[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 151 (Tuesday, September 26, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14272-S14279]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1966

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The previous order is the Senator from 
Maryland is to be recognized to offer an amendment.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate to my colleagues what we 
hope to achieve here this evening.
  The Senator from Maryland will be recognized. I understand there is a 
1-hour time agreement. We are willing to accept a 1-hour time agreement 
on the amendment.
  Mr. SARBANES. It has already been agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. We will do that amendment and then the amendment of the 
Senator from Vermont, Senator Jeffords. I understand there is a 30-
minute time agreement agreed to or willing to be agreed to. We will 
have those two votes.
  By that time, we hope to be in a position to announce what will 
happen to the remainder of the evening. I am hopeful that Members who 
still have amendments will be willing to debate those amendments 
tonight and we will start voting on the amendments tomorrow.
  We are talking about the additional amendments. There are two 
Rockefeller amendments, a Baucus amendment, Moseley-Braun.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. As you know, we have been moving along very well on 
this bill, and what we will endeavor to do, and I thought we had, is to 
see if Senators Rockefeller and Baucus will offer their amendments 
tonight because they are on the Finance Committee. That would, I think, 
take us through a substantial part of the evening.
  Mr. DOLE. I suggest after these two votes we will announce what 
agreement we have been able to reach. We may not be able to reach any 
agreement. I do not want to keep raising this, but whether or not we 
are in session next week depends on whether or not we finish this bill, 
Labor-HHS, and State, Justice, and Commerce.
  Yesterday we did not do anything. We had debate on one amendment. The 
amendment was voted on at 2:15 today.
  My view is it is our hope we can finish this bill tonight and finish 
Labor-HHS by Thursday and dispose of the other bills by Saturday. If we 
cannot 

[[Page S 14273]]
do it, we cannot do it, and we will be here next week.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized to 
offer an amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2782

 (Purpose: To restore homeless assistance funding to fiscal year 1995 
  levels using excess public housing agency project reserves, and for 
                            other purposes)

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes] for himself, Mr. 
     Simon, and Mr. Dodd, proposes an amendment numbered 2782.

  Mr. SARBANES. 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:

       At the appropriate place in title II of the bill, insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC.   . HOMELESS ASSISTANCE FUNDING.

       (a) Assistance for the Renewal of Expiring Section 8 
     Subsidy Contracts.--
       (1) Reduced appropriation.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, the amount made available under title 
     II of this Act under the heading ``Housing Programs'' under 
     the subheading ``assistance for the renewal of expiring 
     section 8 subsidy contracts'', is reduced from $4,350,862,000 
     to $3,990,862,000.
       (2) Use of assistance.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of this Act, in using amounts made available under title II 
     of this Act under the heading ``Housing Programs'' under the 
     subheading ``assistance for the renewal of expiring section 8 
     subsidy contracts'' to renew an annual contributions contract 
     with a public housing agency administering the tenant-based 
     existing housing certificate program under section 8(d) of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(d)) or 
     the housing voucher program under section 8(o) of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)), the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall take into 
     account the amount in the project reserve under the contract 
     being renewed in determining the amount of budget authority 
     to obligate under the renewed contract.
       (b) Homeless Assistance.--
       (1) Increased appropriation.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, the amount made available under title 
     II of this Act under the heading ``Homeless Assistance'' 
     under the subheading ``Homeless Assistance Grants''  is 
     increased from $760,000,000 to $1,120,000,000.
       (2) Restriction.--Notwithstanding section 504 or any other 
     provision of this Act, of the funds made available under 
     title II of this Act under the heading ``Homeless 
     Assistance'' under the subheading ``homeless assistance 
     grants'', $360,000,000 shall not become available for 
     obligation until September 30, 1996, and shall remain 
     available until expended.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, am I correct that we have 30 minutes on 
this side and 30 minutes for the manager of the bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes and ask the 
Chair to inform me when that time has been utilized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I very much hope that Members will 
perceive this amendment in a way that will enable us to adopt it. In 
fact, I hope the manager of the bill will accept it, after we discuss 
it a bit.
  What this amendment does is restore $360 million for homeless 
assistance funding. It brings the funding for the homeless back to the 
1995 level of $1,120,000,000. The bill reported from the Appropriations 
Committee has a figure of $760,000,000. That is a cut of $360 million--
a cut of 32 percent from the 1995 funding level--the largest percentage 
funding cut of any of HUD's formula-driven programs.
  Homeless assistance programs are a critical part of the safety net.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. Members who are 
having conversation in the aisles will please retire to the cloakroom.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. The homeless assistance programs are a critical part of 
the safety net. The safety net is being badly shredded. I certainly 
hope it would not happen to the programs that really deal with the 
people who are out on the street--people who are out on the street 
without a place to stay.
  The offset for this additional money would take funds out of section 
8 program reserves. Housing authorities that have expiring section 8 
contracts have money available to them. In the past, the authorities 
have been able to roll the reserves over. This amendment would utilize 
those funds for section 8 renewals. In the past, the public housing 
authorities have used the reserves to augment the section 8 program. I 
regret using section 8 as an offset because I think the section 8 
program is also very important. But, in deciding between these two 
choices, it seems to me we have to pay more attention to the pressing 
problem of the homeless.
  The Secretary of HUD has sent a letter indicating that the expiring 
section 8 contracts could be renewed by the money provided in the 
bill--even after this offset--even after the utilization of the $360 
million--in order to bring the funding for the homeless up to this 
year's level.
  Let me very quickly cover the importance of passing this amendment. 
On September 11, there appeared an excellent article in the Washington 
Post by Lucie McKinney, the widow of Stewart McKinney, Republican 
Member of the House of Representatives from the State of Connecticut. 
Representative McKinney was a very able and distinguished Member of the 
Congress who took a very keen interest in the problems of the homeless. 
In fact, the McKinney Act programs are named after him. That act 
includes the range of homeless programs addressed by this amendment.
  Ms. McKinney points out, ``I'm stunned that Congress, which has 
proclaimed its commitment to finding and funding plans that actually 
work, would allow these cuts to stand.'' She is talking about the cuts 
to the homeless programs.
  She goes on to cite two studies which conclusively demonstrate that 
the supportive housing dimension of the homeless program is working 
exceedingly well. As she notes, ``* * * cuts, far from saving money, 
will waste it.'' She goes on to say, ``Put simply, not housing our most 
vulnerable Americans costs millions more than housing them. It's just 
common sense.''
  And she concludes this article: ``* * * we do know how to end 
homelessness. And while the cure is not cost-free, it costs a whole lot 
less than not facing--and solving--the problem. Saving lives and saving 
money--how can that be bad?''
  Increasing the homeless funding back up to the 1995 levels will 
provide an opportunity to reform how the homeless assistance programs 
are administered. The most notable feature of the reform effort is the 
push to convert the existing collection of seven categorical grant 
programs at HUD into a single program delivered by formula to State and 
local governments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator he has used 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. I yield myself 3 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. SARBANES. A formula grant will allow better organization at the 
local level and facilitate better planning as funding levels become 
more predictable. The VA-HUD bill allows a formula approach, but it 
does not provide adequate funding. This amendment would raise the total 
homeless funding to a level that would allow a formula approach to make 
sense. In fact, the Appropriations Committee recognized it in their 
report. The committee stated: ``The committee is worried that the block 
grant approach with funds less than $1 billion may disadvantage some 
areas with significant homeless problems and homeless providers.''
  This amendment addresses that problem. It brings the homeless funding 
figure back up to this year's level and makes it possible to use the 
formula approach. Almost everyone is supportive of a formula approach. 
In fact, the Senate Banking Committee reported a bill that included 
such a program last year on a bipartisan, 15 to 3 vote.
  I am not going to go through a litany of the numbers of people who 
are on the street. I do want to point out, however, how much of this is 
a veterans problem. Well over a third of the homeless have served in 
the Armed Forces. It is estimated that about 275,000 veterans are 
homeless on any given night. The single largest segment of homeless 
veterans--55 to 60 percent--are from the Vietnam era. 

