[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 98 (Friday, June 28, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7302-S7309]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

       By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):

  S. 1922. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
of 1974 to establish a Pension ProSave system which improves the 
retirement income security of millions of American workers by 
encouraging employers to make pension contributions on behalf of 
employees, by facilitating pension portability, by preserving and 
increasing retirement savings, and by simplifying pension law; to the 
Committee on Finance.

  S. 1923. A bill to establish a Pension ProSave system which improves 
the retirement income security of millions of American workers by 
encouraging employers to make pension contributions on behalf of 
employees, by facilitating pension portability, by preserving and 
increasing retirement savings, and by simplifying pension law; to the 
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                        The Pension Pro-Save Act

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the chance to 
speak, address the Senate today on the very important issue of 
retirement security. The Senator from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, and 
myself are introducing today two bills. I will just read the title for 
people so that they will get an idea what these bills will do:

       To establish a Pension ProSave system that improves 
     retirement income security for millions of American workers 
     by encouraging employers to make pension contributions on 
     behalf of employees, by facilitating pension portability, by 
     preserving and increasing retirement savings, and by 
     simplifying pension law.

  Mr. President, before I describe our proposal, let me describe the 
problem, because I think the problem we are attempting to confront is 
severe, is serious, and affects many of us in this country. This first 
chart I have here describes the problem very well. This is a chart with 
the title, ``More Than 50 Million Workers Are Not Earning A Pension.''
  This pie chart shows that over half of the private sector workers in 
this country today, 50.8 million people, as of April 1993, so I am sure 
it is even larger now, but over 50 million people are not covered by 
any kind of pension. This, of course, is separate from Social Security, 
which is not a pension program. But as regards any other type of 
pension, more than half of our workers are not covered today.
  Let me show another chart that sort of breaks this down by State and 
shows the problem as it exists from State to State. You can see the 
percentages. This chart shows on a map here the percentage of people 
covered by some type of pension plan in each of our States. People 
might ask, why is a Senator from New Mexico even interested in this 
issue? I can tell you why. When you look at New Mexico, we have the 
lowest percentage of our workers covered by pensions of any State in 
the Union; 29 percent of our private sector employees in New Mexico 
actually have some degree of pension coverage.
  Let me show another chart here, which tries to make the same point 
somewhat differently and just shows the percentage of workers who do 
not have coverage: ``State Differences In Pension Coverage.'' Starting 
from the top, the State with the largest percentage of workers not 
covered is New Mexico, with 71 percent; next Louisiana, 69 percent; 
then Nevada, 67 percent; and on down the list.
  I see my friend from North Dakota on the floor. In his State, 61 
percent percent of the people in that State do not have any pension 
coverage. So this is a serious, serious problem.
  The final chart I will show is a chart to make the point that the 
problem is not getting better or getting solved. In fact, it is getting 
worse. This shows two different figures here, first the figure for 1979 
and then the figure for 1989. The red is the percentage of coverage 
that existed in 1979, the yellow is the percentage of coverage that 
existed 10 years later, in 1989, for different groups in our society 
depending upon the extent of the education they have received.
  We can see for those with less than a high school education, in 1979, 
44 percent of those people were covered; in 1989, 28 percent. And on 
and on down through the list. Again, it is clear that our Nation has a 
severe problem to confront.
  Second, it is clear the problem is getting worse. The reasons for 
inadequate pension coverage are what we need to focus on. I believe 
there are four key reasons why so many of our citizens have no pension 
coverage.
  First, present law does not provide adequate incentives for employers 
to contribute to a pension plan for themselves and their employees. 
Many of our small businesses, the vast majority of our small 
businesses, do not contribute at the present time because those 
incentives are not there.
  A second reason is that, in addition to inadequate incentives, 
present law imposes significant administrative duties on employers who 
wish to assist in providing pension coverage.
  A third reason is that the rapid pace of job change, combined with 
significant waiting periods before retirement benefits vest, results in 
many employees losing their rights to retirement benefits when they 
move from job to job.
  The fourth reason is that present law greatly limits the amount of 
pretax savings that a person can achieve unless his or her employer 
does take on this administrative duty of establishing a pension plan.
  Let me describe briefly the proposal that Senator Jeffords and I are 
putting before the Senate today and are having referred to committee. 
This Pension ProSave proposal seeks to increase the number of Americans 
with some level of pension benefits by curing the deficiencies that are 
presently in the law. First, it provides an additional tax incentive to 
an employer if he or she commits an amount equal to at least 1 percent 
of each employee's salary to a pension for all employees. The maximum 
amount each year that an employer may contribute for each employee 
would be $5,000.

[[Page S7303]]

