[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 151 (Tuesday, September 26, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14245-S14271]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 2776

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

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 463 Leg.]

                                YEAS--35

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

                                NAYS--64

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

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


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

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


                           Amendment No. 2779

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                 Fairbanks North Star Borough,

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

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

[[Page S 14248]]

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


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

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

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

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

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


                           Amendment No. 2781

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                     (including transfer of funds)

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

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


                      office of inspector general

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

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

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

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

        Massachusetts AmeriCorps Programs--1995-96 Program Year


                         program and community

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


                     planning grants and community

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


                               footnotes

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

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

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

[[Page S 14255]]

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

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

[[Page S 14257]]

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

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


                   benefit-cost analysis: an overview

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


               our analysis of the kormendi gardner study

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

                        The study's methodology

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

             Table 1.--Benefits and Costs for Project First

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

[[Page S 14258]]

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

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

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

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

    Other methodological decisions could affect benefit-cost ratios

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

              Loss associated with generating tax revenues

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

                        Perry project comparison

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

                 Benefits that could not be quantified

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


                   assessment of study's conclusions

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


                        study authors' comments

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

                                       Cornelia M. Blanchette,

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


                               footnotes

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


[[Page S 14259]]

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

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

                  Americorps Comes Under GOP Scrutiny

                          (By Cheryl Caswell)

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

[[Page S 14261]]

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


                     AmeriCorps Means Win, Win, Win

                          (By Rachel Tompkins)