[[Page S 14274]]

  The demand for these funds is significant. Last year applications for 
funds for assistance to the homeless were 2\1/2\ times the amount which 
the Congress had appropriated.
  Let me discuss the offset further. The offset for this amendment 
comes from section 8 contract renewal accounts. Currently, HUD is 
holding reserves in section 8 contracts on behalf of housing agencies 
that administer the section 8 program. The amendment would allow HUD to 
take into account the project reserves when considering the amount to 
provide housing agencies when contracts are to be renewed. Money would 
not be available to, in effect, uplift the section 8 program. The HUD 
Secretary has assured us, however, that enough money would remain to do 
the contract renewals.
  I therefore suggest to my colleagues, in terms of priority, it makes 
eminent good sense to shift this money out of section 8 and put it into 
the homeless programs. The last thing we want to see is people 
wandering our streets, many of them suffering from mental and physical 
disabilities. It is a problem that cuts to the very heart of what we 
stand for as a society.
  This amendment offers the opportunity to bring it back to this year's 
level and to enable us to move forward in partnership with State and 
local governments and with the private sector--churches, community 
groups and other similar action organizations--in order to address this 
very pressing problem.
  I very strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields 5 minutes to the Senator 
from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague from Maryland for offering this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment. These 
subcommittees and committees have tough choices to make, but the 
reference has already been made to the op-ed piece by the widow of our 
former House colleague, Stewart McKinney. Senator Sarbanes referred to 
two studies. Let me just read from that one study.
  The first study found that formerly homeless people with severe 
mental illnesses achieved stability at a rate of 83.4 percent in 
supportive housing. Tenants also cut their hospital in patient use by 
50 percent. The 4-year evaluation concluded that this unique housing 
``not only will alleviate human suffering, but also will reduce costs 
for institutionalization and hospitalization.''
  I ask unanimous consent that the entire op-ed piece be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 11, 1995]

                          Dumb Move on Housing

                         (By Lucie C. McKinney)