  A second way we are trying to correct deficiencies is that the 
administrative duties on the employer wishing to participate in this 
Pension ProSave proposal are kept to an absolute minimum. Employers are 
given the flexibility to increase the amount of the contribution to the 
pension plan or to suspend payments entirely for a single year, if that 
is necessary because of economic hardship in the business. The employer 
participating in Pension ProSave is free of any future pension 
obligations to employees once those employees leave the job. That is a 
very important benefit to employers, as we see it.
  A third way we are trying to correct deficiencies is that the 
employee will become eligible to accrue pension benefits whenever those 
pension benefits are made by the employer. If the employer wants to 
participate in Pension ProSave, the employer would have to go ahead and 
make contributions for each employee once the employee has been 
employed for 6 months. But those payments would vest immediately once 
they were made into the ProSave account of the employee.
  When an employee not covered by Pension ProSave leaves a job where 
benefits have accrued, that employee would have the right to direct the 
employer to transfer the cash equivalent of accrued pension benefits to 
an account in the name of the employee and the Pension Portability 
Clearinghouse which we are establishing under this act.
  Under Pension ProSave, an employee may save additional pretax dollars 
for his or her own retirement in the amount twice what the employer 
contributes each year, to a maximum of $5,000, whichever is less. 
Amounts employees are permitted to save are in addition to what might 
be saved in an IRA or some other pension plan.
  To accomplish this set of objectives, we are proposing to establish a 
nonprofit, private corporation chartered by an act of Congress, which 
would be designated the Pension Portability Clearinghouse, to 
administer the Pension ProSave system. The corporation would be 
governed by a board, the members of which would be appointed by the 
President, with the advice and consent of the Senate.
  Payments into the clearinghouse would occur, first, when an employee 
who has chosen to participate in Pension ProSave makes a payment to the 
account of an employee;
  Second, when an employee makes a payment, as permitted, which could 
be up to twice what the employer has made that same year;
  And third, as I indicated before, when an employer who does not 
participate at the direction of the employee transfers cash payments to 
a Pension ProSave account when the employee leaves that employer's 
company.
  There are some similarities in what we are proposing to the TIAA-CREF 
model, with which many people are familiar. TIAA-CREF is the largest 
pension plan for administration of pension benefits that currently 
exists in this country, and I believe in the world. TIAA-CREF, 
originally established by Andrew Carnegie to help those teaching in 
universities to have pension coverage when moving from one educational 
institution to another, current manages more than $136 billion for 
approximately 1.7 million participants at more than 5,500 institutions.
  The similarities between the Pension Portability Clearinghouse and 
TIAA-CREF are that we would have central administration of accounts for 
multiple employers.
  Also, we would provide the ability of employees and employers to use 
the mechanism of Pension ProSave accounts if they chose to.
  We differ from TIAA-CREF in several significant ways also. First of 
all, Pension ProSave would be open to all employers, not just to those 
in a particular industry or particular field. TIAA-CREF, for example, 
is limited just to those involved with higher education or research.
  Pension ProSave is limited strictly to maintaining records of account 
balances and not to managing funds or selling annuities. Again, that 
would be a significant difference between what we are proposing and 
TIAA-CREF.
  We also have some similarities in this proposal to the Federal thrift 
savings plan in that we do provide a means to establish a retirement 
account and to add to it as a person proceeds through their career.
  We differ from the thrift savings plan in obvious ways also in that 
we have designed Pension ProSave for contributions to retirement 
savings even as a person moves from job to job. The thrift savings 
plan, of course, is limited to Federal employees, people working for a 
single employer.
  Pension ProSave provides for immediate vesting of employee 
contributions. The thrift savings plan for Federal workers does not.
  Pension ProSave does not have any requirement on employers to match 
contributions by employees as the thrift savings plan does.
  So what we are proposing is not a carbon copy of TIAA-CREF; it is not 
a carbon copy of the Federal thrift savings plan either. Instead, it is 
a new mechanism which employers could choose to take advantage of or 
not, as they see fit. For those who do choose to participate, it 
provides a hassle-free way for the employer and the employee to save 
more pretax dollars for retirement.

  There is one other feature of Pension ProSave that I want to 
highlight, and that is the opportunity it provides for employers to 
engage in profit sharing with their employees. Suppose, for example, 
that I am a small business owner and I am not sure from one year to the 
next how well or how poorly my business will do. Under Pension ProSave, 
I would have the option of setting up Pension ProSave accounts for each 
employee by committing to contribute as little as 1 percent of their 
salary into those accounts each time I issue a paycheck to them.
  By making that 1 percent contribution, I give each employee the 
opportunity to contribute an additional 2 percent from their own 
resources. But if I do contribute the 1 percent each pay period from 
January, say, through December and then decide that it has been a very 
good year for my business and I want to share some of the profit with 
employees, I could increase that contribution into Pension ProSave for 
my employees to 2 percent or to 5 percent, as long as I did not exceed 
the $5,000 total limit per employee.
  This proposal does provide a hassle-free way to save pretax dollars 
for retirement, a hassle-free way to participate with profit sharing 
programs for employees. It promotes savings. It will help more people 
to reach retirement with pensions. It will help to buffer individuals 
against the turbulence of this economy we live in. It will provide more 
employers with a good vehicle for profit sharing. All of those are 
major benefits to our Nation.
  Mr. President, one cause of the extraordinary economic anxiety in our 
Nation is related to the eroding sense of financial security at 
retirement. A recent study of worker's views of their present and 
future economic circumstances found that most people believe that 
despite the twists, turns, and pitfalls in our rapidly changing 
economy, that they can chart a successful course to retirement. But 
their anxiety levels were extremely high when concerns about the 
solvency of Social Security and about the great number of Americans 
without pension benefits were mentioned.
  Americans include retirement security in their personal strategies 
for economic success. I believe that America is calling for a credible 
proposal that will get more of our Citizens covered by some kind of 
pensions.
  There is no doubt that increasing retirement savings will help 
bolster national savings, which will help spur more long-term 
investment and economic growth. I urge my colleagues to review this 
proposal which Senator Jeffords and I are offering and join us in this 
effort to improve retirement security for many millions of Americans.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the problem of retirement security is an 
ever mounting challenge to the future welfare of our Nation. More than 
51 million Americans are not covered by any kind of pension plan. The 
aging of the baby boom generation will dramatically increase the 
retired population in proportion to the working population early in the 
next century.
  Our Nation is facing certain crisis if we fail to take steps to 
correct this problem of people working until retirement--and finding 
that their Social Security benefits fail to maintain adequate and 
acceptable living standards.

[[Page S7304]]

 Despite the proliferation of retirement products in various forms of 
IRA's and 401(k) plans, patterns clearly show that those who earn 
enough to save probably do. Our problem is that over the last 15 years, 
we have had no increase in the percentage of our workforce that is 
participating in a qualified pension program.
  Mr. President, in order to ensure that this Congress does face the 
issue of retirement security for all working Americans and not just the 
fortunate minority who are saving, I am introducing with my colleague, 
Senator Bingaman, the Retirement Security for All Americans Pension 
Pro-Save Act.
  The bill we are introducing outlines a concept for pension expansion 
and portability that has been discussed in this Chamber several times 
over the last several decades but which has not evolved until now as 
legislation. The Pension ProSave System would improve the retirement 
income security of millions of working Americans by encouraging 
employees to make contributions on their behalf, by facilitating 
pension portability, by preserving and significantly increasing 
retirement savings and by simplifying pension law.
  Despite 17 years of availability of simplified pension plans, pension 
coverage remains low in the small business sector. Even when covered by 
a tax-advantaged pension plan, many workers cash out their own 
contributions made to the pension plan when they leave one job rather 
than roll them over into another retirement vehicle. Tax penalties 
unfortunately have not been entirely successful in discouraging the 
spending of these midcareer retirement savings disbursements. Of the 
$47.9 billion in preretirement distributions made in 1990, less than 20 
percent of recipients reported putting the entire distribution into 
another tax-qualified retirement plan.
  The Pension ProSave System is modeled after the highly successful 
Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association-College Retirement Equity 
Fund (TIAA-CREF), the largest private pension system in the world with 
assets over $136 billion and about 1.7 million participants at about 
5,500 institutions. This proposal targets those who are working their 
way toward retirement--and will have little or no private pension plan 
to supplement their Social Security benefits. Pension Pro-Save is 
designed to supplement other pension vehicles and will increase pension 
coverage to millions of American workers, especially for those who work 
for small businesses.
  The benefits of Pension ProSave are first, it would provide an 
incentive and a simple, hassle free way for employers to provide 
portable pension benefits to their workers. Employees could also make 
matching contributions to their accounts on a 2:1 basis to a maximum of 
$5,000. The employer's contributions also would not exceed $5,000. Mr. 
President, I want to emphasize that these are the employee's accounts--
not the Government's and not the employer's. These accounts will remain 
with those workers the duration of their lives.
  Second, Pension ProSave would stop the leakage of retirement savings 
by furnishing employer's pension contributions into a portability 
clearinghouse. Worker's account balances would be invested and managed 
by private sector firms in diversified portfolios.

