[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 113 (Tuesday, September 2, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8632-S8640]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senate will now proceed to
the consideration of S. 1061, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1061) making appropriations for the Departments
of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1998, and for other purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are prepared now to proceed with
consideration of the legislation on appropriations for the Departments
of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.
I have just conferred with my distinguished colleague, Senator
Harkin, the ranking Democrat, after having conferred with the majority
leader, and it is our plan to complete action on this bill by tomorrow
evening, Wednesday evening. That is not to say that the plan will
conclusively be fulfilled as of that time, but it is our plan to
proceed in that manner.
It would be our hope that we would have a firm idea of all the
amendments which would be offered by the end of business today or if
not, no later than noon tomorrow, since we are scheduled to have a vote
tomorrow morning at 9:30, and as is the custom, Senators will be
arriving today. Some are obviously present now, but as our practice has
demonstrated in the past, when the rollcall vote is taken, Senators
will be present.
We have had some substantial period of time--obviously, slightly more
than a month--to prepare for this bill, because the majority leader
announced at the conclusion of our session on July 31-August 1, that
this would be the first order of business taken up.
I recall the comment of then majority leader Howard Baker on some
legislation back in 1982, when we had a tax bill on the floor of the
Senate and the question was whether we were going to proceed all night,
which Senator Baker was wont to do, or whether we would go into the
next morning. I recall Senator Baker said that amendments, like
mushrooms, grew overnight, and it was his determination to proceed that
evening. I remember there were about 70 amendments pending. Senator
Dole was the manager of the bill. It was a tax bill. We proceeded all
night and finished action about 6:30 in the morning.
Well, there has been more time than overnight for these amendments,
like mushrooms, to grow, but we have a bill here which is very
important.
There is a lot of business in the Senate, and speaking from a
personal note, we will be moving ahead with hearings on the
Governmental Affairs Committee on campaign finance reform, and I serve
on that committee. I hope to be finished with this bill by tomorrow
night, whatever time it takes to proceed with the other work of the
Governmental Affairs Committee.
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SPECTER. My colleague asks me to yield for unanimous consent. I
am willing to do that.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the chairman.
Privileges of the Floor
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ellen Murray,
Peter Reinecke, and Bev Schroeder be permitted privileges of the floor
for the duration of the debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, moving now to consideration of the
pending bill, the pending committee report, we have legislation before
the Senate for the three departments, the Department of Labor, the
Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of
Education for fiscal year 1998, which totals $79.7 billion in
discretionary budget authority. That is a large sum of money. Mandatory
spending under this totals $189.3 billion, which is a decrease of $15.2
billion from the fiscal year 1997 levels.
We have gone through the budget with great care. We have been
fortunate enough to have outstanding staffs, both on the Republican
side of the aisle and the Democratic side of the aisle, and we have
come forward with these proposals here today. It is my view, Mr.
President, that when we have a total Federal budget of $1.7 trillion,
that should provide for the needs of the American people through the
Federal Governmental operations, if we assess our priorities in a
proper way. We have just seen landmark legislation with the balanced
budget legislation, and the tax reduction legislation passed by the
Congress before we adjourned on August 1, and signed by the President
into law on August 5. It is very important that we do reach that
balanced budget. We should not, as a nation, spend beyond our means. I
believe it is possible to achieve that goal if we work with a scalpel
and not a meat ax and take care of the important needs for all of
America.
We deal here with the subjects of health and education and there are
no priorities higher than those two items. The people of America, the
people of the United States, should be healthy and there should be
educational opportunities so people should have an opportunity to climb
the ladder in America.
When I talk of education, I talk from a very keen sense personally of
education as an opportunity which I have seen. Both of my parents were
immigrants. My father literally walked across Europe from Russia,
barely a ruble in his pocket, at the age of 18 in 1911 to make a new
life for himself and the family which he hoped to have and did have. My
mother, coming with her parents to the United States from a small town
on the Russian-Polish border at the age of 5, education was heavily
emphasized in the Specter household because our parents had so little
of it. My brother, my two sisters, and I have been able to share in the
American dream because of that educational opportunity.
