our Nation's history when our 
educational challenges are greatest, the Federal commitment to 
education has diminished. Since 1979, we have cut in half the Federal 
commitment to elementary and secondary Education as a share of total 
education spending. This decrease has exacerbated the disparities in 
education spending across school districts and threatens to compromise 
our future economic productivity.
  Education takes a heavy hit in this bill. It includes a $100 million 
cut in the only Federal program that seeks to combat violence and drug 
abuse in our schools--the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities 
Act.
  It includes a $72 million cut in the title one program for 
disadvantaged children. It includes a $68 million cut in the Goals 2000 
Program. This cut would deny seed money for implementing comprehensive 
reform plans to about 1,550 schools.
  The Daschle amendment recognizes that these shortsighted cuts cost 
our Nation more in the long-run than they save today.


                                Housing

  The largest cuts in the rescission bill occur in Federal housing 
programs. The rescission bill includes more than $4.5 billion in cuts 
in the Department of Housing and Urban Development's current budget. If 
enacted, these cuts will hurt low-income people struggling to find 
decent housing and reduce economic opportunity in our urban 
communities. Forty percent of public housing residents are single women 
with children.
  Even without the recommended rescissions, current funding levels for 
HUD's public and assisted housing programs serve only about a third of 
the persons eligible for benefits. In Connecticut, there continues to 
be a shortage of affordable housing. There are 15,000 homeless people 
in my State, including more than 3,000 children.
  The Daschle amendment would restore $500 million to the public 
housing modernization account. These funds are critical for families 
living in public housing. Without them, we will have more roofs with 
holes, rusting stairwells, and boarded-up windows. Unless we restore 
these funds, thousands of families will be forced to raise their 
children in substandard housing.
  The Daschle amendment is essential to help us maintain decent living 
conditions at many public housing developments across the country.


                            National service

  The rescission bill cuts national service by $210 million. The 
AmeriCorps Program has provided thousands of Americans with the 
opportunity to serve in their communities and earn a post-service 
benefit for further education and training. Currently, 20,000 young 
Americans have answered this call to service and are working in 
communities across the country to meet vital needs. The AmeriCorps 
Program represents all that is best about America. the Daschle 
amendment recognizes this fact and restores funding for this program.


                               conclusion

  After consulting with high-paid political pollsters, some of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have begun cloaking their 
political goals in the guise of helping kids.
  They have learned to talk about deficit reduction in terms of its 
impact on our children's future prosperity. And they have learned to 
talk about tax cuts in terms of their impact on families with young 
children.
  They've become better at framing issues to score quick political 
points and worse at thoughtfully examining the impact of their 
policies.
  Clearly it is important that we reduce our deficit and our debt. But 
a child who is denied food on the table, adequate child care, or a 
decent education is not worried about what may happen to them 20 or 30 
years down the road. They are worried about their health and safety in 
the present. And we should be too.
  The cuts in this bill compromise the immediate nutrition, housing, 
and developmental needs of thousands of our children. The Daschle 
amendment lessens the severity of these cuts.
  The Children Defense Fund's report should powerfully focus our 
resolve to strengthen our investment in children's needs, not to lessen 
them.
  I urge my colleagues not to undermine our commitment to our kids. I 
urge my colleagues to support the Daschle amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back the time.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. I yield back the remainder of the time on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back the remainder of the 
time.
  Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

                          ____________________