  Mr. President, the funds contributed by an employer to the retirement 
security of his or her employees by way of a ProSave account will 
remain there and be invested at the direction of the employee until 
retirement. The Portability Clearinghouse will contract with investment 
firms to manage funds through the Clearinghouse. Investment options 
would include a fixed income fund, an equity fund, a Government 
securities fund, small business capitalization fund, an international 
fund, and a public infrastructure fund.
  Employers will have no responsibility for administering a pension 
fund or managing funds for employees who have left their employment. 
This should be very attractive to businesses that do not desire to 
carry long-term responsibilities for workers who have moved on. 
Employer contributions are locked into the Pension ProSave accounts 
until retirement, funds contributed by the employee are available to be 
loaned for certain purposes and under terms established by the 
Portability Clearinghouse Board.
  Mr. President, I have no doubt that some who oppose this plan will 
rattle the cages and make claims that this act is nothing but more big 
Government, another bureaucratic institution that spreads the 
Government further into our lives. These claims would be wrong--and 
will only serve to maintain an economic reality that permits those best 
off in our society to take advantage and save up to $30,000 a year with 
Government provided tax advantages for 401(k)s and other employer 
sponsored private pension plans. Government does have an important role 
to play because the market has failed to provide the extension of 
pension coverage to 51 million Americans.
  It is unacceptable that workers who don't have an employer provided 
pension plan--can only save $2,000 a year in IRA accounts. We must now 
do what we can to provide an incentive to employers to provide modest 
retirement security for more employees. This plan is an enabler--it 
creates a structure, similar in many ways to the TIAA-CREF model 
established at the beginning of this century by Andrew Carnegie to 
provide pension portability for professors and university employees 
moving between one higher education institution and another.
  We have a responsibility not only to create a more equitable savings 
structure for those Americans who have the desire and wherewithal to 
save--but also to the many Americans who are low-income workers who 
move from job to job, finding themselves with little or no private 
pensions to help them in their retirement years.
  Pension ProSave promotes savings, helps more people reach retirement 
with pensions, helps buffer against the turbulence of the economy, and 
provides many employers with a good vehicle for profit sharing. All of 
these are benefits for our Nation as a whole.
  Interestingly enough, any plan that succeeds in establishing more 
retirement security for our working population is scored as costing our 
country short-term tax revenue. By the year 2029, when the youngest 
baby boomers reach age 65, more than 68 million persons will be older 
than 65--accounting for more than 20 percent of the U.S. population, 
compared to just 12 percent today. As a result, the ratio of workers 
contributing to Social Security will fall to two workers for every 
retiree. Rising Medicare and long-term care costs add even more to the 
savings retirees will need.
  Mr. President, I ask you and my other colleagues in this Chamber to 
stop thinking in the short term and not wait until the baby boomers 
begin to retire. If we do not begin to find the way to increase the 
ability of private employers and individuals to finance retirement 
needs the cost to our country will be much greater than revenue loses. 
Establishing Pension ProSave accounts is an investment that will help 
our Nation avoid a social train wreck that is just waiting to happen.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. STEVENS:
  S. 1924. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue 
a certificate of documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the 
vessel Damn Yankee; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


                      Jones Act Waiver Legislation

 Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to 
provide a certificate of documentation for the vessel Damn Yankee.
  The Damn Yankee (vessel number 263611) is a 40 foot vessel owned by 
David Guthert of Juneau, AK. It was built in Bellingham, WA, in 1952. 
Because of a gap in the ownership records of this vessel, it has been 
determined to be ineligible for documentation under the Jones Act. Mr. 
Guthert plans on using the boat for charter purposes.
  I ask for unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1924

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, 
     United States Code, and section 27 of the Merchant Marine 
     Act, 1920 (46 (App. U.S.C. 883), as applicable on the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation may 
     issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate 
     endorsements for employment in the coastwise trade for the 
     vessel DAMN YANKEE (vessel number 263611).
                                 ______
                                 

[[Page S7305]]


      By Mr. GORTON (for himself, Mr. Coats, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Faircloth, 
        Mr. Warner, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Frist, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Lott, Mrs. 
        Kassebaum, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Mack, Mr. Pressler, and Mr. Nickles):
  S. 1925. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to protect 
employer rights, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and 
Human Resources.


                  the truth in employment act of 1996

 Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with 
Senators Coats, Hatch, Faircloth, Warner, Gregg, Frist, Cochran, Lott, 
Kassebaum, Kyl, Mack, Pressler, and Nickles to introduce an important 
piece of legislation designed to alleviate an unfair practice affecting 
thousands of businesses in my home State of Washington and across the 
country. It is the Truth in Employment Act of 1996, which will curb the 
abuses of the union organizing tactic known as salting.
  Salting, Mr. President, occurs when unions send paid, professional 
organizers and union members into nonunion workplaces under the guise 
of seeking employment. The unions' avowed purpose in these salting 
programs is to harass the company, its employees, and to disrupt the 
jobsite until the company is either financially devastated or joins the 
union, whichever comes first. The key problem is that unions have 
trained their agents to use and abuse the procedures of the National 
Labor Relations Board as an offensive weapon against nonunion 
employers, largely by filing frivolous unfair labor practice charges.
  This fall, in Town & Country, the Supreme Court ruled that paid, 
professional union organizers are ``employees'' within the meaning of 
the National Labor Relations Act. Under the broad interpretations of 
the National Labor Relations Act, provisions prohibit employers from 
discriminating against employees because of other union interests or 
activities. This places employers, most of them small, mom-and-pop 
businesses, in a disastrous Catch-22: if they hire the union salts, 
they are subjected to outrageous internal harassment, but if they do 
not hire them, the salts cry discrimination and file frivolous charges. 
Employers are forced to make decisions about hiring, which may threaten 
the very existence of their businesses. Naturally, these businesses are 
concerned that the Supreme Court's ruling gives the unions carte 
blanche to use organizing techniques such as salting.
  I continue to hear from small businesses from across my home State on 
this issue. In Snohomish county, a mid-sized mechanical subcontractor 
has employed over 70 union members over the years to work side-by-side 
with nonunion employees pursuant to project agreements. Despite this, 
the operating engineer's union carries out a classic salting campaign 
involving 14 union applicants, one of whom is a business agent. When 
none of the applicants are hired, the union files unfair labor practice 
charges. Despite the employer's history of employing union members 
pursuant to project agreements, the NLRB's regional office finds 
sufficient merit to issue a complaint and proceed to a hearing. After 
spending $21,000 in attorneys fees, they settled for $10,500.

