[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 100 (Tuesday, July 15, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5272-H5288]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 184 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2158.
{time} 2055
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2158) making appropriations for the Departments of
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry
independent agencies, commissions, corporations, and offices for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Combest in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, all
time for general debate had expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
Amendments printed in House Report 105-180 may be offered only by a
Member designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in
the reading of the bill, are considered read, are not subject to
amendment and are not subject to a demand for division of the question.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request
for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to not less than 5
minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed
question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device
without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by
electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not be
less than 15 minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word
for purposes of making an announcement.
Mr. Chairman, before we get into reading the bill for amendments, I
would like to make this announcement about how we have agreed to
proceed for the balance of the evening.
First, there will be no more recorded votes this evening. Any votes
ordered will be rolled until tomorrow.
We will be reading the bill for amendments. We plan to read for
amendments and debate all amendments
[[Page H5273]]
through title II at the maximum. We will not read into title III even
if we finish the first two titles quickly.
So, any Member with an amendment that will be offered in the first
two titles needs to be here tonight. However, we will stop considering
amendments no later than 10:30 p.m. even if we are not through with
title II.
To summarize, there will be no more recorded votes tonight, and we
will consider amendments through title II or 10:30 p.m., whichever
occurs earlier.
{time} 2100
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2158
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for
sundry independent agencies, commissions, corporations, and
offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and
for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Benefits Administration
compsensation and pensions
(including transfers of funds)
For the payment of compensation benefits to or on behalf of
veterans and a pilot program for disability examinations as
authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 107, chapters 11, 13, 18, 51,
53, 55, and 61); pension benefits to or on behalf of veterans
as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. chapters 15, 51, 53, 55, and
61; 92 Stat. 2508); and burial benefits, emergency and other
officers' retirement pay, adjusted-service credits and
certificates, payment of premiums due on commercial life
insurance policies guaranteed under the provisions of Article
IV of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, as
amended, and for other benefits as authorized by law (38
U.S.C. 107, 1312, 1977, and 2106, Chapters 23, 51, 53, 55,
and 61; 50 U.S.C. App. 540-548; 43 Stat. 122, 123; 45 Stat.
735; 76 Stat. 1198); $19,932,997,000 to remain available
until expended: Provided, That not to exceed $26,380,000 of
the amount appropriated shall be reimbursed to ``General
operating expenses'' and ``Medical care'' for necessary
expenses in implementing those provisions authorized in the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, and in the
Veterans' Benefits act of 1992 (38 U.S.C. chapters 51, 53,
and 55), the funding source for which is specifically
provided as the ``Compensation and pensions'' appropriations:
Provided further, That such sums as may be earned on an
actual qualifying patient basis, shall be reimbursed to
``Medical facilities revolving fund'' to augment the funding
of individual medical facilities for nursing home care
provided to pensioners as authorized by the Veterans''
Benefits Act of 1992 (38 U.S.C. chapter 55).
readjustment benefits
For the payment of readjustment and rehabilitation benefits
to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by 38 U.S.C.
chapters 21, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 39, 51,53, 55, and 61,
$1,366,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That funds shall be available to pay any court order, court
award or any compromise settlement arising from litigation
involving the vocational training program authorized by
section 18 of Public Law 98-77, amended.
veterans insurance and indemnities
For military and naval insurance, national service life
insurance, servicemen's indemnities, service-disabled
veterans insurance, and veterans mortgage life insurance as
authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 19; 70 Stat. 887; 72 Stat.
487, $51,360,000, to remain available until expended.
veterans housing benefit program fund program account
(including transfer of funds)
For the cost of indirect and guaranteed loans, such sums as
may be necessary to carry out the program, as authorized by
38 U.S.C. chapter 37, as amended: Provided, That such costs,
including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as
defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, as amended,: Provided further, That during fiscal year
1998, within the resources available, not to exceed $300,000
in gross obligations for direct loans are authorized for
specially adapted housing loans.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct and guaranteed loan programs, $160,437,000, which may
be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``General operating expenses''.
education loan fund program account
(including transfer of funds)
For the cost of direct loans, $1,000, as authorized by 238
U.S.C. 3698, as amended: Provided, That such costs, including
the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in
section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as
amended: Provided further, That these funds are available
to subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of
direct loans not to exceed $3,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct loan program, $200,000; which may be
transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``General operating expenses''.
vocational rehabilitation loans program account
(including transfer of funds)
For the cost of direct loans, $44,000, as authorized by 38
U.S.C. chapter 31, as amended: Provided, That such costs,
including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as
defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, as amended: Provided further, That these funds are
available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal
amount of direct loans not to exceed $2,278,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct loan program, $388,000, which may be
transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``General operating expenses''.
native american veteran housing loan program account
(including transfer of funds)
For administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan
program authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 37, subchapter V, as
amended, $515,000, which may be transferred to and merged
with the appropriation for ``General operating expenses''.
Veterans Health Administration
medical care
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of
hospitals, nursing homes, and domiciliary facilities; for
furnishing, as authorized by law, inpatient and outpatient
care and treatment to beneficiaries of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, including care and treatment in facilities
not under the jurisdiction of the Department; and furnishing
recreational facilities, supplies, and equipment; funeral,
burial, and other expenses incidental thereto for
beneficiaries receiving care in the Department;
administrative expenses in support of planning, design,
project management, real property acquisition and
disposition, construction and renovation of any facility
under the jurisdiction or for the use of the Department;
oversight, engineering and architectural activities not
charged to project cost, repairing, altering, improving or
providing facilities in the several hospitals and homes under
the jurisdiction of the Department, not otherwise provided
for, either by contract or by the hire of temporary employees
and purchase of materials; uniforms or allowances therefor,
as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; aid to State homes as
authorized by 38 U.S.C. 1741; administrative and legal
expenses of the Department for collecting and recovering
amounts owed the Department as authorized under 38 U.S.C.
chapter 17, and the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act, 42
U.S.C. 2651 et seq.; and not to exceed $8,000,000 to fund
cost comparison studies as referred to in 38 U.S.C.
8110(a)(5); $16,958,846,000, plus reimbursements: Provided,
That of the funds made available under this heading,
$565,000,000 is for the equipment and land and structures
object classifications only, which amount shall not become
available for obligation until August 1, 1998, and shall
remain available until September 30, 1999. Provided further,
That funds under this heading shall be available for medical
examinations required for benefits claims under title 38,
United States Code: Provided further, That of the amount made
available under this heading, not to exceed $5,000,000 shall
be for a study on the cost-effectiveness of contracting with
local hospitals in East Central Florida for the provision of
nonemergent inpatient health care needs of veterans.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
On page 7, line 6, after ``$16,958,846,000,'' insert
``(increased by $48,000,000)''.
On page 57, line 7, after ``$321,646,000'' insert
``(decreased by $60,000,000)''.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I regret very much that
I am offering this amendment under these circumstances. But for anyone
who happens to be watching, either Members or anyone else, on C-SPAN, I
am afraid what they are witnessing is another step in the gradual
destruction of the ability of this House to conduct rational debate.
What is now happening is that amendments of substance will be debated
with virtually nobody in the room. Members will then be called upon as
the first order of business tomorrow to vote on those amendments, not
having heard them, not having even had the opportunity to watch them
from their offices on their TV screens. They will walk in blind and we
will be asked, ``What is in this? Oh, I don't get it.'' And within
about a minute they have to make up their minds. I think it is a
further debilitating of this House, but there is not a whole lot that I
can do about it.
Mr. Chairman, let me simply explain what this amendment is. This
amendment accomplishes two important objectives. First, it deletes
funding for an unauthorized, unbudgeted construction project that
appears to be premature at best. Second, it increases funding for
veterans' medical care.
[[Page H5274]]
There are four veterans' services organizations, the DAV, AmVets,
Paralyzed Veterans of America, and VFW that each year jointly produce
an independent budget for veterans' programs. This year's independent
budget estimates are that $18.044 billion is necessary for medical care
in fiscal 1998 just to maintain current services. So the committee
recommendation is $17.56 billion, assuming VA medical facilities can
keep third-party reimbursements, which are being dealt with in another
bill before this Congress.
Those recommendations in the committee are almost $500 million less
than the current services amount and $2 billion below the optimum
level. So basically what I am trying to do is to add the funding in
this amendment to increase that account slightly.
To pay for the increased veterans' medical care, we cut $60 million
that the committee has recommended for a windstorm simulation center to
be constructed at the Department of Energy's Idaho National Engineering
and Environmental Laboratory.
There are many questions raised by the manner in which this project
has been considered. Let me simply list a few. First of all, the funds
were not requested by the administration. The latest statement of
administration policy indicates funds should be redirected to higher
priorities.
Second, the project is not authorized, either for the Department of
Energy or for FEMA;
Third, the split authority between FEMA and DOE on the project makes
it a classic case for mismanagement;
Fourth, the project meets six of the seven criteria of the
``porkbusters coalition'' as to items that should qualify for viewing
as pork;
Fifth, there have been no hearings on the project;
Sixth, the company that operates the Idaho lab for the DOE is the
same company that is currently in a major dispute with the government
over another construction job at that lab. It seems that the
contractor, Lockheed Martin, is $150 million over the amount that they
were supposed to reach on a fixed price contract. They now want the
government to change the terms of that contract to bail them out.
Seventh, there has been no peer review at all for this project.
Indeed, there has not been any review at all. The American Association
of Wind Engineers has raised serious concerns about the construction
and operation of this facility. In addition, although the contractor
has indicated that $34 million is all they can use in 1998, the
committee recommendation is for $60 million.
Next, the $60 million is just a down payment. The total is estimated
to cost about $181 million. I would also point out that FEMA has
indicated its support for the proposal, only to be contingent upon
establishment of a broad coalition of financial support. Yet, to date,
the industries with potentially the most to gain from this facility,
the insurance industry and the home builders' industry, have not
contributed one dollar.
I would also point out that 2 years ago the Department of Energy had
a major study on the future of the national labs. This project flies in
the face of nearly every important recommendation made by the so-called
Galvin report. I would also point out that this year a draft report was
prepared by a DOE working group, which is chaired by the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Energy for Procurement.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 5
additional minutes.)
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, they recommended this lab lose its status as
a federally funded research and development center, a condition that
allows it to receive government contracts on a noncompetitive sole
source basis.
I am aware that the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure has indicated his intention to offer an amendment that
would require authorization before those funds can be spent, but I
would submit that that device is merely a ruse. The amendment contains
a kick-out clause. It is only operative until April 1, 1998. If the
project is not authorized by that time, the limitation comes off and
the money can still be spent.
Mr. Chairman, I would say that in addition to that, it is not even
clear that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has
jurisdiction over this matter. A good case can be made that the
Committee on Science is more properly the House committee with
authorization oversight.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, I would simply urge my colleagues to
support this amendment. I would suggest that if Congress is to add
money above the budget, we ought to be doing so for cash starved
programs like veterans' medical care, and not for questionable,
unauthorized, premature pork projects like this windstorm simulation
center.
Mr. Chairman, this operation started out to be a quite different
operation. It started out to be a center to evaluate earthquakes. It
did not get quite the review that they wanted, and so now the
contractor has simply said: ``Well, if we cannot get the money on an
earthquake simulation project, we will move it over and we will design
a windstorm operation.'' That is what they have done.
Mr. Chairman, no one suggests that this work does not need to be
done, but before it needs to be done this project needs to be peer
reviewed. We need to know we are getting what we pay for. It just seems
to me that until we do, we ought to simply put this money where it is
needed the most, which is in the veterans' medical care budget.
If the House adopts this amendment, I will offer a conforming
amendment in the FEMA portion of the bill to delete the proviso
earmarking $60 million for the wind facility.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would simply close and suggest that at the
appropriate time tomorrow, the House would do well to adopt this
amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise with a good deal of sympathy for the amendment
presented by my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. But
I would suggest to him that there are a number of questions that I
still have in my head that cause me to resist this amendment.
I can remember our discussions time and time again about horrendous
costs that the country is facing relative to disaster circumstances. In
the time I have been chairman of this committee, FEMA has received some
$10 billion.
One of the areas that is difficult, that we do not have a handle on,
does deal with wind damage. One way or another we have to try to do the
right things. None of these things seems to be perfect, but we have to
try to do the right thing in terms of wind mitigation.
Mr. Chairman, as I look at the gentleman's amendment, I know his
purpose is directed at this wind simulation center, but really he just
affects one of the accounts within FEMA by reducing that, but that does
not prevent them from going forward with the wind tunnel.
In an attempt to respond to the very questions that the gentleman has
in mind, I have been in discussion with the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Shuster], and frankly, I am not sure who really has the
appropriate jurisdiction, here or there, because those battles on the
authorizing side are considerably more difficult than ours.
But having said that, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster],
some discussion, responded by saying, ``I would present an amendment
where I think we are going to have an authorization that goes forward
that would essentially delay this until we have more time to talk
through the very questions that the gentleman is discussing.''