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

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

[[Page S 14262]]
my fellow Members to think critically about what we fund that truly 
makes a difference in the lives of our next generation. Americorps is 
the answer that provides a cost-effective solution to meeting many of 
our Nation's concerns.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, to 
restore funding to the Corporation for National and Community Service. 
When the conference report on the National and Community Service Trust 
Act of 1993 came before the Senate for final approval, I was proud to 
cast my vote in favor of this important legislation and I am equally 
proud to stand before the Senate today to reaffirm my support for the 
Corporation and its mission.
  Signed into law on September 21, 1993, the National Service Act has 
helped to renew the ethic of civic responsibility and the spirit of 
community service while also providing critical assistance to needy 
communities throughout the Nation. The measure has also encouraged and, 
more importantly, provided the opportunity for thousands of Americans 
to give of themselves for the greater good while earning money to 
further their education. In my view, the legislation effectively merges 
education and service, two critical components of a healthy society.
  Now, several of my colleagues in stating their opposition to 
continued funding for the National Service Corporation have expressed 
the view that it is not the role of the Federal Government to subsidize 
community service; that to pay volunteers through a Federal program 
runs contrary to the spirit of local community-based service. I would 
urge those who hold this view to look to history. Our society and the 
unique form of government we enjoy was built on the strength of 
national service and, in my view, fostering the investment in and 
providing the leadership for increased opportunity to serve is a 
responsibility we all share.
  Mr. President, Americorps, the centerpiece of the national service 
program, is not one large Federal program, but a network of locally 
developed and locally managed service corps which gives thousands of 
young people the opportunity to serve their country while improving the 
lives of themselves and their neighbors. Moreover, the initial 
investment we have made has encouraged increased private sector 
involvement in community service programs, including Americorps.
  I encourage opponents of national service to look carefully at the 
success of many of the Americorps programs operating in communities 
across the United States. Information gathered from site visits by the 
General Accounting Office (GAO) indicate that an overwhelming majority 
of the programs across the country serve their purpose. In my State of 
Maryland, the Montgomery County Police Department is operating a 
Community Assisting Policing program designed to engage volunteers in 
education and outreach efforts to control and prevent crime and to 
reduce fear in at-risk communities. The GAO found that participants 
were involved in such projects as organizing a school Crime Awareness 
Day, teaching senior citizens how to protect themselves from crime, and 
analyzing neighborhood crime statistics to identify problem areas.
  The GAO also visited MAGIC ME America, a nonprofit organization 
founded in Baltimore in 1980. The central mission of the MAGIC ME 
organization, which operated three AmeriCorps programs nationwide, is 
to motivate and educate teens by involving them in local community 
service projects. The GAO reported that participants in the MAGIC ME 
Program in Baltimore found that the program helped them to build their 
self-esteem and confidence and that all three participants interviewed 
planned to use their education awards to start or return to college. 
Additionally, staff members at three of the area facilities served by 
AmeriCorps volunteers stated that their presence was a key ingredient 
to the program. With the help of the AmeriCorps Program, MAGIC ME 
estimates that they have been able to increase the number of people 
served by over 800 percent in their three AmeriCorps Program sites.
  Mr. President, it is my view that national service, and those who 
participate in national service represent the best of our Nation. In 
the tradition of the Peace Corps and VISTA, AmeriCorps strengthens the 
beliefs and values that are at the very root of American citizenship--
the tradition of serving others, the value of taking personal 
responsibility for ourselves and our communities, and the belief that 
to who much is given, much is expected. Through programs like 
AmeriCorps we provide our Nation with both an opportunity and an 
obligation. National service requests a contribution to the community 
while providing individuals with the opportunity to develop skills 
which will serve them well throughout their lives.
  As I have indicated through examples in my own State, the national 
service program is effective; it does work. At a time when we as a 
society are searching for ways in which to strengthen our families and 
our communities it would be foolhardy to abandon this national service 
initiative. I urge my colleagues to join me in applauding those who 
have answered the call to service through AmeriCorps and other national 
service opportunities. These individuals are taking part in the oldest 
and best of America's traditions--the spirit of service--and they 
deserve our support.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Does the Senator from Massachusetts wish to speak?
  I note the absence of a quorum, and ask that it be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask the Presiding Officer, how much time does my side 
have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 20 minutes, 51 seconds.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I would like to yield 8 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts. And I look forward to his discussions, as well as the 
chart.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator from Maryland very much.
  Mr. President, I welcome the opportunity to respond to some of the 
issues and questions that have been raised about the AmeriCorps and the 
costs for this program. And I listened, even though I was not on the 
floor, to both the response by the Senator from Maryland as well as the 
Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon, about some of the points that 
have been raised about AmeriCorps working with governmental agencies 
and how that issue is addressed in the Senator's amendment.
  That has been an issue that had been brought up and examined during 
the course of the review of the AmeriCorps. And I believe that the 
amendment that has now been before the Senate responds to that 
particular issue and question.
  Second, I listened to those who have talked about AmeriCorps and the 
cost of the program, and also how much is expended in costs that are 
related to the AmeriCorps volunteer. I think it is important that we 
understand the terms that are being used and the costs that are being 
allocated to the different projects.
  I have a chart here, Mr. President. I understand that this presents a 
breakdown of the total cost per member by category. I think there is 
some confusion about what the costs are in terms of the member. And I 
thought I would review this chart because I think it illustrates by 
this chart exactly what is being expended for the AmeriCorps and the 
costs which are related to the service of an AmeriCorps member. We are 
talking about two different items, and it has been very easy for those 
who have been opposed to this program to try to somehow lump all of 
those together and give a distorted view as to actually what is 
expended on behalf of the AmeriCorps volunteer.
  For each AmeriCorps volunteer the Corporation spends $6,200 on the 
stipend over the course of the year. This represents 33 percent. We 
have the education award, which is $4,700. We have the health care, 
which is $1,200. Those all go into the costs. And then we have the 
AmeriCorps overhead at 7 percent.
  I wonder how many of the governmental agencies are able to have an 
administrative cost at that figure--at 

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

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

[[Page S 14264]]