As Senator Harkin and I and our staffs have crafted this legislation,
we have done our utmost to provide for that educational opportunity. We
have provided for increases in the maximum Pell grant to $3,000 per
year. We have provided for guaranteed student loans. It would be
preferable if we could provide scholarships for all young people, and
older people who want additional education, but that is not possible in
a practical sense, so we have a revolving sum where at least the
education can be obtained, even if there are obligations that would
have to be paid at a later time.
We have come to this budget with very deep concerns over the issue of
health. Regrettably, when the budget resolution was presented to us,
there was a cut of some $100 million on discretionary health spending
which required a considerable reallocation of priorities, which Senator
Harkin and I and our subcommittee and then the full committee and our
staffs have undertaken. That was especially problemsome when it came to
the issue of the National Institutes of Health where it was our desire
to continue to increase the funding on medical research which has been
so marvelous for America and our advances benefiting the entire world.
Early in the 105th session, we passed a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution, or a sense-of-the-Senate resolution was introduced and, I
believe, passed--we will check the Record on that to be sure--to double
NIH funding over 5 years. If it wasn't passed, the sense-of-the-Senate
resolutions pass pretty easily around here because they talk about our
druthers as opposed to our dollars. Then, when we took up the budget
resolution, and a sense-of-the-Senate resolution passed to increase NIH
funding
[[Page S8633]]
by some $2 billion. Then Senator Harkin and I offered an amendment to
increase it--not a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, but hard dollars of
$1.1 billion. That would have left us with a net of about $950 million
to achieve the 7.5-percent increase Senator Harkin and I committed to
early in the session for the NIH.
When we brought that amendment to the floor, it was roundly defeated
63-37, which was somewhat disappointing. But it was an illustration of
what happens in the Senate when you have a sense of the Senate, which
is an expression of what you would like to see, or druthers, as opposed
to a hard amendment which puts up money. And when we balance the
budget, if we put up 7.5 percent, which is $952 million, we have to
have someplace to take it from. When that choice is made, it isn't too
easy to get the votes. That amendment went down to defeat, as I said,
63-37. But then we went back to the drawing boards with our sharp
pencils--mainly staff's sharp pencils--and figured out a way on the
allocation of priorities to find that 7.5 percent, or $952 million, and
we did find it. It was not easy to do, but we thought that that was
what ought to be done.
In the United States, it is my view that we have the best health care
system in the world, but it continues to need improvement. I personally
was the beneficiary of that health care system about 4 years ago when
an MRI detected a life-threatening problem that I had, and I was able
to get my medical situation corrected. There is nothing like having a
problem and using the MRI personally to do a little research to find
out about its development. I was surprised to find that it had only
been developed in 1984, less than a decade before I found the need to
use it.
Within the course of the past week, I had occasion to return to my
home State of Kansas for my 50th high school reunion. I probably should
not have given the date. I may get leave to amend and revise the
Congressional Record on that. Just kidding. It was my 50th high school
reunion. My Aunt Rose Isemberg, in Wichita, who is 85, was the
beneficiary of a serious operation and is well on her way to recovery.
I focused on that factor and mentioned to my Aunt Rose that in some
countries you can't get an operation when you are that old. In some
countries you can't get one if you are past 60. So we have a marvelous
health system in the United States, but, again, one which needs
improvement.
When I returned to my hometown of Russell, KS, to my high school
reunion, I was reminiscing with my sister-in-law, Joyce Specter, about
the medical care in Russell, KS. My brother had some serious ailments
several years ago, and I was with him. Unfortunately, he passed away.
Back then, I wanted to talk to Dr. Merkel, and it was 6:45 on a
Saturday night. I asked for his home number and I was told, ``You can't
call Dr. Merkel at home at 6:45 on a Saturday. You will find him in the
office.''
Notwithstanding our graduations of doctors and medical experts, rural
America still doesn't have as much by way of health care providers as
rural America needs. So we do have significant improvements to be made
in our health system in America. This is something which we have
focused on as we have moved ahead in this bill and our efforts to
provide health care coverage for all Americans.