I do not really think we have any differences here, so I would urge
the gentleman to at least reserve at this point and see if we cannot
figure out a way to begin marching our way down the path where that
makes sense, with the cost of wind damages. And clearly the gentleman
can tell from what I am saying here that I do not have the answers
either, but we need to begin to seek them in a serious way.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any problem whatsoever with the
way the gentleman is running this subcommittee. But I would simply
observe that, as I said earlier, if this amendment is adopted, then
under the rules
[[Page H5275]]
the next amendment that I would be able to offer will indeed eliminate
the earmark for the wind tunnel, which is what the amendment is
designed to attack.
Mr. Chairman, I would also say that if we really want to do something
about protecting the Federal Treasury from the cost of disasters, in my
mind what we ought to do is to require States to join an experience-
rated self-insurance program, so every time there is a disaster States
do not come to Uncle Sam with their hand out; that they can simply, on
the basis of their own experience, do just as we do in workmen's
compensation and prepay for disasters, so every time a disaster comes
we do not have to call up Uncle Sam and jimmy the budget.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do
understand where the gentleman is coming from. But the fact is, one
more time, that is an authorizing question, and they ought to be
working their way through that without any doubts. I think the
gentleman knows that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and I are
struggling with the bill in no small part because over 85 percent of
our bill is unauthorized. So we struggle along, at best. I want to
address this problem. I do not want to do it pell-mell, but at the same
time I do not want to cut off avenues that are important.
I must say, one of the things that is disconcerting here is, because
the gentleman and I have such a fine working relationship, up until now
the ranking member and his staff have given me amendments ahead of time
so I can talk these things through. It must be that he slipped over
this technically some way.
Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will continue to yield further, let me
explain that, Mr. Chairman. I was in a Labor-HEW markup all day. I was
here all day yesterday working on Labor-HEW, expecting that others on
the gentleman's side would also be here. They were not. So today our
Labor-HEW mark was extended. I never dreamed that we would be getting
to this point in the bill today, given the other legislation we had
before us. I expected to give it to you before we had it tomorrow.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if it had not been for the
very fine bipartisan work the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and I
had been involved in, we would not have moved very quickly, so we even
contributed to this very positive development.
{time} 2115
In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, there is little doubt that the country
knows that disaster costs have been horrendous over the last several
years. I think also all of us in the House know that when the next
disaster occurs, we are going to come together as Americans and
respond.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of California was allowed to proceed
for 5 additional minutes.)
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take very
much time, but I would say that there is little doubt the next time a
disaster comes along, that the Congress will come together, reflecting
the American people's view that we ought to help people in disaster
circumstances.
But having said that, there is no doubt that we need to do work
internally to try to mitigate against these disasters. We are doing it
in building codes in earthquake sectors. Clearly the wind problem is a
very, very serious problem we need to seriously move in the direction
of addressing, trying to find some answers that mitigate against these
costs.
Those efforts are not going to be perfect in their initial stages. I
would hope that we would work closely with our authorizers and
encourage the authorizers to do the work as we make this effort to hold
down the costs.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, why
on Earth, if this facility is to be funded by the Government, should it
be funded in a manner that allows them to seek sole source contracts
with no competition and why should this not be peer reviewed? And if it
is so important, why is FEMA resisting providing money for it without
that kind of proper review?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I frankly cannot answer the
question. I do not know the technical side of how they went about
putting it together, this process that relates to a contract. But I do
know that this is apparently a facility that would be built on land
that the Department of Energy owns and they would see it used for this
purpose, and end up with free land. There is a need that is very real
and apparently there are personnel in the region that could be very
responsive to the challenges of this particular facility.
But I am sure the process is not perfect, and one of the reasons that
one of the authorizing chairmen will be presenting an amendment is he
wants time to step back and take a look at some of these questions. I
think they are very appropriate questions.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
(Mrs. Meek of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
the Obey amendment. It certainly goes against my grain to go against a
person of the caliber and capability of the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Obey]. I truly regret having to oppose my own ranking member,
because I do believe he is one of the best representatives in this
body. And I know that he has the best of intentions. However, in this
case I think my ranking member is wrong.
First of all, I do not think he has walked in the shoes that I have
walked in since I have been in this Congress and personally experienced
the need for help with disasters, particularly disasters that wipe out
the life of your constituents.
Our House Committee on Appropriations has included in this bill
funding for the construction of a full size wind damage testing
facility. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] says we should cut
out these funds.
I say and I appeal to the Congress to keep them in because we need
this facility. In 1992, Hurricane Andrew was the single most natural
disaster ever to hit the United States. Powerful, devastating, it
plowed right through the south end of Dade County, FL. It utterly
destroyed a huge portion of my congressional district.
I want to say to the Congress, my district has not yet regrown and it
has not yet come back from this devastating disaster. I remember
vividly the hundreds of homes in my community that literally blew apart
in Hurricane Andrew. There was just no estimate of the destruction and
of the force of this hurricane. As a matter of fact, according to the
people at the Homestead Air Force Base, there was a tornado strength
wind within this hurricane. So the desperation, if Members could see
the lives of these thousands of men and women and children who were
left homeless because of Hurricane Andrew. I spent my first 2 years in
this Congress working to try to make this community whole again.
And this Congress has helped me do that. Mr. Obey was one of the ones
who helped me do it. But they still are not whole yet. The gentleman
from California [Mr. Lewis] can tell you that 5 years later I am still
working on problems created by Hurricane Andrew.
All three of these things are extremely costly. One, winds from the
big, big storms, hurricanes and Nor'easters, kill people and they
destroy homes. Two, we know these storms are going to come and we can
plan and prepare for them. And, three, they are extremely costly.
That is why we need this wind testing facility. That is why I am
appealing to the Congress to take this out of the realm all the time of
numbers and utility and philosophical vents, but to think about what it
has meant to people, to destroy this community, the entire community.
Most of people from this community have moved north. They will never
come back to this southernmost area. And therefore, the economy has
gone down and the social fabric of the lives of these people has been
destroyed.
We need a wind testing facility. With proper research and testing, we
can minimize wind damage and destruction. Thousands of insurance
companies went under because of this storm, because no one had the
facility to know that this storm would be that devastating to this
area.
[[Page H5276]]
By testing different types of housing and construction techniques and
materials under actual hurricane wind conditions, we can design and
build homes in ways that will minimize the danger to human life and
minimize the cost of these natural disasters. This can be done ahead of
time so that we will know what to expect when we have hurricanes and
natural disasters.
We need to take action now. We do not need to put this off, because
it has been put off too long. If you ask anyone in Florida or in
Georgia, or out there in the West where all of these natural disasters
have occurred, you will find out that it is time for it now.
We need to be able to develop the knowledge. This knowledge is so
important to keep our constituents' homes from blowing a part. That is
what this wind testing facility is all about. This is not just common
sense. It is dollars and cents. I repeat, it is not just common sense;
looking forward to test this facility ahead of time is dollars and
cents.
The amount of money at stake here, it is just staggering. It belies
one's imagination to realize the cost associated. Hurricane Andrew
alone resulted in losses that exceeded $25 million, and those were just
the losses that they have been able to account. I am still coming back
to the Congress, I am still coming back to FEMA asking them to forgive
in many instances the big costs that grew up with this.
No doubt my colleagues remember that 5 years ago the House voted for
a disaster relief bill of $8 billion in Federal aid to help my
community get back on its feet. We can pay a little now or pay a lot
later.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Meek of Florida was allowed to proceed
for 30 additional seconds.)
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to appeal to the House to
please vote for this wind testing facility. It will save lives and it
will also save money.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am always hesitant to follow my colleague from
Florida. It is almost like being against motherhood to do so. But I
want to speak in favor of the amendment that has been put forward by
the ranking member.
I think what we have here is a comparison. On the one hand we have a
proposal to add $48 million in this amendment to the veterans' health
services program which everyone understands is needed, where we have
people and we have made a promise to our veterans that we were going to
provide them with health care in their lives, particularly when we have
so many of our World War II veterans who are at an age when they are in
need of health care. So that $48 million on the one hand is replacing
monies that are otherwise below, added to funding which is otherwise
below what is needed to keep the funds at the level of services that
are presently there.
On the other hand we have a very questionable kind of an expenditure
for this wind simulation center. The $60 million reduction which we
have been talking about is just stage one, phase one of a construction
program for this wind simulation center, the sum total of which is
going to be $181 million, and all of it is going to come out of FEMA,
and apparently from all indications there is not a single cent that has
yet been put into this from any of the industries that might be a part
of it.
Now, it was not in the President's budget. It was not even requested
by either the Department of Energy or by FEMA. So here we have an
uncooked idea, a half-baked idea being put in in place of adequate
funding for veterans' health care services.
Now, I would like to mention the testimony of the gentleman who is
the head of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, his testimony
before the Committee on Science, which I served on in the previous
Congress as a minority member, the statement by W. John Denson. He
pointed out in his testimony that the INEL maintains critical
technology skills for nuclear operations, nuclear safety and nuclear
waste management. The INEL is a multiple purpose laboratory supporting
all the missions of the department. The INEL has been designated by DOE
as the lead lab for research and development for EM mixed waste. They
also lead the national programs for spent nuclear fuels management and
national low level waste management.
Now, I say this because what that says is that the mission of the
particular DOE laboratory is far from the proposed area. And to follow
up on that, we have had a lot of testimony in the 104th Congress before
the Committee on Science about this question of just how we were to use
our energy laboratories. The GAO study asked experts on energy policy
and former DOE executives, including several of the previous
Secretaries of DOE, their views on it, and they by a substantial
majority said that we should not be taking on missions at the DOE
laboratories that are beyond the missions of DOE itself.
Then we have the Galvin Commission that was mentioned by one of the
previous speakers, a major commission to look at the future of
alternative futures for the Department of Energy national laboratories.
They strongly expressed their concern about expanding the laboratories'
industrial R&D beyond the existing DOE missions.
I quote from their work: The current industrial partnership
activities of the laboratories are unfocused and invariably lead to
add-ons. As in this case, an add-on. The Galvin Commission made three
specific recommendations. In two of those cases this kind of a project
is in direct contradiction to the recommendations. Their
recommendations that are contradicted are that government-funded
technology transfer industrial competitiveness activities should be
focused on industries and areas of technology that contribute directly
to the DOE primary missions in national security, energy and
environment.
The second recommendation, that competitive selection and more
rigorous technical and merit review, namely peer review, which has been
mentioned on several occasions by external experts, should be applied
broadly within the department's cooperative research and development
agreement.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Olver]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Olver was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, let me just point out here that Citizens
Against Government Waste, which held a number of hearings, a group that
was invited to a number of hearings to put a focus on government waste
during the 104th Congress, had put forward 7 criteria on which to judge
what might be considered waste.
Their criteria included cases where the request was made by one
chamber of commerce; where it was not authorized; number three, where
it was not competitively awarded, not peer reviewed, in essence; four,
where it was not requested in the President's budget; five, greatly
exceeds the President's budget or the request of the previous year's
funding; and, six, had not been the subject of congressional hearing.
Six out of the seven, this project violates.
So what I think here, let me go back and just reiterate, what we are
comparing is a $48 million increase in veterans' health services to
fulfill a promise that we have made to our veterans for a continuation
of their veterans' health programs, versus a program, a proposal which
is at best not ready for this stage, where it is meant as a
partnership, there is no industry portion in the partnership. The money
all would come out of a budget from an agency, namely FEMA, which did
not request the money at all and which has written at least to the
Senate chairman of the subcommittee on VA-HUD to indicate that they
have serious questions about this.
{time} 2130
And, Mr. Chairman, I will ask to submit this letter into the Record
during the whole House section of this session.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope the amendment would be adopted.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to make one additional
point.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Olver] has expired.
[[Page H5277]]
(On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Olver was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?
Mr. OLVER. I will continue yielding to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the argument has been made that this research
needs to be conducted. I am sure the gentleman would agree that no one
questions that. Certainly I do not question that.
The question is, why should this research proceed under conditions
which enable the contractor to obtain sole source noncompetitive
contracts? Why should it proceed when there has been no peer review to
determine whether or not this is the right way to proceed? Why should
we proceed when a large number of universities and many people in the
scientific community have expressed their concern that they will not be
able to use the simulator because of the costs associated with this
contract?
It has been suggested, for instance, that a number of insurance
companies have gone bankrupt because of other disasters. Why then
should the insurance industry not do as FEMA wants it to do, namely to
share in the cost of producing this research facility? Certainly if
they will gain millions of dollars in saved claims from its research,
they should be willing to help finance it.
I would simply say in very frank terms what this is is a nice
arrangement by one State which has working arrangements with several
other universities, but the taxpayers' interests are not protected
because of the way this research project is being designed. It will be
very convenient for Lockheed Martin, the contractor, but not for
anybody else, as far as I know. And it seems to me under those
circumstances, this ought not to proceed until we have the proper peer
review processes built in.
I would suggest also that with the veterans health budget being some
$500 million short of current services, it is not even a close call as
to where this money is needed the most.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Olver] has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Olver was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the House for yielding the
additional minute.