       Right before the summer break, the House approved drastic 
     cuts to housing programs for the neediest Americans: homeless 
     people who have chronic mental and medical illnesses. Four of 
     these--the McKinney Programs, named after my late husband, 
     Stewart B. McKinney, who was a Republican representative from 
     Connecticut--face reductions of 40 percent or $444 million 
     (as compared to the unasked-for $7 billion the House decided 
     to give the Pentagon). Usually when I testify before Congress 
     I talk about the people who have reclaimed their lives 
     through the offer of housing and a helping hand. In keeping 
     with the times, however, I'd like to reframe the debate--and 
     talk about statistics and cold, hard cash.
       I'm stunned that Congress, which has proclaimed its 
     commitment to finding and funding plans that actually work, 
     would allow these cuts to stand. The McKinney Programs 
     provide funding from something called supportive housing--
     permanent housing linked to a safety net of support services 
     that allow even chronically disabled people who are homeless 
     to live autonomously in hope and dignity. And according to 
     the evidence, including two separate government evaluations, 
     supportive housing is our best bet for ending homelessness 
     and doing so cost-effectively.
       The first study found that formerly homeless people with 
     severe mental illnesses achieved stability at a rate of 83.4 
     percent in supportive housing. Tenants also cut their 
     hospital inpatient use by 50 percent, The four-year 
     evaluation concluded that this unique housing ``not only will 
     alleviate human suffering, but also will reduce costs for 
     institutionalization and hospitalization. The five projects 
     [studied] offer proof that the face of homelessness in 
     America can be changed dramatically.''
       The second evaluation found a success rate of 84.5 percent 
     and concluded that supportive housing--``provided cost-
     effective assistance to help families and individuals escape 
     from homelessness.''
       So. These programs actually end homelessness, which is one 
     of those seemingly intractable social problems we thought 
     would be a permanent part of the American urban landscape.
       As to the cost, Congress doesn't seem to grasp the fact 
     that cuts, far from saving money, will waste it. Put simply, 
     not housing our most vulnerable Americans costs millions more 
     than housing them. It's just common sense: People with mental 
     illnesses end up using expensive hospital beds, state 
     psychiatric institutions and even jails as de facto housing; 
     people with AIDS end up in acute-care beds (at more than 
     $1,000 a day); people with alcohol or drug dependencies stay 
     too long in high-cost treatment programs. Meanwhile, they are 
     still homeless, still dependent on crisis services and no 
     closer to living independent productive lives. This is worse 
     than penny-wise, pound-foolish--it's billions foolish.
       The cost of providing housing linked to services, on the 
     other hand, can be as little as $10,000 a year, an 
     expenditure that actually ends that person's homelessness and 
     allows him or her to use clinics instead of emergency rooms, 
     counseling instead of psychiatric hospitalizations and drug 
     counseling instead of treatment centers. Supportive housing 
     also promotes self-sufficiency through employment and 
     education linkages. Aren't these the very goals Congress is 
     so anxious to advance?
       My late husband was committed to ending the blight of 
     widespread homelessness. Four months before he died, he even 
     spent a night on the streets in 20-below weather to bring 
     media attention to the plight of homeless people. Yes, he was 
     deathly ill at the time, but so are more than 70 percent of 
     homeless Americans.
       We may not have a cure for AIDS, cancer or a way to provide 
     health care to all Americans, but we do know how to end 
     homelessness. And while the cure is not cost-free, it costs a 
     whole lot less than not facing--and solving--the problem. 
     Saving lives and saving money--how can that be bad?

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial 
from the Chicago Sun Times entitled ``Rush To Trim Budget Cuts Off 
Homeless'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Chicago Sun Times, Sept. 13, 1995]

                 Rush To Trim Budget Cuts Off Homeless

       Once again, Congress is using a machete instead of a paring 
     knife to cut the federal budget to help pay for an 
     unaffordable tax cut.
       The latest casualty is the McKinney Homeless Services 
     Program. The House already voted to cut the program by 44 
     percent, to $676 million. Today, the Senate Appropriations 
     Committee will consider a plan to reduce it by a third, to 
     $760 million. The short-term savings ignore the long-term 
     expense of their actions.
       Housing providers use McKinney money to pay for supportive 
     services to people who otherwise would be living on the 
     streets. On the streets, homeless people spend their energy 
     looking for food and a safe place to sleep. They can't waste 
     time seeking treatment for substance abuse, mental illness or 
     AIDS. They aren't enrolled in job training programs. They 
     can't even get a bath and a change of clothes--the first step 
     toward a job.
       Formerly homeless people now living in Lakefront SRO 
     (single room occupancy) apartment buildings can do all those 
     things. Lakefront provides the services for $2,500 per person 
     per year at six buildings in Chicago. Shelters--the primary 
     housing option for most homeless people--cost as much as four 
     times that and provide little more than a place to sleep. If 
     the homeless person ends up in a hospital or prison, the 
     taxpayers' burden skyrockets--without any hope of breaking 
     the cycle of homelessness.
       No doubt, senators will emerge from today's committee 
     meeting patting themselves on the back for having restored 
     some of the draconian cuts made by the House. But they still 
     must answer tough questions about how much saving $440 
     million now will cost us later.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, on Sunday--I happened to spend a weekend in 
Washington--I was reading a little bit from a small book that I had not 
read for years. It was Will Durant's ``The Lessons of History.'' What 
he says in this book--my colleague from Maryland who is a history buff 
will appreciate this also--is that there is, among other things, one 
consistent action in nations; that is, the struggle between those who 
are fortunate and those who are less fortunate. And those who are 
fortunate usually put the squeeze on those who are less fortunate, and 
ultimately it hurts those who are more fortunate.
  I think we are going through that struggle in a variety of ways right 
here 