Again, on a personal note, I was fascinated to hear of the health
coverage offered by Israel, without regard for preexisting conditions
or without regard for age--a factor called to my attention by my
sister, Hilda Morgenstern, and my brother-in-law, Arthur Morgenstern,
who have dual citizenship in the United States and in Israel. There are
examples around the world as we try to extend health coverage and
services to the 37 to 41 million Americans who are not now covered. It
is appropriate to note that in the reconciliation bill we passed, the
Balanced Budget Act, we have taken action to provide some $24 billion
to cover America's uninsured children, numbering about 10 million.
There is a question, as we work through the program, as to how many of
those children we will be able to cover.
Mr. President, during the course of our deliberations, Senator Harkin
and I received requests from Members, totaling more than 700 such
requests, for expanded funding for programs within the subcommittee's
jurisdiction, and, to the maximum extent possible, we tried to honor
those requests. We had very substantial support for increasing the
funding for the National Institutes of Health and, as noted, we have
done that with an increase of 7.5 percent, some $952 million. So that
now we have nearly $13.7 billion for the National Institutes of Health,
and their achievements have been near miraculous as they have moved
ahead with research on breast cancer, ovarian cancer--very serious
ailments for women--and prostate cancer for men, Alzheimer's disease--
very substantial advances in research there--mental health research,
research on heart conditions, and virtually every known ailment that
has come within the scope of the National Institutes of Health.
One of the really educational experiences that I personally have had
on the job as chairman of the subcommittee is we have received so many
requests from so many people around the United States who have ailments
that I had never heard about. I do believe that we have a budget which
can accommodate research along those lines. If this recommendation is
insufficient, I believe the Congress of the United States is prepared,
on a priority basis, to allocate whatever it takes on medical research
in the United States to do the job. Even with that kind of a funding,
there are many applications which are not granted. We have moved ahead
very substantially in the time that I have been in the Senate, whether
the chairman was Senator Weicker, later Governor Weicker, or Senator
Chiles, later Governor Chiles, or whether Senator Harkin was chairman,
or during my chairmanship.
The committee has placed a very high priority on women's health. The
bill provides for increased funding. There will be funding for expanded
programs to develop mental health care services for women, to provide
moneys for a comprehensive review of the impact of heart disease on
women, where in the past less attention was paid to that important
item. Women do have different problems, very different from men, when
it comes to heart ailments. For so many years, the research had been on
men alone. The additional funding will help launch an osteoporosis
public education program aimed at teenagers.
In our legislation, we have provided funding for both family planning
and for abstinence programs. One of the most controversial issues
facing America is the controversy of pro-choice/pro-life. But there is
one item that can be generally agreed upon, and that is if we can cut
down on premarital sex among teenagers and unintended pregnancies, and
the abortions which follow, that is an objective where there is general
agreement, and we have produced additional funding here for those
programs devoted to abstention.
One of the items on which we continue to increase funding is our
program on Healthy Start. That is an initiative to try to give prenatal
care to women and avoid having low-birthweight babies. I saw my first
1-pound baby at Alma Illery Medical Facility in Pittsburgh more than a
decade ago, and I was shocked to see a child no bigger than my hand,
which weighed less than a pound. When you have a child with that low
birthweight, there are medical problems that last a lifetime and
enormous costs to society. Those children frequently cost as much as
$300,000 by the time they are out of the hospital in a few weeks or a
few months. Thousands are born each year. It is a multibillion-dollar
expense. The program of prenatal care has had great results and is one
which we are pushing ahead in the legislation pending.
The issue of AIDS continues to be a matter of overwhelming importance
in the United States. Today's front page of the Washington Post is
devoted significantly to it. Our bill contains some $3.265 billion for
research, education, prevention, and services, including an $81 million
increase for the Ryan White CARE Program, named after the young man who
developed AIDS on a blood transfusion--nothing at fault even remotely
there. This issue continues to be of enormous importance in the United
States.
Our legislation provides further assistance in funding for substance
abuse, both alcohol and drugs, a major problem in our country.