I think the answers to the ranking member's questions, the answers to
those whys, is that they really should not proceed until all of those
conditions are met. In truth, we do need to have that kind of research
done. But it ought to be done in a case where it is clearly cofunded by
industry as well as by the government, and in a situation where it is
peer reviewed and where there can be a broad participation in that
research.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, when Hurricane Fran swept across North Carolina,
thousands of homes were severely damaged or destroyed. More than a
million people lost their electricity for 5 days and many lives were
lost in the process.
Lost too by families in my State were dreams and memories. The
devastation and suffering caused by the swath of destruction was
tremendous.
We must do more to protect citizens in advance of storms. We cannot
afford to be reckless with the lives of our citizens and with their
homes.
In the last 2 years, four major hurricanes have caused 57 deaths and
$40 billion in damage, but we do not have to sit back and let nature
take its course. Today, we will vote on a measure to help protect both
homes and lives from hurricanes.
This measure will save billions in tax dollars and countless lives.
Supporting the Partnership for Natural Disaster Reduction/HomeSaver
Project is critical, Mr. Chairman, to saving American homes and lives.
Our goal should be to prevent disasters, not just to manage them or
respond to them.
Hurricane season is beginning to approach, and this year it is
predicted to be worse than ever. For us not to take preventive measures
would be highly irresponsible.
Before there is indeed another Hurricane Fran happening in some other
State, I urge my colleagues to support the Partnership for Natural
Disaster Reduction/HomeSaver Project. It is the right thing to do. It
is the responsible thing to do and also, Mr. Chairman, it is the safe
thing to do.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 184, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
In addition, contingent on enactment of legislation
establishing the Medical Collections Fund, such sums as may
be derived pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1729(g) shall be deposited
to such Fund and may be transferred to this account, to
remain available until expended for the purposes of this
account.
medical and prosthetic research
For necessary expenses in carrying out programs of medical
and prosthetic research and development as authorized by 38
U.S.C. chapter 73, to remain available until September 30,
1999, $267,000,000, plus reimbursements: Provided, That of
the funds made available under this heading, $20,000,000
shall be for medical research relating to Gulf War Illnesses
afflicting Persian Gulf Veterans.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Tiahrt:
In the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS--
Veterans Health Administration--medical and prosthetic
research'', after the first dollar amount (the aggregate),
insert the following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
In the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS--
Veterans Health Administration--medical and prosthetic
research'', after the second dollar amount (the Gulf War
illness research earmark), insert the following: ``(increased
by $5,000,000)''.
In the item relating to ``INDEPENDENT AGENCIES--Corporation
for National and Community Service--national and community
service programs operating expenses'', after the first dollar
amount (the aggregate), insert the following: ``(reduced by
$200,000,000)''.
Mr. TIAHRT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kansas?
There was no objection.
(Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I am here tonight to address the priorities
within this bill. The amendment I offer would dedicate an additional
$25 million to the Veterans Administration's Medical and Prosthetic
Research Account to dramatically increase the level of research which
the VA is doing on the illness which is affecting thousands of American
veterans who served this country in the Persian Gulf war.
This year the Veterans Administration is dedicating a mere $3.6
million to the research of the illness which our gulf war veterans are
suffering from. To pay for this very necessary research, the amendment
would partially eliminate funding for the AmeriCorps program and direct
it towards this much-needed research.
First, let me address why this amendment is necessary. The fiscal
year 1998 VA-HUD Appropriations Act contains $267 million for the VA's
medical and prosthetic research account. In the Committee on
Appropriations an earmark was added which directs $20 million of this
current appropriation to be spent on gulf war research. This pays for
and expands the current research into gulf war illness. However it
comes at the expense of other important research being done by the VA,
such as Diabetes Centers of Excellence, Centers for Rehabilitation
Medicine, and the VA's ability to retain high quality physicians. It
just takes from one pocket, cutting important research, to put in
another. This solves one problem yet, unfortunately, creates many more.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would remedy the problem completely.
[[Page H5278]]
This amendment presents a question of priorities. We should do what is
more important, expanding the very minimal research which the VA is
doing on the illnesses our gulf war vets are experiencing and living
with daily, or continuing paying for healthy young people to volunteer
for public service jobs.
Before we make our decision, let us examine the facts. This is
difficult when discussing the gulf war illness. The problem is we
cannot define it conclusively, treat it, or explain exactly how it is
caused. The VA itself has said, ``Currently, there is no evidence of a
single unifying illness to explain the health problems of all gulf war
veterans.'' Without much-needed research, these veterans will continue
to suffer, and we do not have the answers to our gulf war illness
questions.
We do know that the Department of Defense has confirmed that 27,000
American soldiers could have been exposed to chemical agents in the
Persian Gulf. Separately, the CIA has estimated as many as 120,000
could have been exposed.
I can also tell my colleagues what some of our gulf war veterans are
experiencing. Like U.S. Army Reserve Sgt. David Janda. He is a 35-year-
old father of three from Hutchinson, KS. He suffers from blinding
headaches, a blistering rash which he has had for 6 months, chronic
diarrhea and joint pain. Or Kenny Schwartz of Great Bend, KS, who
endures stabbing pain in his left eye, stiffness in his joints which
make him unable to walk, memory loss and scarring rashes. Their doctors
can neither diagnose nor effectively treat these symptoms.
To date, 90,000 Persian Gulf war veterans have contacted the VA's
gulf war registry and reported symptoms which are consistent with how
the Journal of the American Medical Association has described gulf war
illness: fatigue, joint pain, gastrointestinal complaints, memory
problems, emotional change, impotence, and insomnia.
This is the Veterans' Administration current response: $3.6 million
of research funding this year. That is $133 for every American veteran
we know of that has been exposed to chemical agents in the gulf.
On the other hand, we have AmeriCorps. This year we are spending $402
million on the AmeriCorps program. That is $19,000 in Federal funding
for every one of the over 20,000 AmeriCorps paid volunteers.
This chart shows the discrepancy, Mr. Chairman; $133 per veteran
being spent on research for gulf war illness versus $19,000 spent for
every paid volunteer.
AmeriCorps pays recruited volunteers to perform public service jobs.
It also provides $7500 for living expenses and $4,725 for an
educational award. They also get health coverage and child care. Our
$19,000 a year paid volunteers have lobbied the government, worked as
low level Federal bureaucrats, and built hornos, which are ovens built
from dirt and grass that were originally used some 4,000 years ago.
Two recent audits by the GAO and a report from AmeriCorps' own
Inspector General have found serious inefficiencies and mismanagement.
In addition, Arthur Andersen has tried to audit AmeriCorps twice, and
found the books too much of a mess to even perform an audit, yet we are
asking to continue funding AmeriCorps at the current level while
ignoring the illness of our Gulf War veterans.
I cannot go back to Kansas and tell David Janda and Kenny Schwartz
that we can only muster $133 per veteran to investigate what is making
them sick and how to treat it, yet we have $19,000 to pay a paid
volunteer to offer a healthy youngster that lives next door to these
veterans.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Tiahrt was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. I ask
every Member of the House to consider what they believe our priorities
should be, and I am hopeful that we will place our highest priority on
the current and future health of the men and women who fought and
served for freedom in our country.
Caring for veterans who fought for America's freedom and security is
a necessary function of our Federal Government. Paying healthy
AmeriCorps volunteers is simply not. I ask Members to please not turn
their backs on the veterans who so faithfully served this country in
the Persian Gulf.
Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record two reports on the subject of
my amendment:
Time to End the Troubled AmeriCorps
On April 27-29, 1997, with Independence Hall as a
picturesque backdrop, over 2,800 delegates from across the
country, including governors, mayors, private-sector leaders,
and representatives from leading foundations, gathered in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the Presidents' Summit for
America's Future. With President Bill Clinton and former
President George Bush as honorary co-chairmen, this gathering
was called to examine a topic that hardly could be more
important: the future of volunteerism in the United States,
and especially how the voluntary sector can aid America's
children.
The great 19th century French observer of American
politics, Alexis de Tocqueville, noted that what made America
great was the tendency of its people to form voluntary
associations to meet community needs. Whereas Europeans
looked with docility to government to solve problems,
Americans learned self-reliance and the ability to look
beyond individual self-interest through cooperation in
voluntary organizations. In this century, however, as
government programs--particularly human services programs--
have usurped much of America's traditionally voluntary
domain, both the country's civic fabric and the character of
its individual citizens have changed for the worse.
The Presidents' Summit gave Americans a chance to pause and
reflect on how community needs could best be met. The
increasingly widespread appeal of the conservative message on
the need to re-limit government led President Clinton himself
to declare that the ``era of big government is over.'' Now
America's civil society and corporate community have been
called in to deal with the problems created by the failure of
federal programs. Over the past few months, Newsweek has
devoted a portion of its ``Periscope'' page to the many
corporations that have agreed to make major contributions of
goods or services as part of the effort to meet these needs.
LensCrafters, for example, has agreed to provide free eye
care for one million needy people, and the National
Restaurant Association has agreed to hire 250,000 youngsters
in the next five years.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But for all the fanfare and national press attention
surrounding the Presidents' Summit--as well as the bipartisan
images and goodwill it generated--there is reason to believe
that it may serve less to foster a vision of a healthy
voluntary sector free of unwarranted government intervention
than to promote further charitable dependence on federal
resources. The Presidents' Summit was largely the brainchild
of former Senator Harris Wofford (D-PA), Chief Executive of
the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). In
congressional testimony, Wofford declared that the CNCS,
along with the Points of Light Foundation (another federally
funded entity designed to promote volunteerism \2\), ``is
working . . . in initiating and planning the Summit to
promote the goals of the National and Community Service Act,
the mission of the Corporation, and the vision set forth in
the Corporation's Strategic Plan.'' \3\
The CNCS helps oversee administration of the AmeriCorps
program, President Clinton's ``domestic Peace Corps,'' the
largest extension of the federal government in recent years.
Ever since its creation in 1993, AmeriCorps has been mired in
controversy. Two recent independent audits of the program by
the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), the semiannual
report of the Corporation's own Inspector General, and two
audits by the nationally renowned Arthur Andersen accounting
firm all have found serious evidence of cost overruns and
mismanagement. Despite these problems, however, and despite a
continuing inability to correct them, the Corporation has
benefited from large amounts of good publicity, thanks in
part to what one critic has called the ``camera-ready smiles
of young `volunteers' '' whose efforts made good news
copy.\4\ In an era in which balancing the federal budget has
become a national priority, the CNCS has requested
$546,500,000 for fiscal year (FY) 1998--an increase of 36
percent over the $400 million appropriated in FY 1997.
Not only was the Philadelphia summit choreographed in part
by AmeriCorps, but its proceedings offered a rousing
endorsement of this very troubled program. Despite the good
publicity for AmeriCorps that the Summit may generate,
Congress should view the request for increased AmeriCorps
funding with considerable skepticism. In this age or re-
limiting government, the American public and its elected
representatives should reject the very premise upon which
AmeriCorps rests: that the federal government has an
important activist role to play in guiding the voluntary
sector in the United States.
what is americorps?
One of Governor Bill Clinton's key platform stands in 1992
was a call to create a federal program that would help
individuals meet the high costs associated with acquiring a
college education in exchange for community service. As
President, Clinton saw
[[Page H5279]]
his vision implemented through the National and Community
Service Trust Act of 1993. The Act created the CNCS, which
helps administer the ``largest national and community service
program since the Civilian Conservation Corps of the 1930s.''
\5\
Over the past four years, AmeriCorps has grown from a mere
pilot program to include more than 24,000 people
participating in more than 430 programs across the country.
These programs focus primarily on four areas: education,
the environment, public safety, and human services. Since
1993, despite the fact that Washington spends $1.3 billion
annually to promote volunteerism through 23 other federal
programs, more than $800 million has been appropriated to pay
for 100,000 participants in CNCS's major program,
AmerCorps*USA.\6\ Full-time AmeriCorps participants work a
minimum of 1,700 hours per year, receiving in turn a $7,460
stipend and an education award of $4,725 in the form of a
college tuition voucher or credit to repay a past student
loan.
In his 1995 State of the Union address, President Clinton
praised AmeriCorps as ``citizenship at its best.'' In
Philadelphia, the President announced his intention to expand
the program in two ways:
First, he wants to create a ``citizen army'' of one million
volunteer literacy tutors to shore up the failed public
school system in the United States. Rather than hold public
schools accountable for teaching basic skills, his plan would
cost taxpayers at least $2.75 billion and rely heavily on
coordination and instruction by 10,000 new AmeriCorps ``tutor
coordinators.'' \7\
Second, the President wants to expand AmeriCorps by 33,000
volunteers over the next five years by teaming with private
organizations that would be responsible for paying the paid
volunteers' living stipends while taxpayers still pay the
cost of their college scholarships.\8\
AMERICORPS' TROUBLED BEGINNING
Early on, the Clinton Administration hailed AmeriCorps as
the ``paradigm of reinvented government.'' In truth, under
the leadership of CNCS's first CEO--Eli J. Segal, chief of
staff for the 1992 Clinton-Gore campaign--AmeriCorps offered
a case study of how not to run a federal agency. Although
AmeriCorps claimed that its mission was to promote the
voluntary sector, at least 2,800 of its first 20,000
``volunteers'' were assigned directly to federal agencies and
departments, most notably the Departments of Agriculture and
Justice, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Legal
Services Corporation, and the National Endowment for the
Arts.