  Mr. President, this is just one example of the devastating economic 
effect salting has had on small businesses in my State. Small 
businesses are the backbone of our economy, providing jobs to millions 
of people. Understandably, this has become a serious issue for 
thousands of businesses across the country. Trying to defend themselves 
against frivolous discrimination charges, employers must incur tens of 
thousands of dollars in legal expenses, delays, and lost hours--time 
and resources, which could be better spent expanding businesses and 
creating economic opportunity in local communities.
  The Truth in Employment Act will amend the National Labor Relations 
Act by adding a provision that establishes that an employer is not 
required to hire a person seeking employment whose primary purpose is 
to represent a union in an organizational struggle. Under this bill 
employees will continue to be afforded their right to organize and 
engage in the activities protected under the National Labor Relations 
Act. It is in no way the intent of this bill to infringe upon those 
rights or protections. Employers will continue to be prohibited from 
discriminating on the basis of union membership or activism. The bill, 
however, curb the abuses of salting. Abuses that have caused one 
constituent in my State to declare bankruptcy, one to agree to sign a 
union agreement because he ``was too old to go through the harassment 
again,'' one who is afraid to hire more employees, one who has in 
excess of $100,000 in legal fees and another who just ``got off easy'' 
with $40,000 in legal fees. These are not large firms, Mr. President, 
they are family-run businesses.
  That is the issue, Mr. President, and that is why I am introducing 
the Truth in Employment Act. I encourage my colleagues to help me pass 
this bill and restore fairness to our small businesses.
 Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator 
Slade Gorton, who is my colleague on the Senate Committee on Labor and 
Human Resources, as a cosponsor of his bill, the Truth in Employment 
Act of 1996. This legislation addresses an issue known as salting.
  Over the last few years, professional union organizers, known as 
salts, have attempted to gain access to private property for organizing 
purposes. Sometimes, supervisors refuse to provide access to the 
property. Other times, if organizers gain access to the property, they 
have destroyed equipment and been disruptive.
  Whether or not the organizers gain access to the property, they five 
numerous charges with the National Labor Relations Board [NLRB], 
knowing that the cost of defending such groundless charges ultimately 
must be borne by the employer. This process, known as salting, is an 
abuse of our system and is nothing less than outright harassment.
  Our Federal labor law protects the right of workers to organize a 
union. It does not and it should not protect unions as they attempt to 
use our Federal agencies to harass companies.
  I recognize at this late date in our legislative session that this 
bill has little chance of becoming law in 1996. I also understand that 
concerns had been raised over how to address the salting problem 
through legislation. Because this is an important issue, though, we 
need to move forward by introducing a bill. I hope that through the 
process of hearings in our committee, we will find an acceptable 
legislative solution that all parties can accept.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself and Mr. Specter):
  S. 1926. A bill to provide for the integrity of the Medicare Program 
under title XVIII of the Social Security Act, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Finance.


             THE MEDICARE EMERGENCY PROTECTION ACT OF 1996

 Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, earlier this month, the Medicare 
trustees released their 1996 annual report on the fiscal solvency of 
the Medicare trust fund. The bottom line is that the Medicare trust 
fund is going broke. And it is going broke sooner that we had been 
told.
  Last year's report revealed Medicare's deteriorating financial 
condition, but it was optimistic compared to the report released 
earlier this month. This month's report predicted the program will be 
bankrupt just 5 years from now--possibly running out of money as early 
as calendar year 2000.
  This means by that time, there will be no funds available to pay for 
the hospital care for our Nation's senior citizens.
  Last year, Congress passed and sent to the President a balanced set 
of reforms which would have kept Medicare solvent through the next 
generation while still increasing spending per beneficiary from $4,800 
per year to more than $7,100 per year. It also offered seniors more 
choices and included incentives to combat fraud and abuse.
  Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed the Medicare Preservation 
Act, which was included as a part of the Balanced Budget Act.
  Because I am tired of the partisan conflict on this issue, I am 
introducing the Medicare Emergency Protection Act of 1996, which 
incorporates the President's Medicare cuts. If the President will not 
approve our Republican proposal for reform of the Medicare program, I 
suggest we pass the President's bill. We cannot allow partisan

[[Page S7306]]

bickering and political grandstanding to prevent the resolution of this 
crisis. The American people are fed up with this kind of politics with 
the gridlock on this issue. It is like Nero playing his fiddle while 
Rome burned.
  I am fed up with this stalemate too. I suggest we adopt the short-
term changes recommended by the President which cut the costs of the 
program and create the commission to recommend the longterm changes to 
save Medicare.
  My bill has two parts. The first part incorporates the President's 
proposed cuts in Medicare. But it excludes his accounting gimmick which 
would transfer the costs of home health care from the Hospital 
Insurance Program to the Supplemental Medical Insurance Program. While 
this transfer would extend the technical solvency of the trust fund, it 
would shift billions of dollars in additional costs to the general 
taxpayer.
  The second part of this legislation creates a commission similar to 
the National Commission on Social Security Reform. As some of my 
colleagues will recall, that Commission was established by President 
Reagan and the Congress in 1981. The Commission suggested reforms which 
will maintain the fiscal solvency of the Social Security trust fund 
until sometime after the year 2025.