[[Page S8634]]
We have taken the initiative with some $50 million for new programs
to assist communities in preventing juvenile crime. That is an issue of
great concern in the United States and one which falls partially within
the jurisdiction of our subcommittee. It is not inappropriate to note
at this time that pending before the Judiciary Committee is extensive
legislation on juvenile crime. It is my hope that we will craft a bill,
when the issue comes to the floor of the U.S. Senate, which will take
into account not only tough measures to try juveniles as adults, where
they are, in fact, adults by size or inclination and prior record, but
also to work on the literacy training and job training.
Based on the experience I have had on the Judiciary Committee, and
before that as district attorney of Philadelphia, it is my view that we
can control violent crime in America if we approach it at two levels.
One, where we have career criminals, to have life sentences. The armed
career criminal bill that I offered, which passed back in 1984, has
made a significant effort in that regard. Where you have a career
criminal with three or more violent offenses, now, by Federal law,
there is a mandatory sentence in the Federal courts of 15 years to
life. We have been putting more people in jail, and there has been a
decrease in the crime rate. In my judgment, that is attributable to the
factor that there are more violent criminals now in prison. The other
half of the equation, though, is to provide realistic rehabilitation
for those who are not career criminals, where they are going to be
released. It is no surprise that if you have a functional illiterate
without a trade or skill, a person who goes back onto the street
without training, without a job, that person is likely to go through
the revolving door and become a recidivist.
That is why one of the first bills I introduced when I came to the
Senate, alongside the armed career criminal bill, was legislation for
realistic rehabilitation, for job training and literacy training. As we
craft that juvenile crime bill, it is my hope that we will have an
appropriate balance on the juveniles, on literacy training and job
training, because we know that 1 day they are going to be released from
jail. A societal option is either to have them as law-abiding citizens,
working their way and contributing to society, or becoming criminals.
So it is in the interest of law-abiding citizens, as well as the
individuals themselves, that appropriate attention be given to literacy
training and job training.
Also included in this bill is our allocation of funding for Head
Start. Some $4.3 billion is included here, which is an increase of some
$324 million. We increase the number of children by 36,000, to a total
of 836,000, on our planned route to having 1 million covered by Head
Start by the year 2002.
Also in our budget is funding to protect women against violence when
we talk about the categories of battered women's shelters, rape
prevention, runaway youth prevention, domestic violence community
demonstrations, and the domestic violence hotline.
Another important item--controversial, as many are in this bill--is
our program on low-income heat and energy fuel assistance. We have
maintained funding of some $1 billion for this winter, and advanced
funding of $1.2 billion for next year's winter program. This is a
program which is controversial because in some States the needs are not
as great as they are in other States. But what we have essentially for
many Americans, especially elderly Americans, is a choice on either
heating or eating. With many elderly in the program with annual incomes
of $8,000 or less, they are totally unable to cope without some
assistance on fuel costs.
We also have within this bill important programs for the elderly,
including community service employment programs, part-time employment
opportunities for low-income elderly, home delivered nutrition
services, and the National Senior Volunteer Corps.
We have as well school-to-work where there is a transition moving
from school to work, coordinated also with the job training programs
and Job Corps which provide educational opportunities and vocational
training for those young people in our society who may not prefer that
to the college education and may be more appropriately directed in that
line.
On education, Mr. President, we have moved ahead with an increase of
some $3.1 billion in our discretionary education funds.
I especially commend my distinguished colleague, Senator Harkin, for
his leadership in this very, very important line.
We have had difficulties in bringing this particular bill to the
floor in the past. It was not until April 1996 when we were able to--
after an amendment offered by Senator Harkin and myself to increase
funding for this subcommittee by $2.6 billion --move ahead.
I commend the President for his initiatives and priority setting on
education, which is, as I noted earlier, a priority second to none for
the United States.
In this line, we have special education programs funded at some $921
million. And I commend the chairman of the Educational Opportunities
Committee in the House, my colleague, Bill Goodling from Pennsylvania,
and also our colleague, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, for their
leadership in this item where we are trying to maintain the Federal
commitment to special education. We are coming very close to the high
marks set in S. 1. Again, it is a matter of establishing priorities,
which we have done here.