Even though AmeriCorps claimed that its mission was
nonpartisan, it offered millions of dollars in grants to
numerous activist groups, including ACORN (the Association of
Community Organizations for Reform Now), the National Council
of La Raza, and the Council of Great City Schools, an
organization devoted to the ``advancement of education in
inner-city public schools through public and legislative
advocacy.'' \9\ Despite Segal's repeated denials that
AmeriCorps grant money helped subsidize ACORN's political
activities, the Corporation was forced to defund ACORN in
July 1995 after an Inspector General's report found
incontrovertible evidence that the supposedly independent
affiliate awarded a grant by AmeriCorps was, in fact, part
and parcel of ACORN's political operations. Another
AmeriCorps grantee in Denver also engaged in political
advocacy at taxpayers' expense and was stripped of its
federal funds.\10\
But the most devastating news under Segal's tenure was not
the presence of ``volunteers'' in federal agencies, or the
use of federal tax dollars for political purposes: It was the
audit of 93 AmeriCorps programs released by the GAO in July
1995. Segal had promised that the ``cost [per AmeriCorps
volunteer] will be $17,600.'' \11\ The GAO revealed that the
cost to field a participant was $25,800 for non-federal
agency grantees and $31,000 for federal agency grantees. \12\
In other words, although AmeriCorps promised that cost per
service hour by volunteers would total $6.43, the GAO found
that the real cost was $15.85 per hour--and up to $19.81 per
hour when time for non-service AmeriCorps activities was
included.\13\ Whereas President Clinton repeatedly had cited
AmeriCorps as evidence that the government could work in
partnership with the voluntary sector and private enterprise
to promote volunteerism,\14\ the GAO found that taxpayers
were paying 93 percent of the costs--79 percent directly from
the federal till.\15\
NEW EVIDENCE THAT AMERICORPS DOES NOT WORK
In summer 1995, Segal resigned as AmeriCorps' CEO, to be
replaced by Harris Wofford. Wofford began his tenure by
seeking bipartisan support for AmeriCorps. Partly because of
the July 1995 GAO audit, Wofford promised to end the policy
of ``paid volunteers'' in federal agencies, to reduce the
Washington-based bureaucracy, and to seek a direct private-
sector match for each dollar contributed by the federal
government.
Wofford's promises for reform and his affable style,
combined with President Clinton's newfound popularity in the
polls, saved the program from almost certain extinction. Yet
one and a half years into Wofford's tenure, AmeriCorps
still seems to be plagued by many of the same problems
that Segal faced. A new GAO report reveals that AmeriCorps
costs too much, has difficulty retaining problem
participants, and is not attracting the significant
private-sector involvement that program supporters had
sought.\16\
The GAO sampled 25 AmeriCorps programs and uncovered some
disturbing trends:
AmeriCorps fails to retain participants in its programs.
The dropout rate for paid volunteers is 39 percent, nearly
twice what the CNCS had predicted in November 1994.\17\
AmeriCorps is failing to gain significant private-sector
resources for its programs. Officials at the Corporation for
National Service have boasted repeatedly that the presence of
government funding would help ``leverage'' private
contributions. Yet median private-sector support for
AmericCorps programs that were sampled was only 17 percent;
83 percent of the funding comes directly from the taxpayers.
This is not surprising when one considers that at least 180
of the Corporation's 430 projects in FY 1996 provided funding
to government programs.\18\
Despite the CNCS's claim that 90 percent of participants
would use their educational awards, only 54 percent of those
eligible for these awards actually have used them. The low
percent of educational awards used suggests that many
AmeriCorps members either are not planning to attend college
or are not recent college graduates saddled with loans to
pay. The Des Moines Register, for example, reports that
``nearly one in five AmeriCorps workers in Des Moines already
has a college degree, and more than half in the program are
26 or older.'' \19\ The presence of so many non-student age
AmeriCorps members led one observer to conclude that the
``program that was sold as the domestic equivalent of the
Peace Corps has already turned out to more closely resemble
the abysmal failure of the Comprehensive Education and
Training Act.'' \20\ AmeriCorps was sold to Congress as a
program to help young people pay for college, not as another
federal jobs program in addition to the over 160 that already
exist.
One AmeriCorps program, the Casa Verde Builders Program,
cost the taxpayers $2,448,053. Only 23 of the 64 individuals
enrolled as Casa Verde AmeriCorps members completed the
program; the cost of taxpayers: over $100,000 per
participant. Moreover, only four participants have used their
educational awards; to cost to taxpayers: more than $600,000
per award.
Another AmeriCorps program examined by the GAO, the
Educational Conservation Corps, cost taxpayers $1,732,000. Of
the 97 participants, 58 earned an educational award. So far,
only 20 have used their awards; the cost of taxpayers:
$86,000 per award in administrative costs plus $4,725 per
award.
The Appalachian Service Through Action and Resources
program cost taxpayers $632,240. Twenty-two participants
completed the program and earned educational awards. The cost
to taxpayers (assuming that 90 percent of Appalachian Service
members use their awards): $31,612 plus $4,725 per award.
Local AmeriCorps programs are not the only problem. The
management techniques at CNCS headquarters are the focus of
continuing congressional scrutiny. An October 1995 audit of
CNCS books by Arthur Andersen indicated serious accounting
weaknesses, leading the firm to declare that the books were
``unauditable.'' A follow-up study by Andersen concluded that
the Corporation's ``internal controls were not adequate for
an independent auditor to perform an effective and efficient
financial statement audit in accordance with generally
accepted auditing standards for fiscal years 1994 and 1995.''
\2\ The same study concluded that these shortcomings
``potentially preclude an audit'' of FY 1996 books. Most
shockingly, as of December 1996, the CNCS could not account
for $38 million in AmeriCorps funding. Despite repeated
requests by Representative Peter Hoeskstra (R-MI), Chairman
of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House
Committee on Education and the Workforce, and Senator
Christopher Bond (R-MO), Chairman of the VA, HUD and
Independent Agencies Subcommittee of the Senate
Appropriations Committee, AmeriCorps has yet to provide
conclusive evidence that the Corporation's financial
statements for FY 1997 can be audited. What is particularly
disturbing about the financial fiasco at AmeriCorps is that
the program was created and administered entirely during the
``reinventing government'' era.
why americorps is unnecessary
Wholly aside from the numerous failures that have occurred
in the administration of AmeriCorps, there was no objective
reason to create the program in the first place. As one of
its supporters concedes, even ``AmeriCorps' friends aren't
sure exactly what it does.'' \22\ For several reasons, any
role for the federal government in the voluntary sector is
both unwise and counterproductive:
The voluntary sector in the United States is fundamentally
healthy. According to Independent Sector, 89.2 million
Americans offered unpaid voluntary service in 1993. Since
1981, the number of hours that Americans volunteer has rise
dramatically from 12.7 billion to 19.5 billion.
AmeriCorps' paid volunteerism has discouraged--and will
continue to discourage--real charitable involvement. Only
programs that cannot generate sufficient community support
need to look to Washington for funding. AmeriCorps already
turned many of the major charitable nonprofits in the United
States--Habitat for Humanity, the Red Cross, and the YMCA--
away from the task of raising funds in the private sector
toward lobbying Congress for more AmeriCorps funding.
[[Page H5280]]
Healthy charities with strong community support look to
their neighbors, not the federal government, for financial
support and volunteers. When genuine needs must be met,
Americans band together with their neighbors to achieve
common goals. AmeriCorps distorts the principle of local
accountability for charitable groups. The great strength of
America's philanthropic sector is its flexibility in
responding to the country's social needs. This flexibility
arises from a network of community-based voluntary
organizations, not from a federally sponsored make-work
administration. A far better way to help these organizations
to succeed would be to allow taxpayers themselves to take tax
credits for contributions to the charities of their
choice.\23\
Like all government programs, AmeriCorps costs too much.
Considering its stipends and tuition awards, members receive
approximately $7.13 per hour, exclusive of the medical
benefits and child care available to certain eligible
participants. But the real cost per participant hour is far
higher, depending on the particular grantee program. The
total federal, state, and local costs of this program amount
to an average of $18.26 per hour--the equivalent of almost
$38,000 per year.
AmeriCorps' record of achievement has come under question.
A 1997 Working Paper on AmeriCorps written for Independent
Sector, itself sympathetic to the program, notes that, for 70
percent of the AmeriCorps programs it studied, the presence
of AmeriCorps members did not produce quantitative results
``over and above what the agencies were mandated and
ostensibly funded to provide.'' Among the ``reasons for
concern and reflection,'' AmeriCorps' vaunted ability to
leverage volunteers from local communities turned out to have
been overstated; researchers found only a ``modest 3.5
percent increase in hours volunteered by genuine
volunteers.'' \24\
AmeriCorps is an extremely costly way to help families pay
for college. The $26,700 cost for a single participant
estimated by the 1995 GAO study would pay for Pell Grants for
approximately 18 students. Assuming the Casa Verde program's
cost of nearly $100,000 per participant, 67 low-income
students could have received Pell Grants.
President Clinton has declared that AmeriCorps aims to help
young people who perform public service pay for college. In
his 1996 State of the Union address, the President boasted
that ``AmeriCorps has already helped 70,000 young people to
work their way through college as they serve America.'' \25\
In fact, if only 54 percent of AmeriCorps' ``graduates'' are
using their educational awards, the program should have
helped approximately 37,800 with college tuition payments. By
the time of the Philadelphia summit, the President had
corrected his figure downward from 70,000 to 50,000.\26\
AmeriCorps seeks to create a cadre of devoted liberal
activists. One of the reasons for creating national service,
according to the program's intellectual godfather, Professor
Charles Moskos of Northwestern University, was to revitalize
the Democratic Party. In its first few years, AmeriCorps has
offered grants to dozens of organizations like ASPIRA of New
York, the New Jersey Public Interest Research Foundation, the
North Carolina Low Income Housing Coalition, the Legal
Service Corporation, the National Council of La Raza, and the
Northern Virginia Urban League. Congressional investigators
also are examining why one high-ranking political appointee
at the Corporation for National Service--former Los Angeles
City Council Member Michael Woo--used Corporation
stationery and resources to set up a meeting between
Democratic Party fundraiser John Huang and Asian-American
business owners in Los Angeles.\27\
When given the choice between cutting funding for
AmeriCorps or other programs such as veterans' benefits, even
the President's closest congressional allies--House Minority
Whip David Bonior (D-MI), Representative David Obey (D-WI),
and Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY)--had no choice but
to cut $206 million from AmeriCorps' funding for FY 1996.\28\
The President's plan to expand AmeriCorps by 33,000
volunteers over the next five years by teaming with private
organizations that would be responsible for paying the
AmeriCorps living stipend while taxpayers covered the cost of
the college scholarship will increase federal involvement in
the philanthropic sector unnecessarily. Growing numbers of
charitable institutions will become dependent on the federal
government, designing programs to receive taxpayer-funded
subsidies through AmeriCorps.
The President's planned literacy initiative will do little
to improve our failing public schools. An additional $2.75
billion on top of the nearly $302 billion the federal
government alone spends on education will not teach American
students the basic skills they are not learning now.\29\
Pumping more money into a failed system or drawing on the
efforts of tens of thousands of well-intentioned volunteers
will not compensate for the inadequacy of the country's
schools.\30\
conclusion
The Presidents' Summit in Philadelphia has drawn further
attention to one of the oldest traditions in the United
States: voluntary community service. Nearly 90 million
Americans volunteer annually, offering 19.7 billion hours of
service. These efforts are essential to rebuilding American
civil society now that the ``era of big government is over.''
The end of the era of big government, however, should not
be seen as an excuse to boost President Clinton's
controversial AmeriCorps program. A recent General Accounting
Office study revealed that AmeriCorps continues to be plagued
by high dropout rates and high costs. In short, the federal
government has no business paying people to volunteer.
Kenneth R. Weinstein,
Director, Government Reform Project.
August Stofferahn,
Research Assistant.
Footnotes
\1\ For a list of these and other commitments made by
corporations and nonprofit organizations in conjunction with
the President's Summit, see http://www.philanthropy.com/
volunt.dir/13commit.htm.
\2\ The FY 1997 appropriation for the Points of Light
Foundation was $6,000,000.
\3\ Harris Wofford, ``Testimony Regarding FY 1998
Appropriations for the Corporation for National Service,''
Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, Committee
on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, March 11,
1997.
\4\ John P. Walters, ``Five Questions for AmeriCorps' Board
of Directors,'' Memorandum to Conservative Reformers, New
Citizenship Project, February 24, 1995. The authors of this
report wish to acknowledge their intellectual debt to John
Walters's work.
\5\ U.S. General Accounting Office, National Service
Programs: Role of State Commissions in Implementing the
AmeriCorps Program, February 1997, p. 1.
\6\ Ibid. See also Mark Wilson, ``AmeriCorps,'' in Scott A.