  Last year, Majority Leader Dole and Speaker Gingrich proposed a 
similar commission to address the fiscal insolvency of the Medicare 
trust fund. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration rejected that 
proposal.
  However, in their recent report, the Medicare trustees, which include 
three members of President Clinton's Cabinet, themselves proposed the 
establishment of a commission.
  Now, there is obvious bipartisan support for this proposal. The 
National Commission on Medicare Reform will have 1 year to consider 
options for reform to secure the long-term fiscal solvency of the 
Medicare trust fund. Once the members of the Commission have settled on 
a set of reforms, the President will review the proposal. If he 
approved it, he will submit the proposal to the Congress. Under 
expedited procedures, the House of Representatives and the Senate will 
consider it and, without amendment, vote up or down to approve or 
reject the reforms.
  I urge my colleagues to approve this legislation. Each day that 
passes makes the eventual solutions more difficult to achieve.
  I ask unanimous consent that copies of the statement I made on this 
subject in the Senate on June 6 and 7 be reprinted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Congressional Record, June 6, 1996]

                          Medicare Insolvency

       Mr. Cochran. Mr. President, this afternoon, we had a 
     interesting hearing in the subcommittee for appropriations 
     which is chaired by the distinguished Senator from 
     Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter]. The witness was the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services, Secretary Shalala. We were 
     examining the budget request being submitted by the 
     administration for appropriations to operate the Department 
     of the Government for the next fiscal year than begins 
     October 1.
       Secretary Shalala happens to be in another capacity a 
     trustee of this group who have the responsibility of 
     monitoring the trust fund that supports the benefits paid out 
     under the Medicare Program. Since that group of trustees had 
     just made their report public yesterday at the news 
     conference which we all read and heard about, that subject 
     came up.
       It occurred to me, since there was before the general 
     public a suggestion by the President that he had made 
     recommendations that were almost identical with the 
     Republican suggestion about how to protect the benefits of 
     this Medicare Program and how to deal with this impending 
     insolvency of that fund, it occurs to me that we are going to 
     see more of the same kind of political shenanigans from now 
     until the end of this year, with nothing being done unless 
     somebody is ready to say, ``OK, we will go along with your 
     proposal.''
       The President can say that to the Congress, or we can say 
     that to the President. I am prepared at this point to 
     suggest, in a serious way, and said this to Secretary Shalala 
     at the hearing, the Congress accept the President's 
     suggestions. We can pass the suggested changes for short-term 
     relief of pressure on that fund, but at the same time appoint 
     a commission which is also called for by the President and 
     the trustees in their report to propose long-term changes, 
     changes to affect the long-term insolvency problems of the 
     trust fund, and that the Congress, through its leaders and 
     the President himself, agree to implement the recommendations 
     of that commission for long-term changes.
       It seems to me that is one way to resolve this as a part of 
     this argument over whether Republicans are trying to cut 
     taxes, to impose changes on Medicare beneficiaries as a part 
     of a budget balancing act. We already, in the Congress, 
     submitted to the President proposals to rescues the Medicare 
     Program. That was a part of the Balanced Budget Act which the 
     President vetoed. He has already rejected what Congress has 
     suggested. After weeks and weeks of negotiations with leaders 
     of the Congress and the President at the White House, all we 
     got out to it were some photo ops, some political posturing, 
     partisan sniping. We have had enough of that. The American 
     people are fed up with that kind of politics. That is not the 
     way to run the Government. I am tired of it.
       I have recommended and seriously urge this Congress to 
     accept the recommendation of the President--not the one, of 
     course, that says that home health care ought to be paid for 
     out of the general Treasury; I am talking about changes that 
     will reduce the costs of the program in a way that saves the 
     program from insolvency--they recommended last year that we 
     had to act before the year 2002, that we were going to see an 
     insolvency, there would be a bankrupted fund, in effect.
       Now, the report this year is worse than that. The year 
     before it was going insolvent. Under the last report, it is 
     going to lose $33 billion, and the following year $100 
     billion. Contrary to what the junior Senator from West 
     Virginia said, that this is a Republican-manufactured crisis, 
     that is an outrageous comment. That is totally outrageous. 
     These trustees are Democrats by and large. Secretary Rubin 
     said it, Secretary Shalala said it is going to be insolvent, 
     the head of the Social Security Administration was standing 
     there and agreed with them. That is not a group of 
     Republicans. The Republicans are not manufacturing a crisis. 
     The crisis is real. The crisis is now.
       It is irresponsible for us to continue to sit here and 
     listen to this kind of arguing made by Senators on the other 
     side that this is some kind of effort by Republicans to 
     frighten older people. I am frightened. I am not an eligible 
     beneficiary yet. We have to act.
       I want to commend the Senator from Pennsylvania for his 
     leadership in an effort to get the Secretary to agree to 
     recommendations to the administration, that they take a 
     stand, put their recommendations in the form of legislation, 
     send it to the Hill, and see if we can pass it.
                                                                    ____


                          Medicare Trust Fund

       Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, first, I want to commend the 
     distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell], and those 
     who spoke this morning on the subject of a balanced budget 
     amendment and the unfortunate consequences of our failure to 
     deal with the problem of the ever-increasing deficits.
       We also had a few of those Senators mention, as an aside, 
     the problem with the Medicare trust fund. I wanted to remind 
     Senators that we had a hearing yesterday in the 
     Appropriations Subcommittee that funds the Department of 
     Health and Human Services, and Secretary Donna Shalala came 
     before the committee to present the President's proposed 
     budget for that Department for the next fiscal year. She 
     serves, along with others in the administration, on this 
     panel of trustees, whose responsibility it is to monitor and 
     help keep Congress and the administration informed about the 
     integrity of the trust fund, and supports the Medicare 
     Program.
       The trustees, earlier this week, talked about the fact that 
     the worst case scenario for future deficits in that program 
     had been exceeded, and that rather than having the program go 
     bankrupt, be hopelessly insolvent by the year 2002, it was 
     going to be bankrupt earlier. By the year 2000, it would be 
     out of balance by over $30 billion, and the following year, 
     it would be out of balance and in deficit at the figure of 
     $100 billion.
       The consequences of this report have to wake up everybody 
     to the realization that unless Congress and the 
     administration quit playing politics with this issue, it is 
     going to be insolvent. This program is going to be in 
     jeopardy, and benefits are going to be in jeopardy as well.
       I think the time has come for us to say, OK, the Republican 
     Congress passed a balanced budget act last year. It included 
     in that suggested reforms in the Medicare Program that would 
     have put it in balance, would have kept it solvent, would 
     have made some needed changes in the program to give older 
     citizens more choices, more protection, so that their medical 
     expenses and benefits could continue to be paid through this 
     program.
       The President vetoed the bill. He rejected the balanced 
     budget act. So we started over again. This year, the Budget 
     Committee is wrestling with the problem of reconciling budget 
     resolutions, which contain projected expenditures under this 
     program, as well as all other Federal programs, with an 
     effort to continue to build toward a balanced budget plan as 
     soon as possible. Their projection is the year 2002.
       What I am going to suggest is that, in this politically 
     charged environment of Presidential politics and campaigns 
     for House and Senate seats underway--and we have to admit 
     it--it is unlikely that this administration is going to 
     change its mind and embrace the Republican proposals. And so 
     we have to acknowledge that.