[[Page S 14275]]
in this very Senate. I can remember--I see some of my colleagues on the 
floor who will remember this, also. Maybe the Presiding Officer is 
young enough not to remember this. But I can remember when we did not 
have anywhere near the number of homeless people on the streets of our 
Nation that we have today. In Chicago, on Madison Avenue, there was a 
place where we had what we used to call winos. I am afraid it was not a 
respectful term. But it was used commonly where the winos were. But we 
did not have homeless people as generally as we have today.
  Then I look at this allocation within the subcommittee. I find that 
the largest percentage cut in any of HUD's formula-driven programs is 
32 percent which is taken off of the programs for the homeless.
  We are not going to have any homeless here lobbying us on this one. 
There are not any big campaign contributions from any homeless. But it 
sure says something about our priorities and where we are.
  Let me just add, my friends, that I know it is tough for the chairman 
of this subcommittee and the members of the subcommittee to make these 
choices. It can get worse. I heard my colleague from Illinois, Senator 
Carol Moseley-Braun, the other day refer to an article in a history 
magazine that I happened to read also which talked about homelessness 
in New York City back at the turn of the century when young people were 
dropped off at churches. And that is where we got the name 
``foundlings.'' People found them in churches, and they would take 
train loads of these young people from New York City and take them out 
to the West, to Wyoming, to California, to Oregon. People would show up 
at the train station and look around and find a child that they might 
want to adopt and take care of.
  Can things get worse? You bet they can get worse.
  This is a program that works. Yes. We have tough decisions to make. 
But before we take money and say we have to have a tax cut, we have 
tough decisions to make. But here is one. If you are to say who are the 
people who desperately need help in terms of public housing and in 
terms of health, it is these homeless people. I am sure none of them 
are registered to vote, or very few of them are. But some of them have 
mental illness. Some of them have alcohol and drug problems, a variety 
of problems. We ought to help them.
  That is what the amendment offered by my colleague from Maryland is 
doing. I am proud to stand up and urge adoption of this amendment. This 
is one that ought to be an easy vote for Members of the Senate.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, what is the time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). At this point the Senator from 
Maryland has 16 minutes, and the Senator from Missouri has 30.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the good motives. I appreciate the 
concern of the Senator from Maryland, the leader of the authorizing 
committee on his side. I appreciate the thoughtful comments by the 
Senator from Illinois as well.
  But unfortunately, this is an effort to take money from one pocket 
and put it in another pocket. It does so in a way that I do not think 
is particularly productive. I think it may even be counterproductive. 
While I commend them for their motives, I do not think it accomplishes 
anything.
  This is in the arcane rule of scoring budgetary authority and 
outlays. I apologize in advance to my colleagues. But let me tell you 
what has happened.
  The amendment proposes a budgetary offset from the HUD 
appropriations. It takes it out of the renewal of section 8 rental 
subsidy contracts. It takes out $360 million. The amendment is 
predicated on the reduction of project reserves. These are reserves 
held by local housing authorities for section 8 certificates and 
vouchers in use for low-income families to cover potential increases in 
rent or reductions in resident income during the remaining contract 
term. In other words, this is taking money away from one group of very 
poor who need housing to another group of very poor who need housing.
  During the consideration of the recently enacted rescissions bill, we 
closely examined the funding needs of the existing section 8 contracts 
to remove any excess funds. Only 4 months ago, this body, along with 
the House and the President, after we carefully assessed the needs, 
determined that some $427 million could be rescinded from the section 8 
reserves without, in our view, potentially jeopardizing the sound 
financing of these outstanding rental contracts. That rescission has 
already been enacted into law. We now find ourselves a few months later 
again attempting to raid these contract reserves to fund increased 
homeless activities.
  There are two things I could say about the amendment. If we fail to 
adequately maintain reserves for the cost of section 8 contracts, we 
will surely need additional homeless funding to assist the families 
that get evicted when their rental contracts run out of money. So we 
could be pushing another group out into the street.
  Mr. President, the pending amendment proposes to cut another $360 
million from section 8 contract reserves. I should point out that more 
than half the current estimate of the total amount held in these 
reserves is by local housing authorities.
  New York City, for example, stands to lose as much as $90 million if 
this reduction is taken proportionately. Such a large reduction could 
jeopardize the financial viability of the contracts issued and 
administered by that large housing authority.
  I note that those who suggest this reduction in contract reserves 
claim that the section 8 amendment funding could be provided at a later 
point to make up any shortfalls. Unfortunately, this assumes there will 
be adequate funding within our budget allocation to accommodate such an 
appropriation request, in addition to meeting the growing renewal needs 
of these section 8 contracts, all in the face of further reductions in 
overall discretionary spending.
  Mr. President, that is the fallacy behind this offset. I described 
earlier the difficulties in finding offsets. There are no easy places 
to find offsets.
  In reality, this measure is no offset at all because the net effect 
of the amendment is to increase program funding levels. It simply 
proposes to borrow funds previously set aside for section 8 program 
costs to augment yet another activity, neither of which can be 
maintained in the future at the increased spending levels if we ever 
hope to balance the Federal budget.
  I should add that the sponsors of this amendment have acknowledged 
the real programmatic effect of this budgetary shell game by delaying 
the availability of the $360 million added for homeless programs until 
the last day of the year.
  I refer my colleagues who are interested to page 3 of the amendment. 
The last paragraph says ``Restriction.''