Hodge, ed., Balancing America's Budget: Ending the Era of Big
Government (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation, 1997),
pp. 302-304. Other federal programs designed to promote
volunteerism include the Service Corps of Retired Executive
Association and the IRS Tax Counseling for the Elderly
Program. Several federal programs designed to promote
volunteerism that pre-dated the creation of the CNCS were
incorporated into its ranks, including the Foster
Grandparents program, Literacy Corps, Retired Senior
Volunteer Program, and VISTA (Volunteers in Service to
America).
\7\ Office of the Press Secretary, the White House,
``Briefing by Bruce Reed, Director of Domestic Policy
Council,'' April 25, 19976; available at http://
docs.whitehouse.gov/white-house-publications/1997/04/1997-04-
25-bruce-reed-briefing-on-service-summit.text.
\8\ Under the President's plan, no interest would accrue on
student loans during the period of service. The White House
estimates that the loan deferment program, which it wishes to
include in the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act, would cost approximately $7 million per year
for 12,000 participants. See Office of the Press Secretary,
The White House, ``Press Briefing by Bruce Reed, Eli Segal
and Diane Fortuna,'' April 27, 1997; available at http://
docs.whitehouse.gov/white-house-publications/1997/04/1997-04-
27-reed-and-segal-briefing-at-volunteer-summit.text. See also
Warren P. Strobel, ``Clinton Makes a Pitch for Volunteers,''
The Washington Times, April 29, 1997, pp. A1 and A12, and
President Bill Clinton, ``Remarks at Volunteer Summit,''
April 28, 1997, available at http://docs.white-house.gov/
white-house-publications/1997/04/1997-04-28-remarks-of-
presidents-at-volunteer-celebration-event.text.
\9\ John P. Walters, ``AmeriWaste,'' Memorandum to
Conservative Reformers, New Citizenship Project, September
26, 1995.
\10\ See James F. Hirni, ``AmeriCorps: A $575 Million
Boondoggle,'' Heritage Foundation Issue Bulletin No. 212,
September 14, 1995, p. 5.
\11\ MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour, March 27, 1995.
\12\ Cornelia M. Blanchette, Associate Director, Education
and Employment Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office,
``National Service Programs--AmeriCorps*USA--First-Year
Experience and Recent Program Initiatives,'' testimony before
Committee on Labor and Human Resources, U.S. Senate, May 21,
1996, p. 3.
\13\ John P. Walters, ``A Devastating Audit of AmeriCorps:
The $23 Per Hour Per Hour `Paid' Volunteer,'' Memorandum to
Conservative Reformers, New Citizenship Project, July 12,
1995.
\14\ president Bill Clinton, ``Remarks on Responsible
Citizenship and the American Community,'' July 6, 1995;
available at http://docs.whitehouse.gov/white-house-
publications/1995/07/1995-07-06-presidents-georgetown-speech-
on-responsibility.text.
\15\ U.S. General Accounting Office, National Service
Programs-AmeriCorps*USA--Early Program Resource and Benefit
Information, GAO/HEHS-95-222, August 29, 1995, pp. 30-31;
cited in Wilson, ``AmeriCorps,'' p. 452.
\16\ GAO, National Service Programs: Role of State
Commissions in Implementing the AmeriCorps Program.
\17\ Letter from Representative Pete Hoekstra and Senators
Christopher Bond and Charles Grassley to the Honorable Harris
Wofford, March 13, 1997, p. 1.
\18\ Corporation for National Service, AmeriCorps Program
Director, available at http://www.cns.gov/pro-dir.html.
\19\ Mary Hill, ``Too many insiders getting AmeriCorps
jobs?'' Des Moines Register, February 2, 1996, p. 1.
\20\ Jason Lewis, ``For the Good of Taxpayers, Unload Pricey
AmeriCorps `Volunteers,' '' Minneapolis Star-Tribune, August
7, 1996, p. A11.
\21\ Corporation for National Service, Office of the
Inspector General, Report No. 97-09, December 9, 1996.
\22\ William Raspberry, ``Invisible Volunteers,'' The
Washington Post, January 17, 1997, p. A21.
\23\ On the charitable tax credits in the Talent-Watts-Flake
Community Renewal Act, see Christine Olson, ``The American
Community Renewal Act of 1997,'' Heritage Foundation Issue
Bulletin No. 229, March 19, 1997.
\24\ John Messer, ``Disparities Between National Service
Outcome Measures and Goals: Core Susquehanna AmeriCorps: A
Case Study,'' 1997 Independent Sector Spring Research Forum,
Alexandria, Va., 1997.
\25\ President Bill Clinton, State of the Union speech,
February 4, 1997; see also speech by President Clinton to the
American Council on Education, February 24, 1997.
\26\ Clinton, ``Remarks at Volunteer Summit.'' April 28,
1997.
\27\ James Rowley, ``AmeriCorps Questioned on Jobs,''
Associated Press, April 28, 1997. Mr. Woo received a salary
of approximately $95,000 per year as Director of AmeriCorps'
Western Regional Cluster.
\28\ John P. Walters, ``Pull the Plug Already,'' Memorandum
to Conservative Reformers, New Citizenship Project, October
20, 1995.
\29\ Amy Call, ed., Budget Bulletin No. 6, Majority Staff,
Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, 105th Cong., 1st Sess,
March 3, 1997; cited in Nina H. Shokraii and Dorothy B.
Hanks, ``School Choice
[[Page H5281]]
Programs: What's Happening in the States,'' Heritage
Foundation F.Y.I. No. 138, April 21, 1997, p. 1.
\30\ See Robert W. Sweet, Jr., ``Don't Read, Don't Tell:
Clinton's Phony War on Illiteracy,'' Policy Review: The
Journal of American Citizenship, No. 83 (May-June 1997), pp.
38-42.
Impact of President's FY 1998 Budget Request for $28 Million Cut in VA
Research
The president's FY 1998 budget request proposes a 10.5% cut
in the VA research appropriation. If enacted by Congress,
this cut would reduce FY 1998 funding for VA research to $234
million, down from an FY 1997 appropriation of $262 million.
A cut of this magnitude--15% if the effect of inflation is
included--will require VA to make significant changes in the
program and future plans including:
Reinvigoration of VA's Career Development Programs, as
recommended by the Research Realignment Advisory Committee
(RRAC), will be delayed indefinitely. For the third year, VA
will not be able to initiate any new Career Development
awards. See attached Graph 1. Cut: 15 career development
awards at a cost of $2.5 million.
Plans for new research centers of excellence will be
terminated or delayed indefinitely. Cut: 9 centers at a cost
of $10 million. These include:
Two Epidemiology Research and Information Centers designed
to provide VA with much needed epidemiology research capacity
Three new competitively selected Diabetes Centers of
Excellence
Two new Centers for Rehabilitation Medicine focusing on
sensory loss and traumatic brain injury
A new, competitively selected Health Services Research and
Development Center of Excellence
Phasing out one of four existing Environmental Hazards
Research Centers
Three hallmark cooperative studies expected to have a far
reaching impact on medical care will not be funded. Cut: $3
million.
A substance abuse research initiative related to nicotine
and smoking behavior
Two cooperative studies comparing surgical and medical
treatments for heart disease
Other steps required to accommodate the remaining $10
million of the $28 million cut:
15-20 new health services research and development programs
will be delayed.
VA will sharply decrease its investment in developing
medical practice guidelines, reducing its ability to
determine the most cost effective methods of delivering high
quality care in the network environment.
Ten percent of existing investigator-initiated projects
will be terminated. The number of funded projects will
decrease from 1666 in FY 1997 to about 1400 in FY 1998. See
attached Graph 2 for the impact on the number of Medical
Research Service projects alone. This will lower funding
opportunity for VA researchers to an all time low of less
than 15%--only 1 out of 8-10 approved projects will be
funded.
Administrative support for research offices located at VA
medical centers will be reduced by 10-15%.
Reduced funding opportunity will affect VA's ability to
attract and retain high quality physician investigators for
careers in VA. Considering that 75% of VA researchers are
physicians who provide medical care for veterans, the
potential impact on VA's ability to provide the high quality
care associated with academic/research facilities may be
significant.
FOVA recommends full restoration of the funds cut in the
president's request, plus $18 million in new funding for an
FY 1998 appropriation of $280 million.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
First, let me address the amendment of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr.
Tiahrt] by way of the discussions that the gentleman and I have had
both in the full committee as well as this evening on the floor.
Initially, in the full committee, there was a good deal of discussion
about the reality that there are some problems with some AmeriCorps
programs operating in the country, but also there are portions of the
AmeriCorps Program that are working very, very well. For example, the
forestry services going on in my district. AmeriCorps volunteers have
done a rather phenomenal job.
Essentially, the gentleman from Kansas was saying to me, I think,
that we need to raise a flag that says if there are programs here where
taxpayers' dollars are not being spent well, then we either ought to
stop that or, indeed, we should try to find a way to improve it. So his
amendment essentially raises that flag by taking half of the AmeriCorps
funding proposed in this bill and putting it in an area of funding
within veterans medical research that is very, very critical.
Now, beyond my comments about AmeriCorps, let me say this about the
gentleman from Kansas, a new member of the Committee on Appropriations.
There is not a member of our committee who has more effectively brought
forward the importance of the Persian Gulf syndrome problem, the
reality that literally tens of thousands of veterans are facing
circumstances that the medical community seems to know a lot less about
than they should know.
As of this moment, as a direct result of his work, through a number
of appropriation subcommittees, I am not sure exactly what the figure
is, but we are pushing something close to $100 million that is directed
along a channel that will have us evaluating in intensive form the
Persian Gulf syndrome.
{time} 2145
And that concern about those veterans who served is very well-taken
and very, very important.
Further, I want to say that while earlier I was personally going to
consider just wiping out the AmeriCorps funding because we know at the
other end of this, before we get through conference, before we get a
signature from the President, AmeriCorps is going to be funded. The
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] is mixing the best of public policy
with the best of reality around here in terms of his amendment. It is
very helpful to the process, and because of that I would suggest to the
Members that the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] has made a very
good point and should get their support.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman from Kansas [Mr.
Tiahrt], my good friend, and his amendment.
This is really about priorities of spending in our government. It is
about two programs. And the idea behind AmeriCorps, the idea of helping
college students, is certainly an idea that most Americans would
support. The idea of encouraging volunteerism is certainly an idea that
most Americans would support. But when we start talking about the
concept of paying people to volunteer, somehow we lose something in the
translation. Once you receive a paycheck for doing something, you are
no longer a volunteer.
This program is currently costing $19,000 per student that it is
attempting to help, and I would suggest that the cost is out of line. I
would also suggest that the accountability is just plain not there in
the program.
We then look at a second program and we have to ask ourselves, which
program is it more important that we spend the money on? We then look
at our Persian Gulf war veterans and the illnesses that they are facing
and how much research money is being spent to solve the problems facing
our Persian Gulf war veterans.
And we have to conclude, as I think this body will when we vote on
this amendment, we have to conclude that our priorities here are wrong.
Paying people to volunteer, even if the work that they are doing is
good and important, is certainly not as important to our Nation as
finding the root cause of the Gulf War syndrome that is affecting so
many of our veterans in our Nation today.
I rise to support the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], my good
friend; and I sincerely hope this body makes the right decision and
passes this amendment.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment once again places an issue before
Members of the House regarding two very important areas of concern, I
think, of Members of the House. Certainly all of us support veterans'
programs in a great respect and admiration for what veterans have done
for this country. And many of us, such as myself, are veterans.
At the same time, we recognize that there is a very real need for
programs such as AmeriCorps, which happens to be a program that the
President of the United States places a great deal of priority on. In
fact, I have before me a statement of administration policy which was
received by us today, in which the President states that ``the
administration understands that an amendment may be offered to
terminate the Corporation for National Community Service. The
administration would oppose any amendment to terminate the corporation,
as well as any amendment that would eliminate the corporation's
AmeriCorps grant program. Were any of these actions be incorporated
into the final bill presented to the President, the President's senior
[[Page H5282]]
advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.'' The President goes on
to speak to other aspects of the national service program.
This is a bill that, as we have already stated on the floor earlier
today, has been a very difficult bill to craft. It is one that the
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and myself and other members of
the subcommittee spent a great deal of time putting together, and we
hate to see it in any manner jeopardized by any type of threat of a
veto.
But I think it is important to look at what some of the
accomplishments of the AmeriCorps Program have been. Just in the 1995-
1996 program year, AmeriCorps has trained, supervised or recruited more
than 300,000 volunteers; they have taught or tutored more than 500,000
children; built 1,200 houses; rehabilitated 4,700 houses and
apartments; immunized 64,000 people; planted more than 200,000 trees;
restored more than 3,000 miles of shoreline and river banks; cleaned up
3,500 neighborhoods; enrolled 85,000 students in after-school programs.
They have counseled more than 100,000 people in violence prevention;
established more than 3,000 public safety patrols; provided 1,100,000
people with health care information; provided 32,000 people with
employment-related services.
So AmeriCorps is not about volunteerism; it is really is about
service. AmeriCorps has strengthened, not weakened, traditional
volunteer activities. More than 3 out of 5, 61 percent of Americorps
members have completed 1,700 hours of service and earned education
awards. An additional 17 percent earned partial education awards. Only
22 percent earned no award.