[[Page S7307]]

       The President, at the same time, has made a counteroffer, 
     as I understand it, and has proposed some changes in the 
     Medicare Program, which would achieve savings of $116 billion 
     over the same period of time. The Republican proposals would 
     have achieved savings of almost $170 billion.
       Let us say, OK, Mr. President, have it your way for the 
     short term. Let us introduce the President's proposed changes 
     in the Medicare Program. Let us accept his proposals for 
     changes and cuts in the Medicare Program and enact them next 
     week, or the week following. If the reconciliation bill from 
     the Budget Committee's resolution is vetoed by the President 
     or not supported by the Democrats in that area of the budget, 
     let us isolate the Medicare Program changes and enact some 
     changes.
       I suggest, let us enact the President's proposed changes 
     and cuts in the program and, at the same time, establish a 
     commission--which the President has recommended, the trustees 
     have recommended in their report, including Secretary 
     Shalala, Secretary Reich, Secretary Rubin, and others, who 
     serve on that trustee panel--to recommend long-term changes 
     in the Medicare Program that would ensure its solvency and 
     protect the benefits for the older citizens in our society 
     over the long term.
       I do not see anything wrong with that. As a matter of fact, 
     I have been suggesting that that be considered as an 
     alternative. If Congress and the President cannot agree on 
     what changes ought to be made, get a commission together, 
     much like the Base Closure Commission, or the Social Security 
     Commission, which was formed in 1983 and chaired by Alan 
     Greenspan. It made recommendations to save the Social 
     Security trust fund from bankruptcy, and Congress and the 
     President agreed at that time to accept the recommendation of 
     that commission and implement it.
       That ought to be a part of this legislation--that we 
     establish that commission, agree to implement its 
     recommendations, and have a vote on it. If you do not want to 
     implement them, vote no; be against everything. But we have 
     to come to terms with the reality of the situation. The 
     longer we wait, the harder the solution is going to be and 
     the more sacrifices that are going to have to be made by 
     everybody--the taxpayers. If we do not make these changes, do 
     you know what is going to happen? Pretty soon, you are going 
     to see the taxes on the employers and employees to fund this 
     program being increased--and by substantial sums.
       Now, the older population is getting older and, thank 
     goodness, medical science is wonderful and it is giving us 
     all opportunities for longer lives. But coming with that, 
     too, are added expenses, as you get older, for medical care. 
     Our senior citizens confront the reality every day of this 
     terrible fear, and that is that they will not have the funds, 
     they will not have access to the care they need to enjoy the 
     longevity that they now have, compliments of medical science, 
     good nutrition, and the advances that we have made for good 
     health in our society.
       So I say that it is time to stop the partisan politics. Let 
     us quit throwing rocks at each other across the aisle, 
     blaming each other for not getting anything done. I am 
     prepared to say, as a Member of the Republican leadership in 
     the Senate, OK, Mr. President, let us enact your proposal.
       I am going to introduce a bill next week, and I hope there 
     will be Senators on both sides of the aisle who will say, OK, 
     let us go along with this suggestion as an alternative to 
     what we have been getting. And what we have been getting is 
     nothing--gridlock, confrontation, yelling at each other, 
     people getting red in the face, and nothing getting done.
       I think the American people are fed up with that kind of 
     politics, fed up with that kind of Government. I am fed up 
     with it. It is time to change. We ought to do it now--before 
     it is too late.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN:
  S. 1928. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
eliminate tax incentives for exporting jobs outside of the United 
States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                 tax incentive elimination legislation

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to address the continuing loss 
of U.S. manufacturing jobs by introducing a bill to eliminate tax 
incentives for companies to export such jobs.
  For too many years and in too many cases, we have seen U.S. 
manufacturers shut down business in the United States, lay off workers, 
and set up shop overseas. Although the Bureau of Labor Statistics does 
not maintain statistics on the export of United States jobs, we learned 
at a hearing of my Governmental Affairs Subcommittee 3 years ago that 
at least 200 United States plants had moved to Mexico alone over the 
previous decade.
  A company's decision to move its operations overseas is usually an 
economic decision, based on factors like the availability of cheap 
labor and unregulated access to natural resources. While I wish that 
some U.S. companies would exercise better citizenship and recognize an 
ongoing responsibility to their long-time employees as well as their 
shareholders, I know that the Federal Government cannot force them to 
do so.
  However, there is no reason why the U.S. taxpayers should be 
subsidizing companies that choose to move their operations overseas. 
Yet that is what we have been doing. When a U.S. company decides to 
shut down a plant in the United States and move its operations 
overseas, we reward them--through the Tax Code--for the decision.
  Last year, I joined Senator Dorgan and others to introduce a bill--S. 
1355--addressing one provision of the Tax Code which provides such a 
subsidy. The Dorgan bill would eliminate the ability of companies who 
move their operations overseas to defer the payment of Federal income 
tax on the profits from those operations.
  Today, I am introducing a bill to address two more provisions of the 
Tax Code which provide taxpayer subsidies to companies that move their 
operations overseas.
  First, section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code permits a deduction 
for ``all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during 
the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business.'' This provision 
has been interpreted to allow a deduction for moving expenses in the 
case of a company that moves part or all of its operations overseas, as 
long as the company continues to sell its product in the United States 
and can argue that the overseas operations are related to the U.S. 
source income. As a result, the U.S. taxpayers are underwriting the 
moving expenses of companies who choose to move capital equipment 
previously used in U.S. operations, and the associated jobs overseas.
  My bill would reverse this policy by prohibiting a company from 
deducting the cost of transporting capital equipment previously used in 
U.S. operations overseas when it is in the process of closing or 
downsizing U.S. plants. Because the export of such capital equipment 
and the associated jobs is more likely to reduce U.S.-source income 
than to increase it, this provision is entirely consistent with the 
intent of section 162 to permit the deduction of ordinary and necessary 
business expenses incurred in connection with such income.
  Second, section 367 of the Internal Revenue Code allows a company to 
avoid paying capital gains taxes on its capital assets, if these assets 
are moved overseas and included in an active business in a corporate 
reorganization. Because no capital gains tax is paid at the time of the 
reorganization, and because the U.S. loses jurisdiction over the assets 
after they are shipped overseas, the company is able to avoid the tax 
altogether. The company is able to obtain an unwarranted tax advantage 
by transferring appreciated assets to a corporation that is not subject 
to U.S. residence jurisdiction--and the taxpayers are left paying yet 
another subsidy to companies that choose to move their operations 
overseas.
  My bill would reverse this policy by eliminating the active business 
exception in section 367 of the Internal Revenue Code and subjecting 
corporate assets to the capital gains tax at the time they are 
transferred overseas in any reorganization.
  Mr. President, some companies may still choose to overlook their 
responsibility as citizens and the needs of their long-timer employees 
by moving jobs overseas, but we should not be subsidizing such 
decisions.
                                 ______
                                 