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

  Although we are downsizing our military, many young people still have 
the desire to become involved in public service. We are not providing 
them an opportunity to contribute if we do away with national service.
  National service enables not only young people but schools, community 
organizations, towns and cities to develop programs that will meet 
their own unmet needs while giving invaluable education to generations 
of our future leaders.
  I point out that those 184,000 no longer in the military would have 
had an opportunity to get the same kind of scholarship they could get 
with national service through the military. Now due to downsizing of 
our Armed Forces, that opportunity is no longer available to them. So 
the elimination of national service will effectively remove another 
avenue for a large number of young people to obtain educational 
opportunities.
  Let us remember that national and community service is not a program 
that young people engage in because they are free for the summer or 
because they have nothing better to do. Participation in service 
requires true commitment. This is a program that demands that youth 
spend at least 1 year in full service, or 2 years in part-time service 
in an area of national need.
  Although we all support spending cuts, this does not mean we should 
forsake our responsibility to develop necessary Government programs, 
especially those that help our young people.
  We must commit ourselves to redirecting our priorities to make clear 
that unless we address the concerns of this Nation, our children will 
not have a future. National service is a cost-effective program that is 
meeting many urgent local and national needs not being met through 
traditional means.
  An example of the program's cost-effectiveness is an AmeriCorps 
project in New York. For each hour that AmeriCorps members update 
computer equipment, they save the New York City Board of Education $100 
in labor costs.
  Through a combination of hard work and commitment, National service 
has surpassed the expectations we all had when this legislation was 
enacted almost 2 years ago. National service was not designed to result 
in miracles on a grand scale, but there are many examples of minor 
miracles occurring daily throughout the United States. Some of these 
examples include, Youth Conservation Corps participants who have 
assisted Midwestern families afflicted by this spring's floods, the 
Teach for America participant who not only taught children in Watts how 
to read, but also how to love, and the Battleboro, VT, Independent 
Living project participants who assist the elderly and individuals with 
disabilities so they can remain in their homes instead of being forced 
to live in an institutional setting.
  National service is a program that has served our Nation well, and 
therefore I rise today to lend my voice in supporting the Mikulski 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  
[[Page S 14265]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I think that sums up the mood of most of us on this side of the 
aisle. We want people to be challenged. We want young people to be 
involved in voluntarism. We want people to care about their community. 
But we want them to do it because they care about their community, not 
because they are getting paid $30,000 a year by Federal taxpayers.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield Senator Ashcroft 3\1/2\ minutes.
  How much time is remaining on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A total of 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to speak on AmeriCorps.
  Before I begin, I would like to thank my colleague and my good 
friend, Senator Bond, for his management of this bill as well as his 
unending commitment to the taxpayers of Missouri. His opposition to the 
Corporation for National Service is another example of the fiscal 
integrity that has marked his career in the Senate, and I am honored to 
join him here.
  Americans constitute a community of service. Last year 90 million 
Americans of all ages gave their time to civic and religious 
organizations. They cared for the poor, sick, the broken, and the 
lonely. They gave their time without regard to benefit or pay. They did 
it as a matter of personal devotion and out of their regard for each 
other as part of the way we live our lives as Americans. Their personal 
sacrifice is, in my opinion, mocked by a Government program with a 
catchy name like AmeriCorps.
  Mr. President, we have for most of this Congress been debating 
Washington's legitimate role in our daily lives. Some cases are tough, 
tough debates--debates on welfare, crime, and education. Others are 
not. This is not a tough case. AmeriCorps is a $27,000 per participant 
boondoggle for kids trying to find themselves. AmeriCorps is welfare 
for the well-to-do.
  Mr. President, for what AmeriCorps costs annually we could send two 
poor students to the University of Missouri for 4 years, all expenses 
paid, for everyone person we send through AmeriCorps. We could give 18 
Pell grants to needy students for the annual cost of one AmeriCorps 
participant.
  AmeriCorps is wasteful and bureaucratic. At least $15,000 per 
AmeriCorps participant goes into overhead and administration here in 
Washington. Only in Washington could $15,000 a year be paid for paper 
turning, and as a result that would be considered volunteer service.
  Of the AmeriCorps participants, 1,200 serve--volunteer--at the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture; 525 volunteer at the Interior Department; 
and 60 serve at the National Endowment for the Arts. This is not in the 
spirit of volunteering. This is not in the spirit of service that we 
normally find for American communities.
  I rise to oppose this because I believe that a volunteer program 
should be a volunteer program. It should not be a way to subsidies the 
Federal bureaucracy and send individuals into the bureaucracy at rates 
of pay that deprive other needy programs, that displace the ability to 
meet other needs in our culture.
  So I am pleased to support my senior Senator's motion which would 
defund or otherwise take AmeriCorps out, because I do not believe we 
should be spending money at this level in an enterprise which 
masquerades as a volunteer program but is a very expensive program.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from 
Maryland.
  I ask unanimous consent that I be added as an original cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  
[[Page S 14269]]

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

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

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

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

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 464 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--52

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

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

                          ____________________