One measure of success for the program is the percentage of
AmeriCorps members who earned the education awards. Nearly 4 out of 5,
70 percent of AmeriCorps members have earned education awards. Just
recently the U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a resolution supporting
AmeriCorps.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STOKES. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the ranking member's recitation
of the accomplishments of Americorps. I think all of us recognize in
the start-up cost it was high, and it was an important new program with
this administration. Obviously, there is a high premium on it. I think
the program is working.
I would say that this amendment presents a dilemma for many of us.
But I think the impetus is clear. I do not know, and I appreciate the
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the chairman, has provided and
pointed out that there is nearly $100 million for review and research
of gulf war syndrome.
Whether there is a program for the extra $50 million, I do not know.
But, obviously, if there was, I would suspect that the Committee on
Appropriations would have processed those requests and considered it.
In fact, there are many quarters in this Federal Government,
unfortunately, where they still seem to be in a state of denial with
regard to that.
And I appreciate our friend, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt],
has taken the initiative to try and lead in providing adequate funding.
But the bottom line is this: This takes $200 million from the program,
a program that is working, a program where these funds are necessary,
where they are helping in a variety of ways. I think it has met its
promise.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Stokes, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Vento was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield,
this eliminates and takes away the opportunity for young people to
provide service. And I might say that while they get some modest
compensation and recognition, that it is nowhere accorded the right.
Now in a different era, a different time many could take off a year
and volunteer for service and do a variety of things and get low
compensation or no compensation. But that is not the era we are working
in today, in terms of people maybe have the altruism but they do not
have the economic wherewithal.
And this program provides and lets people provide that type of
volunteer service; and believe me, it is volunteer service when they
postpone their vocational plans for those 2 years. So I rise in
opposition to this amendment.
I think it is the wrong way to go. I think if we need money for the
gulf war vets and the syndrome and the problems there, I would be happy
to stand up here with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], my
colleague, the ranking member, and support it, but not on the basis
that is being offered in this amendment.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. STOKES. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Minnesota
[Mr. Vento].
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I would like to make a couple of comments, one in response to the
statement of the ranking member with regard to the President of the
United States. His comment was in regard to elimination of the program.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] is a
reduction of the present program, so he is not offering the amendment
to eliminate the present program.
One is, you have to cross a threshold whether or not you eliminate
the AmeriCorps as a program. I think the President gets himself in this
oxymoron about paid volunteers. He ought to get away from the word
``volunteers'' in the AmeriCorps program and just sign up and said,
yes, he believes in service and we want to pay these individuals for
these efforts and service which have normally gone to volunteers, and
he should get himself away from this oxymoron and the attacks on the
program.
I really do not care for the particular program. In response to the
comments of the gentleman about the type of program and all the good
which it has done, I also have to think about from 1993 to 1994 it was
reported that 1,200 of the paid AmeriCorps ``volunteers'' worked at the
Department of Agriculture, 525 worked in the Department of Interior,
210 worked in the Department of Justice, 135 in EPA, 60 at the National
Endowment of the Arts; a total of 2,800 were working at Federal
entities.
So that was pretty stunning to me when I discovered that. Also to
think that the AmeriCorps spent $1.7 million to a PR firm to work on
their image. So when I think about priorities dealing within the
restraints of a budget agreement, this is very disappointing in fact to
me.
The GAO recently, I know the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt]
referred to the $19,000 figure, the GAO estimates the total
compensation given to each volunteer. I should not perhaps even call
them volunteers because those that work in the AmeriCorps program do
not want to be called volunteers, they want to be called members. So
each member, it is $26,000. This figure has increased per cost to
$33,000 when AmeriCorps' high dropout rate is factored in. That is a
heavy price.
So when the gentleman talks about the promise of AmeriCorps has been
achieved, all right, at what cost? And then you say of this $33,000
per, what could we spend those monies on better with regard to how many
Pell Grants could you get out of that $33,000, or other things? And you
are right, somebody mentioned this is about priorities.
So when I think about the issue of the gulf war illness, I do want to
entertain a question to the chairman if I could for a second. Earlier
he mentioned about $100 million has now been appropriated for Gulf War
illness. I am a little confused as to this amendment, if we are adding
more moneys or replenishing accounts.
If the gentleman would explain to me, I yield to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis].
Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. And
when the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] first raised this question
effectively in our full committee, we were talking about $20 million;
and it came to our attention that there was some $30 million within the
Subcommittee on National Security, at least $10 million in Labor-HHS.
If there is an add-on here, that is additional.
But I must say, I do not know all the accounts because I have not had
a chance to go through those in the last
[[Page H5283]]
few days. But there is a growing level of funding in which this issue
and this problem is being recognized, and it is a direct result of the
work that the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] is about.
Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, so what you have earmarked, these
monies will help replenish accounts which take away from other funding
requirements?
Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman would continue to yield,
either they are earmarked funds out of research moneys, for example,
there is already DOD money, a pool of money, and they designate some.
We designated a portion out of research moneys in this bill, et cetera.
Mr. BUYER. When you compare this year's budget compared to what the
President sent you, did the President reduce his VA research budget?
Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman would yield further, yes,
the President did. And as a result of our work, we have beefed it back
up and there is significant adjustment upward in the research budget.
Mr. BUYER. And you plused up the budget over and above last year's
number even though the President reduced his VA research?
Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman would continue to yield, by
$33 million over the President.
Mr. BUYER. Let me thank the chairman for having done that.
I would share with the Members with regard to the gulf war issue,
whether it has been in the military health delivery systems or in the
VA, it has been very difficult to focus them on this issue. We voted
here not long ago on the issue of national defense. We spent millions
and millions of dollars, whether it is to buy tanks, we can debate over
B-2 bombers, we debate a lot of things about military equipment,
hummers and a lot of other things, but when it comes time to taking
care of those have borne the risk of battle, we need to also step up to
the plate and take care of these veterans.
There are many, in fact, who are suffering from multiple types of
illnesses, multiple causations, which is very difficult for us to
understand, for the family members. I applaud the gentleman for his
amendment, and I ask that all the Members support this amendment.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise in strong support of AmeriCorps and wonder in terms of the
statement of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], who introduced the
amendment, where he said that there was $3.6 million allocated,
appropriated, in this bill with his chart for Persian Gulf veterans.
Let me assure my colleagues that according to the report put together
by the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], our distinguished
chairman, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the ranking member,
on page 16 it says, and I quote, ``The bill includes earmarking $20
million,'' not $3.6 million.
{time} 2200
``The bill includes language earmarking $20 million of the funds made
available for medical research relating to Gulf War illnesses
afflicting Persian Gulf veterans.''
Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe after reading even more on this
topic that we need to make sure that we take care of our veterans,
World War II and World War I, Korean, Vietnam veterans and also our
Persian Gulf veterans.
Dr. Kenneth Kizer, the VA's Undersecretary for Health, said in his
testimony before Congress, ``More than 90 research projects are in
progress or have been completed, and more than 30 individual projects
are being carried out nationwide by the VA and university affiliated
investigators.''
If we need to do more, and we probably do, let us work together in a
bipartisan way to make sure that our veterans are cared for, and I will
strongly support that amendment. But let us not pit two very important
programs, AmeriCorps and the care and concern and medical necessities
for our Persian Gulf veterans, against one another in a very political
way.
AmeriCorps in my district is doing some great things. We have an
Envirocorps in Elkhart, IN. It is one of the best AmeriCorps projects
in the country. It is doing a number of things, to clean up streams and
the environment, to revitalize city neighborhoods throughout our
community, to test homes for radon gas, a host of things that would not
be done. They are working with the private sector, they are working
with volunteers in the community. They are leveraging the resources
throughout the community to get things done and help other people.
That is not just in Elkhart, IN. AmeriCorps has given 70,000
Americans a greater opportunity for higher education, taught over
380,000 students, mentored 93,000 youth, tutored 118,000 individuals.
They are all across the country, spread out, helping others. I would
think that a Republican wants people, as we do, not to just get
something free but to do some work for it, that is the concept here,
personal responsibility, work in the community and one gets an
educational grant, a stipend to go to school. It leverages money,
another good idea that we would hope to share in a bipartisan way,
Republicans and Democrats.
We leverage the public money with the private sector, helping people
build better communities in the environment, education, tutoring,
making sure children are inoculated, all kinds of great things going on
because of the leverage here at the public level that is spreading out
locally to each and every one of our communities. I do not know how one
can be against that. I do not know how we can pit two programs that I
strongly support against one another.
I guess, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would say this. What are
Republicans saying about this program that help young people, that help
young people at a time when we really need them getting to college,
when the college costs in this country are soaring, how are Republicans
responding to this, most Republicans?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Roemer was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. ROEMER. Gen. Colin Powell says, ``AmeriCorps is doing a lot of
good things around this country. They are leveraging other volunteers
who come in to work with AmeriCorps.''
Gov. William Weld, a Republican from Massachusetts, and I quote,
``Every taxpayer dollar we spend on AmeriCorps comes back threefold
when we add up the value of your innovative ideas, your physical labor
and all the skills you bring to the workforce when you finish your
education. It is one of the most intelligent uses of taxpayer dollars
ever.'' Ever.
Now, I think that is where the mainstream of the country is. Support
programs that insist on personal responsibility, that leverage dollars,
that help our young people afford education and build better
communities. This is a program, AmeriCorps, that I strongly support. I
hope that we can work in a bipartisan way to support both AmeriCorps
and our gulf veterans. I do not think that we should try to pit these
programs against one another.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROEMER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding. I would just say that absolutely the gentleman is right. We
do not want to pit programs like this against one another.
Unfortunately throughout this bill, that is the challenge of the bill.
We have program after program that are vital to people, whether it is
the poorest of the poor in housing programs or otherwise. One person's
mind's eye view of what is enough money for this program versus another
creates the difficulty.
I am not at all challenging what the gentleman suggests. I think he
also knows full well that, before we get through this process with the
other body, the conference, the AmeriCorps funding is going to be
there. So indeed it is just a reflection of the discussion this evening
that expresses people's viewpoint. It is helpful but it can be carried
further than it need be.
Mr. ROEMER. Reclaiming my time, and I respect the gentleman from
California, we have all kinds of opportunities around here to make
priorities. We had a priority to try to cut 0.7 percent of the
intelligence budget the other day. This body did not do that. We had
the opportunity to cut B-2 bombers
[[Page H5284]]
that the Air Force does not want. This body did not do that.
Let us not pit two good programs against one another that we should
be funding when we have got some of these other programs that the
Defense Department does not want, a space station that does not work,
when we are finding the Mars Pathfinder does marvelous things up in
space for $267 million as opposed to $100 billion for the Space
Station. Let us get our priorities right. Let us support our gulf
veterans. Let us support AmeriCorps.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROEMER. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. TIAHRT. I would suggest that this amendment does exactly what the
gentleman is suggesting.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] has
again expired.
(On request of Mr. Tiahrt, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Roemer was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from
Kansas.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment meets the criteria
that he is establishing here. It allows AmeriCorps to move on.
I would like to remind the gentleman from Indiana that AmeriCorps
spends about 11 percent of their budget authority. They have been
allocated $1.6 billion from this Congress since its conception. They
have only spent about $300 million. With a reduced budget as suggested
here, we are able to achieve both of the gentleman's goals, help the
Gulf War veterans who are suffering from this illness and allow
AmeriCorps to continue at a reduced size so that they can become more
efficient.
Mr. ROEMER. Reclaiming my time from the gentleman from Kansas, what I
would say is there are plenty of things we can cut in this budget.
Whether it is a Space Station, whether it is a wind tunnel, there are a
lot of things that we have to make tough choices on to balance the
budget, and we are making them.
I am supportive of a balanced budget, and I voted for that in the
historic bipartisan agreement that we brought to this floor. But let us
not always go after the programs around here that help people go to
school, that help people get a school lunch, that help people get fed
that are falling through a safety net. Let us make sure that the Gulf
veterans are taken care of, that AmeriCorps, which is working with
personal responsibility, is funded, and that we go after some of these
programs that are not working nearly as well as these other two good
programs.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, in these difficult times when we are trying to balance
the budget and establish the priorities that this body must adhere to
because the American people adhere to certain priorities, those
priorities will fall time and time again to our veterans, those people
who marched off to war and many of them came back with gulf war
syndrome. I have a number of them in my district, and my heart goes out
to them. I honor them and I respect them, and my priority is with them,
because America should keep its word to its veterans. They kept their
word with us.
It was Teddy Roosevelt that once said a man who is good enough to
shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square
deal. I think to increase research and development to $25 million for
gulf war illness research is a top priority. I think it must be done.
For too long this country ignored the ravages of gulf war syndrome and
ignored that it was a bona fide problem that our soldiers came back
home with. Our veterans have earned a square deal. They were promised a
square deal. That is not what they are getting with this appropriations
bill, unless we adopt the Tiahrt-Chenoweth amendment.