      By WELLSTONE:
  S. 1929. A bill to extend the authority for the Homeless Veterans' 
Reintegration Projects for fiscal years 1997 through 1999, and for 
other purposes, to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


 the homeless veterans' reintegration projects reauthorization act of 
                                  1996

 Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, to save a unique, highly 
effective and invaluable program that assists homeless veterans to find 
employment, I am today introducing a bill that would reauthorize the 
Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Projects [HVRP] for 3 years.
  This bill is identical to S. 1257 which I introduced last year after 
this low-cost program--funded at just over $5 million annually--had 
been zeroed out in the rescissions bill. With the invaluable help of my 
distinguished colleague, Senator Simpson, chairman of

[[Page S7308]]

the Veterans' Affairs Committee--a committee I am proud and honored to 
serve on--we managed to keep HVRP alive by authorizing a 1-year 
extension through the end of fiscal year 1996, at the same time 
authorizing an expenditure of $10 million. Unfortunately, for reasons I 
can't fathom, no funds were appropriated for HVRP for fiscal year 1996. 
While HVRP was partially revived in February 1996 when the Departments 
of Labor and Housing and Urban Development [HUD] each provided $1.3 
million in discretionary funds to renew and support projects in cold 
weather areas of the Nation, the President's budget for fiscal year 
1997 contains no funding for HVRP.
  I am frankly appalled and puzzled that this exceptionally cost-
effective program which has done so much to help America's homeless 
veterans for the past 7 years, continues to face extraordinary 
difficulties and may not survive. The only possible explanation there 
is for the trials and tribulations of HVRP is that because it is such a 
modestly funded national program with annual appropriations ranging 
from $1.366 million to $5.055 million, it falls beneath the threshold 
of visibility of the Senate, which is accustomed to focusing on 
programs with price tags of hundreds of millions of dollars or more.
  When I sought to have the Veterans' Committee accept the 3-year 
extension of HVRP I proposed in S. 1257, I was told that only a 1-year 
authorization could be approved because not enough was known about the 
program, but that a committee hearing would be held early this year to 
inform Members about the program. Unfortunately, it now appears 
unlikely that hearings on HVRP will be scheduled.
  It is a pity that this exceptionally worthwhile program has such a 
low profile in this Chamber, because I'm confident that if my 
colleagues knew more about HVRP, there would be overwhelming support on 
both sides of the aisle for keeping this program alive and funded 
adequately.
  Mr. President, permit me to describe the daunting problems HVRP seeks 
to address, its outstanding accomplishments, and its methods of 
operation.
  On any given night, it has been estimated that between 250,000 and 
280,000 veterans are homeless. And, as the Disabled American Veterans 
[DAV] testified before a House Committee, DOD projects a reduction of 
250,000 active military personnel through the year 2000. DAV stressed 
that many ``at best will have `soft' transferable skills,'' 
particularly those trained in combat arms, concluding that while it's 
unknown ``how many of them will end up in the unemployment or soup 
kitchen line * * * we believe they are at risk.''
  In effect we are being told that up to one-third of America's 
homeless are veterans and the number could well increase. Mr. 
President, in the face of this situation which can only be described as 
a national disgrace, HVRP, administered by the Labor Department's 
Veterans Employment and Training Service [VETS] is the only employment 
assistance program dedicated to homeless veterans. And, as Preston 
Taylor, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veteran Employment and 
Training has emphasized, unemployment, not the lack of affordable 
housing, is the main cause of homelessness among veterans.
  Permit me to briefly list some of HVRP's strengths and 
accomplishments:
  It is one of the most successful job placement programs in the 
Federal Government.
  Since its inception it has placed 13,000 veterans in jobs at a cost 
of approximately $1,500 per placement.
  HVRP grantees build complementary relationships with VA, JTPA, and 
other programs--they do not duplicate any other services.
  A unique aspect of HVRP is to utilize formerly homeless veterans who 
know how to approach and win the confidence and trust of other homeless 
veterans; they go into the streets, shelters, soup kitchens, and other 
places and tell them HVRP and other available services.
  HVRP provides grants to community based groups that employ flexible 
and innovative approaches to assist homeless, unemployed veterans to 
reenter the work force. Let me repeat--grants to community-based 
groups, not funding to some large impersonal Federal bureaucracy that 
some of my colleagues like to lambaste. This is precisely the kind of 
low-cost, locally focused, and result-oriented program that all of my 
colleagues, regardless of ideology or party should be able to support 
without reservation.
  The program is employment-focused, recognizing that homeless veterans 
need to become self-supporting to obtain permanent shelter. HVRP local 
grantees provide homeless veterans with a variety of services designed 
to maximize their chances of finding permanent jobs, including job 
counseling, resume preparation, on-the-job training, and instructions 
in job search techniques. The HVRP program, in collaboration with other 
service providers, effectively addresses the six major problems 
hampering homeless veterans seeking to reenter the job market: lack of 
transitional housing; inadequate substance abuse treatment; 
transportation problems; lack of job skills; depressed local labor 
markets; and resistance to hiring the homeless.
  In conclusion I want to make two points: First that the modest sums 
saved by eliminating HVRP will quickly be offset be the high costs of 
providing public assistance to the veterans who will remain homeless 
due to the lack of a permanent, paying job.
  Second, and more important, I was deeply moved recently by a letter I 
received from a disabled Vietnam veteran in Minnesota whom I'd spoken 
to on the phone and thanked for his service to our country. He 
mentioned that he'd always felt he'd been left in Vietnam, but that 
after our talk he felt that he'd at last been brought home. 
Fortunately, there are many Vietnam veterans who feel they have now 
come home again. But for some Vietnam and other veterans, the only 
homes they know are the streets and homeless shelters. To eliminate 
HVRP, the one program that could give them a job and permit them to 
escape the miseries and indignities of hopelessness so that they too 
could feel that they had at last come home, would be shameful.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and 
ensuring that HVRP receives the funding it needs to continue its 
invaluable work.
  Mr. President, I ask that a statement of HVRP of Ronald W. Drach, 
National Employment Director, DAV, before the Subcommittee on 
Education, Employment and Training of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, April 18, 1996, be printed in 
the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. And I ask unanimous consent 
that an article by Sid Daniels, Director, National Employment Service, 
Veterans of Foreign Wars, entitled ``Sun Sets on Homeless Vets 
Program,'' appearing in the Washington Action Reporter, October 1995, 
also be printed in the Record.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1929

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY.