       Notwithstanding section 504, or any other provision of this 
     act, the funds made available under title II of this act 
     under the subheading ``homeless assistance'' grants, $360 
     million shall not become available for obligation until 
     September 30, 1996, and shall remain available until 
     expended.
  In other words, to avoid the Budget Act point of order, they said 
they are appropriating it for the coming year, but you cannot spend it 
until the end of the next fiscal year, to avoid the Budget Act point of 
order for breaching the fiscal year 1996 allocation.
  Mr. President, I merely point out that if the sponsors of the 
amendment are concerned about increasing fiscal year 1997 homeless 
program spending, then it would be wise simply to wait until next 
year's appropriations bill and offer an amendment to take funds from 
the 1997 appropriations. Maybe we can work with the sponsors and the 
proponents of the amendment to find funding in that year. But it looks 
like a difficult year. This is an effort to fund in 1997 some programs 
from the budget authority in 1996.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. The best of motives 
but, unfortunately, will do nothing towards meeting the current need 
for homeless assistance activities. It does not even click in until 
September of next year. It undermines our budgetary and deficit control 
efforts, and it jeopardizes the viability of housing assistance 
contracts currently in use by thousands of families across the Nation.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  
[[Page S 14276]]

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  First of all, the amendment does not jeopardize the contracts. We 
have a letter here from the Secretary of HUD. I ask unanimous consent 
to include it in the Record.
  Mr. BOND. Could I see a copy of that?
  Will the Senator provide me a copy, please.
  Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         The Secretary, U.S. Department Of Housing and Urban 
           Development,
                               Washington, DC, September 26, 1995.
     Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
     Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Paul: I am writing this letter to express my support 
     for an amendment to the Senate Appropriations bill which 
     would restore the level of funding for the homeless 
     assistance programs to their FY 1995 level, or $1.12 billion. 
     This amendment would offset the homeless funding level 
     increase of $360 million with a concomitant reduction in the 
     section 8 renewal account.
       Funding for the renewal of expiring contracts can be 
     reduced without any impact on existing recipients because 
     many public housing agencies have sufficient reserves in 
     their section 8 tenant-based contracts. These agencies can 
     use these reserves to renew expiring contracts before 
     receiving additional federal resources.
       As you know, the FY 1995 Rescission law required the 
     Department to use available PHA reserves in the same manner 
     as this amendment would provide.
       We therefore fully support the amendment that would offset 
     the increased Homeless funding level with available PHA 
     reserves for section 8 tenant-based contract renewals.
       Thank for you your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Henry Cisneros.

  Mr. SARBANES. The Secretary says:

       I am writing this letter to express my support for an 
     amendment to the Senate Appropriations bill which would 
     restore the level of funding for the homeless assistance 
     programs to the FY 1995 level of $1.12 billion. This 
     amendment would offset the homeless funding level increase of 
     $360 million with a concomitant reduction in the section 8 
     renewal account.
       Funding for the renewal of expiring contracts can be 
     reduced without any impact on existing recipients--

  I underscore that ``existing recipients''--

       Because many public housing agencies have sufficient 
     reserves in their section 8 tenant-based contracts. These 
     agencies can use these reserves to renew expiring contracts 
     before receiving additional Federal resources.
       As you know, the FY 1995 Rescission law required the 
     Department to use available PHA reserves in the same manner 
     as this amendment would provide.

  The amendment uses these reserves. That means the reserves are not 
available if they want to upgrade the section 8 program. Public housing 
agencies would be less able to issue more contracts or cover rent 
increases. The amendment does leave enough money to fulfill existing 
contracts.
  The real question then becomes: Is it a sufficiently higher priority 
to address the problem of the homeless, even though we have to move 
money out of another program? I think the problems of the homeless are 
a critical priority.
  What the extra money for the homeless program would enable us to do 
is use a formula approach. Virtually everyone is in favor of a formula 
approach. The additional funds made available in this amendment would 
become part of a larger pool which would enable the Department to apply 
the formula to allocate the funds. We need enough funds to make the 
formula realistic.
  The fact that the additional money in this amendment can not be 
committed in a contract with a State or local government until the end 
of the fiscal year does not affect then the ability of the States and 
the localities to prepare for the money on the basis of a formula 
allocation and to develop their programs accordingly. The committee 
report says that ``funding for a formula below $1 billion will mean 
that many communities with significant homeless programs will not get 
adequate resources to design and maintain assistance programs to meet 
their needs.'' This amendment would provide enough money and make 
possible a major reform in the administration of HUD's homeless 
programs.
  Ever since 1989, the Congress has repeatedly increased the amount of 
money available for homeless assistance. This amendment merely tries to 
keep the funding level from 1995 to 1996. And, in this amendment, we 
have an offset that comes out of another housing account. I am not 
happy about the offset. I think the housing accounts are being markedly 
shortchanged. But, when it comes to a judgment as to whether we ought 
to let the bill's drastic cut in the money for the homeless stand or 
draw some money off of the section 8 reserves, it seems to me that we 
ought to use the section 8 reserves in order to assure that the 
homeless program can continue at a reasonable level.
  I again want to underscore that a significant number of Members are 
talking about are the needs of veterans in the context of the bill 
before us. The amendment raises a question of priorities. I say to my 
distinguished friend from Missouri, in the choice between leaving these 
funds in reserve accounts to be rolled over into section 8 versus 
providing shelter for homeless veterans, I have chosen to move the 
money to the homeless programs. The money left in the section 8 account 
after this amendment will cover existing contracts. What will be lost 
is the housing authorities' reserves that are there to cover increases 
the contract subsidy or to cover rent increases. I say to my colleague: 
Between those two alternatives it seems to me that raising the level of 
appropriations for the homeless ought to take precedent.
  As Lucie McKinney said in this very strong and moving article, ``We 
do know how to end homelessness.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  Mr. SARBANES. I yield myself one minute. The article by Ms. McKinney 
continues: ``And while the cure is not cost free, it costs a whole lot 
less than not facing and solving the problem. Saving lives and saving 
money, how can that be bad?''
  Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, what is the time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this point the Senator from Maryland has 10 
minutes and 40 seconds and the Senator from Missouri 23 minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
Sarbanes amendment which would restore funding for the homeless 
assistance program. But I also rise in strong support of the leadership 
and advocacy provided by the senior Senator from Maryland. I am not the 
kind of person who likes being No. 2, but I am more than satisfied to 
be No. 2 to this distinguished Member of the Senate, our senior 
Senator.
  As we know, he is the ranking member on the Housing Committee. He has 
chaired the Subcommittee on Housing for a number of years, and his 
advocacy in promoting homeownership, opportunities for the poor in 
terms of shelter, and economic and community development as well as 
banking reform I think are to be acknowledged.
  Senator Sarbanes really wanted to offer many amendments to this bill 
because there are issues in this bill related to housing and their 
skimpy allocation that warrant both debate and additional amendments. 
He has chosen to focus his amendment on the poorest of the poor, that 
constituency in our society that has the least advocacy.
  The bill before us provides $760 million for homeless assistance 
programs, a cut of $360 million under last year's appropriation and the 
President's request.
  The Sarbanes amendment will restore this funding to the President's 
request of $1.12 billion.
  Preliminary analysis of this cut is that HUD would serve a total of 
93,000 fewer homeless Americans, including 11,000 people who would have 
received housing if funding had been continued at current levels; 
23,000 Americans who would lose their homes by denying them homeless 
prevention assistance that provides short-term rental and utility 
subsidies in times of family or financial crisis; 11,000 day care slots 
which would force the working poor to choose between working full-time 
and caring for their kids; 16,000 disabled Americans would lose mental 
health counseling provided under current levels; 14,000 homeless 
persons would be denied substance abuse counseling; and 20,000 homeless 
families would lose opportunities for job placement through HUD and 
nonprofit agencies. 