How can we in good conscience spend even a penny on pet projects, as
worthy as they may be, while our promises to veterans continue to be
broken? AmeriCorps' paid volunteers may work on projects in exchange
for pay and scholarships, but what is their contribution in comparison
to the sacrifice of our veterans? Veterans who gave up freedom and
endured the hardship and bore the separation from loved ones and all
too often suffered terrible bodily injury in defense of our freedoms in
the gulf war.
I urge my colleagues to take this small step, keep our obligations
and our promises to our veterans. Show our veterans that they are as
important to us as we and a free America were to them when they gave so
much to us. Please support the Tiahrt-Chenoweth amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, since the gentlewoman indicated that we ought
to put support for veterans ahead of everything else, can I assume that
she will vote for my amendment to eliminate the pork project in Idaho
so we can add money to the veterans health care budget?
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I am supporting my State and my commitment to my
State.
Mr. OBEY. So in that case the veterans will come second?
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, this is out of order because we are
debating another amendment.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I think this debate is an appropriate kind of debate
but not necessarily comparing AmeriCorps with the veterans. I think we
all support both.
The irony is that the gulf war veterans may have sons or daughters
that are in AmeriCorps, and in fact gulf war veterans may qualify as
AmeriCorps volunteers, because it is a totally different program. It
has to do with contribution to the community for remuneration and a
credit toward, whether it is vocational training or academic training.
I happen to represent an area in California, Fort Ord, the former Fort
Ord, which still has a military property on it; and in that property,
we have the center for the gulf war syndrome calls. Anyone who has been
in the gulf war who thinks they may be qualified for benefits, these
medical benefits, all of those calls from everywhere they are made in
the world come to that building. That building gets them registered and
into the process. It is a good process and it is working.
The problem I think we have with veterans and not just gulf war
veterans but veterans in general is that we are not allowing for
collaboration. If one goes to a veterans clinic, the veterans cannot
take their family and children to that clinic. We ought to be able to
let them do that. If one is over 65 in this country and he is a
veteran, he cannot take himself or his spouse to a veterans clinic.
They have to go out to a Medicare process.
The problem for medical care in America for veterans is not just
limited in here, and we do not do more by isolating these moneys, by
taking them out of a good project and saying we are going to put it in
just to research in an isolated area. If we really want to help
veterans, gulf war veterans and all, we would do a much better job of
collaboration.
Let me tell my colleagues on that same military base are a whole
bunch of AmeriCorps volunteers that are helping clean up that base, and
they are working with the community based organizations and they are
doing a very good job. Yes, they are getting paid. I was a Peace Corps
volunteer and I got paid for being in the Peace Corps. There is no free
lunch in this process. But they are not getting rich on this.
In fact, the author of this amendment has had six AmeriCorps
volunteers in his district, of which four finished. The Kansas
Department of Wildlife and Parks who oversaw the program wrote a
letter, and I would be glad to give it to the gentleman and submit it
for the Record if he wants, that says,
Without the assistance of AmeriCorps the Kansas Department
of Wildlife and Parks would not be able to hire these young
people lacking the funding to do so. The department can,
however, provide raw materials, tools and supervision.
The letter goes on to say,
The AmeriCorps and public would lose the benefits provided
to the natural resources and outdoor recreation projects, and
the individuals who would have been selected as members would
lose valuable opportunities.
[[Page H5285]]
{time} 2215
It goes on to say: ``I hope you will find that you will be able to
fully support the continuation of the AmeriCorps as a viable program
important to the American people.''
This is a letter to Senator Bond, and it is written by Bob Mayers,
the Assistant to the Secretary of Operations, appointee of the
Republican Governor of the State of Kansas.
Lastly, I think what is very important here is that if we are going
to make some tough choices, I think we made it last week, a week before
that, when we had a very close vote, and I believe it was, as my
colleagues know, half a dozen votes difference on the B-2 bomber,
something that the Pentagon has not asked for, something that the Air
Force does not want, and we voted to commit ourselves to building nine
more. An estimated outlay or total cost in the end is about $18
billion.
Now if my colleagues want to make choices, and my veterans are just
like my colleagues' veterans, they understand these choices. They do
not want us to take away programs from their sons and daughters, from
their colleagues who may be wanting to go into the AmeriCorps who want
to pay off student loans, who want to pay off education. Robbing Peter
to pay Paul is, I think, a very injurious proposition, and this is a
bad amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague
yielding. I think the point I am really trying to make here is to
suggest to the House that we are all on the same side of this. The fact
is my colleague knows and I know before we get through this process of
the conference that AmeriCorps is going to have its funding restored,
we know that. What has really happened though as a part of the full
committee discussion and here, is suddenly there is a different
attention being paid to the Persian Gulf syndrome, which the
gentleman's district should be very pleased with as well.
So at the end of the process we will raise that to a much higher
level of attention; the gentleman's district will like that. But
AmeriCorps will be funded at the other end, as my colleagues know.
Frankly it is important that the public know that we are all on the
same side really in this discussion. And as my colleagues know, we have
a tendency to fill all the time that is available regardless of whether
we agree or disagree.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's
observations are very well made. I just disagree with the author of
this amendment that the way of getting there is to rob Peter to pay
Paul. I think when we rob an educational account to pay for a medical
account we have no gain.
Mrs. Chairman. I include the following for the Record.
State of Kansas,
Department of Wildlife & Parks
Pratt, KS, October 4, 1996.
Hon. Christopher Bond,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bond: I appreciate the efforts of yourself,
Senator Grassley, and Congressman Lewis to examine the
relationship between USDA and the Corporation for National
Service regarding the AmeriCorps program. At this time in
America, it is critical that government operate ethically and
above board, without the intent, act or perception of
wrongdoing.
However, as I am certain you will find, the relationship
between USDA, CNS and the AmeriCorps projects administered at
the state level is reasonable and desirable. This partnership
allows rural Americans to perform needed community services
for an honest wage and broaden their potentials for the
future in the process. When these AmeriCorps members have
completed their educations, they will be ready to take their
places as productive members of society, with not only the
class work behind them, but also the experience earned in the
successful completion of their AmeriCorps projects.
Without the assistance of the USDA and CNS, the Kansas
Department of Wildlife and Parks would not be able to hire
these young people, lacking the funding to do so. The
department can, however, provide raw materials, tools and
supervision. Important projects underway now, and others that
might be completed in the future, would die without being
completed. Rural communities would lose the employment
options provided by AmeriCorps, the public would lose the
benefits provided to the natural resources and outdoor
recreation projects, and the individuals who would have been
selected as members would lose valuable opportunities. The
language proposed by USDA correlates to previous agreements,
and fully supports the principles under which AmeriCorps was
conceived, while ending the transfer of operating funds from
CNS to USDA.
No additional funding is needed to support the AmeriCorps
program, and the positive impact it makes is tremendous. I
hope that you will find that you are able to fully support
continuation of AmeriCorps as a viable program important to
the American people.
Sincerely,
Rob Manes,
Assistant Secretary for Operations.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. First of all, I
want to just point out as the second ranking Democrat on the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs I stand in a back seat to no one in terms of
standing up for our Nation's veterans' needs, and while I appreciate
the efforts that the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the
chairman of this committee, has made in terms of standing up for our
Nation's veterans in this budget, and I think the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Stokes] deserves credit as well, I would like to point out to
those Republicans who are beating up on the AmeriCorps program today
that according to their own budget agreement that they passed
themselves earlier this year, they were $2,230,000,000 under what this
budget does.
So while I appreciate the fact that the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations went back and found $2 billion, for people to stand up
here and make speeches on the floor of the House saying they want to
stand up for our Nation's veterans, go look at their own rhetoric, go
look at what their budget that they passed did to the veterans of this
country. They are the ones who led the fight to cut the veterans
programs, and now they stand up here on the House floor and pretend
like they are standing up for our Nation's veterans. So in reality what
they can do is beat up on AmeriCorps, because what they really want to
do is go after President Clinton because he has a program that
encourages voluntarism in America.
And that is the truth of what this is all about. This is just plain
rhetoric bashing, this is the same old, same old stuff that we hear too
much of. In fact, if we are truthful and honest, I think we go back to
the original statement of the chairman of the committee. He said some
very nice things; I heard him when I was sitting in my office getting
ready to offer a couple of amendments on the housing bill that is
coming up, and he said some very nice things about the AmeriCorps
program. The truth is that of course like every program, we have HUD
programs that are well run, we have HUD programs that are not well run;
we have programs in the Pentagon that are well run and some that are
not so well run. We have some AmeriCorps that are well run and some
that are not so well run.
But the truth and the fundamental aspect of this is that there is
broad bipartisan support, I believe, for both AmeriCorps as well as for
our veterans' programs, and for us to sit here and gratuitously go out
and find a way of offering an amendment that can just go and try to
bash the AmeriCorps in order to pretend like we are standing up for our
Nation's veterans is utter hogwash, and I hope the veterans of this
country who are watching this debate listen to the fact that there is
$2.230 billion, that is B's, not M's, billions of dollars that were
proposed by the Republicans that were not included because of the work
of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I too want to rise in opposition to this amendment, and
really, I think, there has been a great deal of bipartisan effort on
this whole issue of balancing the budget, and I think because of that I
am very curious about what is not only represented to be an effort to
cut the deficit, but also what I would call bashing and pitting one
very deserving group against the other.
Let us make it perfectly clear this amendment eliminates the
AmeriCorps program, and for many who have debated it and discussed it,
for some reason the involvement of the President
[[Page H5286]]
seems to color the value of this program, and I would simply take issue
with great respect for the gentleman.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman yield on
that point that she made?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. It may be that the gentlewoman was not given
the information that the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] took up his
second amendment rather than the first one. Because of that this
amendment takes approximately half of the AmeriCorps funding and puts
some of it into veterans programs, and the balance remains, which
allows us effectively to go to conference where we know it is going to
be restored.
I do appreciate the gentlewoman's position, but I wanted the
gentlewoman to know that.
In the meantime, if my colleague will, I wanted to mention to her
that we hope to get through this amendment by the time I have committed
to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] that we will close down by
10:30, and that is not just for the gentlewoman but for the other
Members who are here.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, I hope I will be able
to capture the time. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate it, and I did know
the amendment that we were discussing, I consider the amendment an
elimination of the AmeriCorps for the very reason that when we begin to
juxtapose moneys against one other, we are bashing and we are
eliminating.
I recognize that this is a modified amendment, but this amendment,
the purpose of it is to eliminate AmeriCorps. This has no intent to
fund our veterans. This is a purpose of, in fact, causing anguish,
causing ugliness in this debate.
Let me simply argue on behalf of the AmeriCorps program and the very
valuable things that it does. First, I want to take issue with those
who say that there are individuals who are in the AmeriCorps program
that do not do their job, that there should be volunteers, that they
should not be paid. These are individuals who work very hard in our
community and, in fact, are contributing in our community and receiving
an education.
I would venture to say that the young men and women who are in the
gulf war would support the AmeriCorps, and why would they support it?
Because they are the equals of these individuals who have come up to
hard times and are now seeking to give to their country, but, as well,
taking advantage of an opportunity to be educated and maybe be back in
step with helping us to have more peace so that we send less of our
veterans or less of our soldiers into places of war.
For example, in Houston the LA Vets is sponsored by our AmeriCorps.
What do they do? They help homeless vets. I would think that our
veterans would support the AmeriCorps programs that do that. What else
do they do in Houston? The Houston Read Commission, the literacy
AmeriCorps that helps to bring about the opportunities for reading in
our community; English as a Second Language, a program that is
extremely important.
But most of all, I think the dignity of the AmeriCorps participants
have been attacked, and I take great offense in that, for these are
young men and women who simply want an opportunity.
Yes, this is the President's program and the President's opportunity.
But it is not the President's vision. It is America's vision to give
young people the opportunity to climb up the rough side of the mountain
and, yes, stand on top of the mountain.
I believe that this effort that is being offered to take a few
pennies here and a few pennies there for two very good programs is, as
I started out in my remarks, an attack on AmeriCorps and an attempt to
eliminate AmeriCorps.
I would simply ask the question, if it is going to be restored in
conference, why do we not do the right thing and maintain the full
funding of AmeriCorps, work in conference to increase the dollars for
Persian Gulf research and Persian Gulf illnesses, because I think that
is a very valid concern. Why do we not do it that way? The reason why
we are not doing it that way is because the real intent of this
amendment is to bash AmeriCorps, to eliminate AmeriCorps, and it has
nothing to do with anyone's concern about the veterans.
I support any effort to increase funding for veterans, and I would
encourage my colleagues to go to the conference committee, work
sincerely along with the Senate to increase those dollars, because we
are moving along in a well-intentioned manner, which is to balance the
budget. I see no reason whatsoever to eliminate these dollars on a very
valid program that helps young people do the right thing and achieve
their goals and aspirations.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to raise my strong opposition to Mr.
Tiahrt's amendment to eliminate AmeriCorps by using the tragic
situation created by gulf war illness. If the administration had not
taken steps to address the need to recognize disabilities associated
with the illness and extended the length of time veterans have to apply
for benefits I could see a need to increase funding for that purpose.
This amendment to H.R. 2158 will eliminate AmeriCorps, a much needed
program and thus deny the opportunity for many deserving young people
to attend college. The program is simple, but it has had a significant
impact on the lives of people living in my Houston, TX, district.