       (a) Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Projects.--Section 
     738(e)(1) of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 11448(e)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(E) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1997.
       ``(F) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1998.
       ``(G) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.''.
       (b) General Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 
     739(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 11449(a)) is amended by 
     striking out ``the fiscal years 1994 and 1995'' and inserting 
     in lieu thereof ``fiscal years 1994 through 1999''.
       (c) Extension of Program.--Section 741 of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 11450) is amended by striking out ``December 31, 
     1997'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30, 1999''.
                                                                    ____


 Excerpt From Statement of Ronald W. Drach Before the Subcommittee on 
           Education, Employment and Training, April 18, 1996


                homeless veterans' reintegration project

       Mr. Chairman, homeless veterans continue to be a major 
     concern. On any given night, it has been estimated that 
     between 250,000 and 280,000 veterans are homeless. Several 
     years ago, the Department of Labor initiated an outreach 
     project for homeless veterans in an attempt to provide needed 
     employment and training services. This program is known as 
     HVRP. Regrettably, funding for this program in FY 1995 was 
     rescinded. For FY 1996, both the House and Senate authorized 
     an expenditure of $10 million, but the monies were never 
     appropriated. The President's budget

[[Page S7309]]

     for FY 1997 does not request any funding for HVRP.
       Mr. Chairman, homelessness among veterans is now a chronic 
     problem. When we testified on this issue in 1992, it was 
     estimated that between 150,000 and 250,000 veterans were 
     homeless on any given night. As indicated, that number now is 
     estimated to be between 250,000 and 280,000. We mentioned 
     earlier in this testimony that DoD projects a reduction of 
     approximately 250,000 active military members a year through 
     the year 2000. Many of these individuals at best will have 
     ``soft'' transferable skills. Many--particularly those 
     trained in combat arms--will have no skills recognized by 
     employers as transferable to the civilian labor market. How 
     many of them will end up in the unemployment or soup kitchen 
     line is unknown, but we believe they are at risk. Last week 
     several economic forecasters predicted an increase in 
     inflation. This will only add to the problem.
       The HVRP program has a history of providing meaningful 
     assistance to our nation's homeless veterans. It is a program 
     that primarily focuses on job training and employment 
     assistance. Perhaps the most unique thing about HVRP is that 
     a multi-disciplinary approach is taken to solving the 
     problems of homeless veterans. It is not enough to say DVOPs 
     or LVERs can do the job alone, because all too often the 
     services needed cannot be provided by that individual. 
     Because homeless veterans require very labor-intensive 
     services, HVRP must be continued.
       We would like to commend Assistant Secretary Preston Taylor 
     at DOL for his insight into this problem. Mr. Taylor saw the 
     need, particularly in cold weather states, and identified 
     $1.3 million of discretionary monies available to him through 
     the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). However, before he 
     committed those monies, he received an agreement from 
     Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development 
     Andrew Cuomo at the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development (HUD) for matching funds. We would like to 
     compliment and thank Assistant Secretary Cuomo for his 
     interest in addressing the needs of homeless veterans.
       While on the subject of Assistant Secretary Cuomo, we would 
     like to note that the DAV has been critical of HUD in the 
     past for its lack of attention and interest in homeless 
     veterans. However, Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to report 
     that in addition to the $1.3 million targeted specifically 
     for homeless veterans, Assistant Secretary Cuomo's office has 
     reached out to the veterans' community in an effort to 
     communicate with veterans' service delivery systems 
     throughout the country to make them aware of the existence of 
     funding availability from HUD for homeless projects. 
     Additionally, Assistant Secretary Cuomo has:
       Announced the creation of the HUD Veteran Resource Center--
     This center is designed to provide important information 
     about the full range of resources and initiatives available 
     from HUD. The Resource Center can be contacted through a toll 
     free number (1-800-998-9999, Ext. 5475, Contact: David 
     Schultz).
       Appointed a combat-disabled veteran to head the Resource 
     Center. The first mission will be outreach to veterans' 
     community groups as well as veterans' service organizations 
     regarding the ``1996 Homeless Assistance SuperNOFA (Notice of 
     Funding Availability).''
       Established an outreach effort to us and is providing 
     information on events and technical assistance to those 
     interested in applying for HUD funding. The type of outreach 
     is unprecedented at HUD.
       Agreed in February of this year to help DOL by providing 
     $1.3 million for HVRP.
       Mr. Chairman, we believe that HUD working together with 
     Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) will make a 
     significant difference in the lives of many homeless 
     veterans. However, we believe that funding must be made 
     available to continue the good work that has been 
     accomplished thus far through HVRP. Since the program started 
     in 1987, 30,000 homeless veterans have been helped in some 
     way and 13,000 were actually placed in jobs.
       Assistant Secretary Taylor should also be applauded for his 
     efforts in contacting every state governor asking for their 
     assistance to bridge the gap after the loss of HVRP funding.
                                                                    ____


                   Sun Sets on Homeless Vets Program

                       (By Sid Daniels, Director)

       In its recent budget cutting, Congress eliminated the 
     funding for the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Projects 
     (HVRP) program after Sept. 30, 1995. Consequently, all 30 
     projects throughout the country serving homeless veterans 
     closed down their operations on Oct. 1, 1995.
       HVRP was established by the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
     Assistance Act of 1987 and was administered by Labor's 
     Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS). The emphasis 
     on helping homeless veterans get and retain jobs was enhanced 
     by linking with other providers, such as veterans affairs 
     offices and medical facilities, Job Training Partnership Act 
     entities and social service agencies.
       They offered access to benefits, substance abuse treatment, 
     job training, transitional housing and other services needed 
     to stabilize the homeless veteran. And they removed such 
     barriers to employment as lack of clothing, medical care and 
     job skills.
       HVRP used veterans who had experienced homelessness 
     themselves to reach out to homeless veterans. They went into 
     the streets, shelters, soup kitchens, and other places to 
     encourage homeless veterans to take advantage of available 
     services and advised them of the HVRP program. The goal was 
     to get homeless veterans off the street and into gainful 
     employment, with emphasis on long-term job retention.
       An important characteristic of homeless veterans, is their 
     underutilization of existing services, benefits, and 
     entitlements which could help them obtain employment and 
     reintegration into mainstream society.
       A unique aspect of HVRP was the use of formerly homeless 
     veterans who knew how to approach and win the confidence and 
     trust of other homeless veterans.
       HVRP programs provided participation data and survey 
     information, which indicated that unemployment, not lack of 
     affordable housing, was the chief cause of homelessness.
       Now, this is all gone.

                          ____________________