[[Page S 14277]]

  These numbers are staggering.
  In fact, this cut represents the first reduction in the homeless 
program since 1989.
  What bothers me most about this cut in homeless funding is the impact 
of this cut coupled with others that are coming down the pike.
  Over the past 25 years the construction of the interstate highway 
system, immigration and migration trends, the shift from manufacturing 
to service and knowledge-based industries, and the flight of the middle 
class have weakened our cities.
  Poverty is growing and becoming more concentrated.
  Twenty-five years ago 3.8 million people lived in the poorest 
neighborhoods in our largest 94 cities.
  Today, 10.8 million people live in those same areas.
  In those same 94 cities, unemployment increased by 66 percent between 
1970 and 1990.
  The percentage of people employed in manufacturing jobs has dropped 
from 22.1 to 14 in the last 20 years.
  The point is that as we look across the agenda that the new majority 
in this Congress is promoting, you can't help but notice the 
devastating cumulative impacts of these cuts.
  The deep cuts being proposed by the majority in areas like job 
training programs, mass transit, and community reinvestment programs 
are drawing jobs, private investment, and income out of metropolitan 
areas.
  Cuts in Medicaid and the earned income tax credit will impact the 
working poor.
  And as the Federal Government continues to shift service costs to 
localities, metropolitan areas will be forced to choose between raising 
taxes and cutting services and capital budgets.
  The result is that our larger cities are increasingly becoming less 
desirable places in which to live and work. They are becoming 
warehouses for the poor.
  At a time when our cities need a helping hand, this Congress is 
instead adding to the burden. There is no better example than committee 
proposal that the pending amendment seeks to address.
  Mr. President, we have a convergence of forces going on in America's 
cities and also in communities we call the ``inner beltway 
communities.'' These were the first suburban communities after World 
War II where the infrastructure is now aging. And in our hometown of 
Baltimore, and in communities like Silver Spring and Oxon Hill, and 
some others, and in our own home State of Maryland, we see a rising 
number of homeless. And we see a new kind of homeless.
  Sure, the homeless in the past have been romanticized. Lucy played a 
homeless lady befriended by a young woman. We saw ``Down and Out in 
LA,'' some cute, clever kind of story about a homeless guy who ends up 
in a Gucci household and transforms them in some kind of great 
metamorphosis.
  But I will tell you, down and out in LA, down and out in Baltimore is 
increasing. And when we look at the homeless, we see what is the face 
of the homeless.
  First of all, there are many people who get up and work every day but 
because they often work at the minimum wage, they cannot afford 
housing. We see where men, particularly single men, are in and out of 
the shelters but going to work. We also see an increased amount, in the 
homeless, of single mothers who have been abandoned, often with no 
recourse, who then are finding themselves and their children out on the 
street. And now what we are also seeing is the homeless vet population. 
And I know the Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, has been an 
outspoken advocate of that. So what we are seeing is an increase in 
homelessness because we are seeing an increase in poverty.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that very point?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes.
  Mr. SARBANES. The figures here in this report before me show that 
single men comprise 48 percent of the homeless population. Families 
with children now comprise 39 percent of the homeless population. The 
nature of the homeless population is changing.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator knows where I live in Baltimore, not too 
far from him, in a neighborhood called Fells Point. It used to be an 
old Polish neighborhood. It has a little bit of an entertainment 
district. But now we are seeing every day the increase of homelessness 
and panhandling. Yet when you talk to the panhandlers, these are 
mothers with children trying to get a few pennies together to hold the 
body and soul together. I live eight blocks from public housing. I live 
around the corner from a shelter for battered women. Those battered 
women are one step from being homeless. Fortunately, we have public 
housing. But this increase in homelessness is due to a decline in 
wages. It is also due to the decline of opportunity. So I think, 
coupled with what is going on in our economy combined with other cuts 
that are going to hurt the poor, that we really do need this amendment. 
I am very much concerned about the growing number and the changing 
profile.
  There is nothing romantic about the homeless. The homeless do not 
think they are romantic. The homeless think that they are homeless. And 
if you talk to people in our public schools or if you go to Mercy 
Hospital in downtown Baltimore, they are treating more and--what they 
are facing in the hospitals is more and more homeless families, 
particularly the children who have no home and no medical plan.
  I thank the Senator for his advocacy. I look forward to his voting 
for the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SARBANES. I very much appreciate the support of my colleague and 
her leadership on this bill. The appropriations subcommittee has been 
given an allocation which is completely inadequate to meet the funding 
needs of the programs under her jurisdiction. I know how hard she 
struggled with that.
  Mr. President, let me make this point: State and local governments, 
nonprofit groups, church groups, and community groups have all joined 
in a network to try to address the problems of the homeless. They are 
working at the local level to create comprehensive systems on behalf of 
the homeless, systems that outreach and screening, emergency shelters, 
transitional facilities, and permanent housing with services where that 
is necessary. Supportive housing is the approach to meeting the needs 
of the homeless about which Mrs. McKinney wrote in her article.
  Our approach to addressing the needs of the homeless is beginning to 
work. This is not the time for the Federal Government to back away from 
its commitment. I implore my colleague from Missouri to accept this 
amendment. This amendment makes good sense. We are weighing the 
decision between dealing with the homeless, as this amendment seeks to 
do, and leaving those moneys in a section 8 reserve account. I do not 
think that it is even a close call. We have to try to deal with the 
homeless problem. We ought not to recede from the fight when we are 
finally realizing some success.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, how much time is left on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has 23 minutes; the 
Senator from Maryland has 4 minutes 16 seconds.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am about ready to yield back my time. I 
have some very brief comments. I yield myself 3 minutes, and if the 
proponent of the amendment wishes to conclude, then I will respond 
briefly, and we can move on to the next amendment. While this is a very 
important amendment, we do not seem to have a great number of 
colleagues wishing to debate it. So, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. President, I have already made the point that we are dealing with 
some very, very sensitive issues, and, unfortunately, I do not see this 
amendment as being any solution whatsoever because it takes money from 
an account designed to prevent homelessness in order to add money to 
those who are currently homeless.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BOND. We are dealing with the same population. Frankly, we are 
trying to make sure that the money available for section 8 grants does 
not run out next year.
  Let me explain. There are a couple things that can happen. Not only 
if the rents go up, but if the income of the persons receiving the 
section 8 certificate or voucher goes down, more 