In the city of Houston, David Lopez, who was employed as an
AmeriCorps member last year, worked to provide the inner city working
parents of latch key kids with supervised activity and play. They are
not left to their own devices, or worse, to the design of street
predators who would lead these young lives in the wrong direction.
For a year of volunteer service with Communities In Schools, David
earned a $4,725 scholarship toward college.
AmeriCorps is the one and only chance for many of its participants to
obtain a college education. It has been under attack from the early
days of the 104th Congress for being inefficient. The truth is that
among the numerous independent studies in the past, including the one
by conservative ``Chicago School'' economists sponsored by three
private foundations, confirmed that investments in national service
programs are sound, yielding from $1.54 to $3.90 for every dollar
invested. In fact, a 1995 GAO report concluded that AmeriCorps almost
tripled the $31 million amount Congress directed them to raise by
raising $91 million.
AmeriCorps has played a vital role in communities all over America.
The 508,593 students taught, and the 42,381 families left homeless by
natural disasters, and the 143,513 individuals provided health care
screening at clinics, VA hospitals, and other health-related facilities
and focus particularly on children and youth are testaments to the
critical role this program plays in the lives of people in need.
I would offer to my colleagues who are in a rush to cut AmeriCorps
that if they looked around their districts they may find that
AmeriCorps is doing some very amazing things for these few tax dollars.
For example, in the city of Houston, the Collaboration to Help
Homeless Veterans uses AmeriCorps members on areas of housing and
employment readiness to perform case management activities and help
homeless veterans in the Houston area move toward self-sufficiency.
The Houston READ Commission/Literacy AmeriCorps provide literacy
training and needed support services while developing community
leadership in traditionally disadvantaged locations of the greater
Houston area. Educational activities include GED tutoring, English as a
second language training, homework assistance, and family literacy
instruction.
Teach for America--Houston is another program in the city of Houston
which utilizes AmeriCorps members in a project designed to improve the
educational achievement of underserved school-age youth by providing
students with teachers having diverse backgrounds and strong knowledge
of academic content. AmeriCorps members are assigned teaching and
leadership roles in inner city and rural public schools.
I strongly oppose any effort to end this program. I would ask that my
colleague join me in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank the gentleman from California
[Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] on the VA, HUD and
Independent Agencies bill, a job well done. There are lots of various
issues that they have had to work out, and I think they are doing a
tremendous job. My admiration goes out to both of them.
I rise, however, in opposition, in strong opposition, to this
amendment, a very sincere amendment on the part of the gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] but one that I think is very wrong. And I feel so
strongly about it I
[[Page H5287]]
was almost reluctant to get up because I am almost afraid of what I
might say.
I mean I hear people calling it the President's program, and yet the
President worked very hard with Republicans to make it a bipartisan
program. That is why, instead of it being a national program, one-third
of the program is decided nationally, and two-thirds is decided by the
States.
Republicans really did a good one on the President, though, because
when we allow States to do their programs, they are going to have good
programs and bad programs. So instead of having a national program
that, as my colleagues know, is pretty good, and no one can find any
criticism, we allow States to be innovative. And so they have a number
of good programs, but they have some that are not so good. And when
AmeriCorps finds out what are the bad programs, they are eliminated. So
what we have is some really excellent programs, and we have a few bad
ones.
I look in terms of where this money is going. I serve as the chairman
of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Government
Reform, and we oversee the Veterans Department along with HUD and the
Education Department and HHS, and so on. We have had 10 hearings on
gulf war syndrome, and I think I can say with some authority that the
problem is not funding of illnesses. The problem is the VA and the DOD
failed to recognize the problem in the first place. It was not a money
issue.
We are going to spend in the 1998 budget $20 million earmarked for
medical research in the VA HUD bill. We are going to spend $78 million
in DOD budgets. We are going to spend $10 million in HHS. One hundred
eight million is going to be spent on gulf war illnesses in the budget
that exists right now.
{time} 2230
We have the money there to do the work. The question is, is the VA
and the DOD going to spend the money the right way? There we might have
debate.
Mr. Chairman, I represent the cities of Stamford, Norwalk, and
Bridgeport. I have kids who are hungering to be of service to this
country. They are also hungering to get an education. A great
Republican principle, I thought, was to not give them something, make
them earn it. They earn it. They work at a minimum wage.
Yes, we call them volunteers, even though we call it AmeriCorps. I am
a Peace Corps volunteer. I got paid. I was given a stipend at the end,
just like these volunteers who are doing service. They are
participants, no different than Peace Corps volunteers, but they are
working at basically $4 an hour. When they are done, unlike me in the
Peace Corps, when I had money set aside that I could spend on anything,
all these individuals can do is spend it on education.
So for me, Mr. Chairman, this was a program that the President
reached out to our side of the aisle, made two-thirds of it funded and
decided by States, and therefore brought in the possibility that we
could have some bad programs, which we are quick to criticize, and did
not make it a national program.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to be asking for a rollcall vote on this
issue. I accept the fact that our chairman of this committee is going
to try to work it out in conference, and I accept the fact that his
logic said that, better to keep some of the program there to be funded
and argued with the Senate.
But I just strongly, strongly oppose those on my side of the aisle
and maybe a few on the other side of the aisle who have targeted
AmeriCorps, because I think they are dead wrong. It has been a
tremendous program for my cities in Bridgeport and Stamford and
Norwalk. I have kids who are being of service. They are so grateful to
be of service, and to know that they can get an education in the
process.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I will make a very brief comment. There are two or
three Members who plan to speak this evening but who are going to be
asking for unanimous consent requests regarding their position, so that
we can finish this amendment this evening and go to a vote on the item,
and then we will take the balance of Title I up tomorrow.
(Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words. I rise in opposition to the Tiahrt amendment. My colleague's
amendment gives us terrible options. I support veterans and additional
funding for Gulf war syndrome. We should be engaged in expanding
AmeriCorps, not in its elimination.
Almost 4 years ago, when Congress created the AmeriCorps program, we
expected great things from national service. The Congress expected
AmeriCorps to help communities meet their public service needs with
real results. We expected AmeriCorps to unite individuals from
different backgrounds in the common effort to improve our communities.
We expected AmeriCorps to encourage its members to explore and exercise
their responsibilities to their communities, their families, and
themselves.
Today, almost 3 years after the first 20,000 AmeriCorps members hit
the field in over 1,000 communities across the country, the Corporation
for National Service and its AmeriCorps program has met every one of
these expectations. And in many cases, it's exceeded them.
In my hometown of Houston, TX, 120 AmeriCorps members in the SERVE
HOUSTON program serve 1,500 school children daily in partnership with
the Houston Independent School District and the YMCA of Greater Houston
by providing in-school tutors and after-school programs in 24 title I
schools.
Our daily Club Learn and Serve after-school program provides safe and
structured activities for 1,000 children who would otherwise leave
school for an empty home or the streets. The program provides reading
and homework assistance, cultural activities, and service learning
projects where school children learn to serve their own communities.
SERVE HOUSTON receives cash matching support for its AmeriCorps
funding from leading corporations including: Shell Oil Co. Foundation,
Exxon, Enron Corp., Duke Energy, Arthur Anderson, and El Paso Energy.
In addition, it receives strong support from private foundations and
individuals. SERVE HOUSTON is truly a public-private partnership.
SERVE HOUSTON generates non-AmeriCorps volunteers to serve the
community through its outreach to churches and synagogues, college
campuses, and public schools. Nationally, each AmeriCorps member
leverages about 12 volunteers and generates 246 volunteer hours.
But AmeriCorps' service in my community does not stop there. The
Collaboration to Help Homeless Veterans is involved in several
aggressive outreach programs. The AmeriCorps members not only go to
shelters and get veterans signed up for services from the Department of
Veterans Affairs, but they also go out with mobile units and service
those homeless individuals that are under bridges and in the woods.
These AmeriCorps members assist our homeless veterans to become self-
sufficient by providing educational and vocational support; they help
our veterans access medical and social services, and they build working
relationships with other service providers.
The decision on whether or not to continue national service will tell
us a lot about ourselves. We should put partisan politics aside. Let's
work together to continue to provide young people an opportunity to
help themselves, as they help our communities and learn service as a
way of life.
AmeriCorps has kept its promise to the American people. The Congress
should, too.
(Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
Tiahrt amendment. That notwithstanding, I want to thank the sponsor for
the opportunity to clarify the administration's work on AmeriCorps.
Early in the last Congress, there were many Members expressing
concerns about AmeriCorps. The critics said that AmeriCorps was plagued
by cost overruns. So, AmeriCorps and the Corporation for National
Service took the criticisms seriously. They took immediate steps to
alleviate the problems. Former Senator Harris Wofford, now CEO of the
Corporation for National Service, and Senator Charles Grassley
announced a 10 point agreement to reform the AmeriCorps program.
That effort made clear, enforceable commitments to contain costs. It
also resulted in an increase in the AmeriCorps' private sector match
from 25 to 33 percent of program costs.
Then, critics said that AmeriCorps was not fulfilling its commitment
to service and voluntarism. As the 10 point agreement included
increased collaboration with national non-profits, special scholarships
to reward voluntarism and other efforts to increase occasional, or
``weekend'' voluntarism nationwide, in addition to long-term
commitments to service. And in this way, AmeriCorps responded to its
critics by increasing its volunteer and service efforts.
[[Page H5288]]
Then critics said that the Corporation for National Service was
lacking in its financial management standard and quality controls. The
Corporation responded by committing to work with its Inspector General
and Corporation's auditors, Arthur Anderson LLP and Williams, Adley &
Co. to correct its financial weaknesses. Ted Sheridan of the Financial
Executive Institute also worked with the Corporation to deal with these
problems.
A year later, the Corporation is on the track to be a model of
responsible governmental structure. It has hired a full-time Chief
Financial Officer and it is in the process of installing a new
financial management system. By 1998, it expects to have regular fully
auditable financial statements and strict business controls.
Two years ago, critics rallied behind the cry that AmeriCorps was a
government program fraught with management and financial problems. But
AmeriCorps and the Corporation for National Service responded, and
today AmeriCorps is a program of which I believe we can all be proud,
critics and supporters alike. Unless of course, fixing the program was
never the real goal.
You see, despite its successes, we are still having the debate over
funding. That leads me to believe that the motives behind the criticism
was never constructive, intended to produce a model government program.
Instead, the critics' real goal was simply to defund or at least
cripple a program that has been a target of theirs for years, no matter
how well it is working today.
If that is the case, and I can hardly see how it could be otherwise,
I urge my colleagues to reject this unfortunate amendment and to
support a government program that helps to leverage private funds to
tackle the difficult problems that face our youth, our communities, and
our nation, neighborhood by neighborhood, where real effort can make a
real difference in real peoples' lives.
In closing, let me thank Mr. Stokes and Chairman Lewis for their work
on this bill. I take at face value his commitment to restore funding in
conference and for this opportunity to clarify the constructive work by
so many at AmeriCorps over the past several years.
Auditability
the corporation is strengthening its management control systems
The Corporation is unique in that it is a new entity
comprised of pre-existing federal agencies and commissions
and their outdated systems. The Corporation is methodically
strengthening its financial management systems to reach full
auditability in compliance with the new requirements of the
Corporation Control Act, with action completed or in the
process of implementation on 97 out of 99 points raised by
Arthur Andersen by May 1, 1997. Once that goal is reached,
the Chief Financial Officer will move forward on auditing
current financial statements.
the corporation is strengthening its trust fund system
A subsequent report by Peat Marwick, LLP (KPMG) will guide
our efforts to strengthen the Trust Fund systems. It
pinpoints several weaknesses in the current system--and we've
already taken significant steps to begin to address them.
the trust fund system mirrors our decentralized structure
Local program directors are directly responsible for
certifying Trust Fund eligibility within guidelines set by
Congress. Our experience and the KPMG findings indicate that
this reliance on local control requires stepped-up federal
oversight to ensure accurate Trust fund records.
the corporation has taken significant steps to address trust fund
issues
The Corporation generally concurs with and is committed to
a methodical resolution of the issues raised by the KPMG
report. To strengthen our Trust Fund systems, the Corporation
has already taken several major steps, such as: updating the
certification process and incorporated an automatic system
rejection process to ensure all documents have been properly
approved before Trust Fund accounts are established; freezing
grant renewals until accurate certification forms are filed
with the Trust Fund; developing systems to improve
transactions registers and maintain supporting data; bringing
accounting records to a current period; implementing a number
of major changes to our segregation of duties within the
Trust Fund operation; developing and implementing a revised
payment system and an automated interface of those payments
to our existing ledger system.
it's not unusual, but that's no excuse
Many federal agencies are struggling to meet the new
financial management auditability standards. The Departments
of Defense, GSA, IRS, even the U.S. Congress. The Corporation
is making every effort to meet the new challenges--and has
made significant progress.
(Mr. HOEKSTRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do
now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Gilchrest) having assumed the chair, Mr. Combest, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2158)
making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and
Housing and Urban Development, for sundry independent agencies,
commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.
____________________