[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.
____________________