[[Page S 14278]]
money is needed. And we are digging into the same pot and potentially 
causing the greater problem.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BOND. I will be happy to.
  Mr. SARBANES. Would it not make more sense to take the chance that 
the section 8 contracts will be adequate funded? The reserves are there 
for when the rents go up or the income of the section-8-assisted people 
go down more than anticipated. Both of these outcomes are 
possibilities, but by no means certainties. Would it not make more 
sense to take the contingent money and use it to address the current 
needs of the homeless? Their needs are a certainty.
  We are reducing our commitment to the fight against homelessness by 
32 percent in this legislation. You have got State and local 
governments working with private groups to construct this network to 
try to deal with the homeless problem. They are relying on these 
resources and I think we should sustain our commitment. We know that 
the homeless problem is there. The section 8 problem you are talking 
about is only a possibility. I do not deny that using the reserves does 
raise the possibility of future section 8 needs.
  Mr. BOND. Yes.
  Mr. SARBANES. The section 8 offset is not money that appears out of 
nowhere.
  Mr. BOND. If the Senator wishes to make an argument, he has 4 minutes 
left. To respond to the question, I would say that argument holds no 
water when he does not make any of the funds available--what is it--
until September 30, 1996. This is a shell game.
  Mr. SARBANES. No. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. BOND. Yes.
  Mr. SARBANES. The money in the amendment would become available for 
purposes of running the formula and for the purposes of HUD developing 
its regulations. With this amendment, the Senator has an opportunity 
now to make the formula approach --which he supports, as I understand 
it--work. The Senator has said himself in the committee report that he 
needs at least $1 billion in order to fund a formula adequately. This 
amendment would provide the Senator with that opportunity. The final 
commitment of funds would not come until the end of the fiscal year, 
but the whole process could be put in place. You could have a formula-
based homeless program, which everyone says is the direction in which 
to move. My amendment would give HUD the opportunity to do it.
  Mr. BOND. Well, Mr. President----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 3 minutes have expired.
  Mr. BOND. All right. Would the proponent of the amendment wish to 
pursue that? Does he wish to, on his time, state anything further? 
Because I am prepared to yield back all of the time as soon as I make 
some closing comments.
  Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator wishes to respond, I will hear him out 
and then make my closing statement.
  Mr. BOND. I will say, first, we are asking HUD to promulgate rules 
through negotiated rulemaking and include recommendations by State and 
localities, as well as homeless assistance providers.
  This task is going to go forward in any event. A budget gimmick of 
making funds available on the last day of the fiscal year does not 
improve the situation. We are going to be facing a very tight budgetary 
situation in 1997. To attempt to move funds now and make them available 
September 30 next year, unfortunately, is not a realistic way of 
dealing with the problem of homelessness. I share the concern of the 
Senator from Maryland to make sure we get a new program. Frankly, this 
does not do anything for it.
  I point out that when we rescinded slightly more than this in the 
rescissions bill, that rescission was more than three-quarters of the 
way through the fiscal year when we knew what was going to happen in 
the fiscal year. This is starting out the fiscal year by taking away 
from that reserve fund. I do not think that makes any sense, 
particularly when it is not going to be needed until the end of the 
fiscal year.
  I ask this amendment be set aside for a vote to occur--I will, when 
the time arrives, ask that it be set aside. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I have no objection to the vote being 
set aside. I gather the Senator from Vermont wishes to offer his 
amendment, and then we will vote on both of them at the same time 
seriatim.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, let me bring to the attention of the 
other Senator from Maryland, the senior Senator from Maryland, that the 
leadership is going to try to do some other amendments after the 
Jeffords, of Vermont, amendment. There are Senators who need a window 
and both leaders are trying to accommodate that. I think they are 
looking for votes somewhere around 7:30, 8 o'clock, though it has not 
been agreed to. That is what is floating out there. So we are trying to 
get as many amendments in.
  Mr. SARBANES. Is the parliamentary situation that a vote is to occur 
on this amendment at the conclusion of the use of our time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no order that the vote occur after 
this amendment, but if at the conclusion of this debate a motion to put 
it aside takes place, the normal procedure in regular procedure would 
be to vote at the conclusion of debate and expiration of time.
  Mr. SARBANES. That would be the regular order. I do not mind 
accommodating, but I do not want to see the vote extended way into the 
evening, I say to my colleagues.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I do not believe it will be extended into the evening, 
if the Senator agrees to lay this aside so we can go to the Jeffords 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has 3 minutes, 23 
seconds.
  Mr. SARBANES. Let me say to my colleague from Missouri, and I am on 
the housing committee, you say in your own report, on trying to go to a 
formula base:

       . . . the Committee is worried that a block grant approach 
     with funds less than $1,000,000,000 may disadvantage some 
     areas with significant homeless problems and some homeless 
     providers.

  That is on page 61.
  What this transfer will do is it will enable HUD, in effect, to move 
to a formula grant program as it develops these negotiated regulations 
in the coming fiscal year. It is going to take time to develop those 
regulations, but they cannot structure a competition or an allocation 
of those moneys unless they are above $1 billion by your own statement 
in the report.
  So this offers the opportunity to really move forward on the homeless 
issue, and the price we are paying for it is we are taking some moneys 
out of the section 8 program, which would not cover then the 
possibilities to which you have eluded, either that rents would rise or 
incomes of people getting section 8 would drop. Those are both 
possibilities, and I concede that.
  But the homeless are a reality here and now, and the need to 
structure the homeless programs in partnership with State and local 
government and in partnership with the private sector must move 
forward. And the way to move it forward is to adopt this amendment, 
bringing the amount for the homeless back up to this year's level and 
thereby enabling HUD to structure a program which utilizes the formula-
grant approach, which the committee on which the Senator and I serve 
reported out last year on a bipartisan vote, on a 15-to-3 vote.
  A formula grant will provide State and local governments with a 
predictable stream of funding to support their efforts to create 
comprehensive systems: outreach and screening, emergency shelters, 
transitional facilities and permanent housing with supportive services.
  Comprehensive, coordinated systems such as those are critical for 
addressing the needs of the homeless population. I urge the adoption of 
this amendment. It will actually be putting resources to work in their 
most important and critical need.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, I go back to the fact we have asked HUD to engage in 
negotiated rulemaking because HUD is unlikely to be able to put 
together a block grant during fiscal year 1996. Negotiated rulemaking 
will provide the homeless advocates with the ability to fashion a block 
grant to utilize these 

[[Page S 14279]]
moneys, and, frankly, this amendment, although it looks good to have it 
in an appropriations bill in 1995 that I hope gets signed this year for 
1996, will not make a single dollar available, cannot be allocated or 
obligated during fiscal year 1996.
  Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will--
  Mr. BOND. This measure does not do anything except what I think is a 
shell game to make it look better when, in fact, there is not a dollar 
that can be allocated during the coming fiscal year because of the 
restriction put on saying it should be restricted until September 30, 
1996.
  While we both share the objective of taking care of the homeless, 
this amendment is less than it appears. It does not accomplish 
anything. I, therefore, move to table it. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator withhold the tabling motion, because 
it is just not correct to say it cannot be allocated. It can be 
allocated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At the moment, there is not.
  Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be put aside 
until such time as the leaders, by agreement, can establish the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SARBANES. I object. Is there time remaining on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining. The question is--
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield me 30 seconds?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time.
  Mr. SARBANES. There is time on the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no debate on a motion to table.
  Mr. SARBANES. Has the tabling motion been made?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time to be yielded, because we 
have a motion to table and it is not debatable.
  Mr. BOND. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________