On our student aid programs, the bill provides some $8.5 billion,
which is an increase of almost $1 billion--$997.3 million over last
year's appropriations. The Pell grant is going up by some $300 to a
maximum grant of $3,000. The Supplemental Educational Opportunity
Grants Program is increased by some $51 million.
I go into some detail for at least two reasons, Mr. President. These
are important programs, and we are not taking up anybody's time,
Senator Harkin and I being the only two Senators on the floor. I will
yield in a few minutes for Senator Harkin's opening comments.
On job training, we have provided $5.2 billion for the job training
programs, which is more than $500 million over the 1997 level. That
includes increases for Job Corps, adult training, and training for
dislocated workers, which is a very, very important problem for
Americans, especially in my home State of Pennsylvania where we have
seen the demise of the steel industry and the coal industry and the
glass industry.
So many of the problems of the dislocated workers are caused by
imports which are coming into the United States, which really ought not
to be coming into the United States, where we are dealing with concerns
on defense policy or on foreign policy. And so many American workers
are taking it on the chin. The least we can do is to have retraining
for the dislocated workers.
Our bill provides very important funding for worker safety programs
in the Department of Labor where we are now providing almost $1
billion--just $1 million short; $999 million--for worker safety
programs. This is an increase of some $37 million above 1997's level
for worker safety activities.
Mr. President, I have gone over, believe it or not, just a few of the
highlights of this bill, which totals almost $80 billion. We have in
excess of $11 billion for the Department of Labor, almost $32 billion
for the Department of Health and Human Services, and almost $30 billion
on the Department of Education, coming to a total of almost $80 billion
in discretionary funding.
To repeat, Mr. President, on the schedule, which the majority leader
and Senator Harkin and I have discussed earlier, it would be our plan--
our optimistic plan, but our plan nonetheless--to conclude action on
this bill by tomorrow night. We would like to have all amendments filed
by the close of business today and, in any event, no later than noon
tomorrow. All the Senators will be here, as we have every expectation
for the vote scheduled at 9:30 tomorrow so that we can make our plans
and scheduling for any amendments which may be filed.
At this time, I am pleased to yield to my distinguished colleague,
Senator Harkin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my chairman for his leadership on
this plan and for outlining in great detail the various aspects of the
bill that he
[[Page S8635]]
just covered, in our efforts to craft a truly bipartisan bill to bring
to the floor of the Senate.
Mr. President, S. 1061, the Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education and related agencies for fiscal year 1998, is now before us.
Again, I want to start by commending our chairman for his skill and
his craftsmanship in putting this bill together.
Senator Specter has ably balanced the many, often competing requests
we have received--as he mentioned, over 700 different types of requests
from Senators. It is always a very tough job, and I appreciate how
closely he has worked with me and my staff in crafting a truly
bipartisan plan.
For example, the bill's broad support was reflected in its unanimous
approval by the full Appropriations Committee.
I am especially pleased that the bill provides significant increases
in funding for key education programs.
Senator Specter quite ably went over those. I will not repeat those
again. I will just mention what Senator Specter had said in terms of
the bill grants--the increase in the stipend from $2,700 to $3,000.
This will help over 3.6 million low- and moderate-income students in
colleges and institutions of higher learning this next year. This is
the highest level of Pell grant support.
The bill exceeds the support for education recommended by the
bipartisan budget agreement by $164 million. It includes significant
increases for special education and education technology and, in
particular, funds to support teacher training. Computers in the
classroom are of no value if teachers don't know how to use them
effectively.
The mark in the bill puts special emphasis on early intervention. The
cornerstone, as we know, for educational success are the first years of
a child's life. Recent research on the brain provides irrefutable proof
about the dramatic development in children before the age of 3. So we
must intensify our efforts to make sure that all children enter school
ready to learn. We have begun to lay the foundation in this bill by
increasing Head Start funding by $324 million, and we have doubled the
set-aside for early Head Start which serves children up to the age of
3.
This bill also provides an 11-percent increase in funding to $350
million for the early intervention program for infants and toddlers
with disabilities served by part H of the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act.
Again, Mr. President, as we know, it is vital for children without
disabilities to have early educational services. We know that it is
doubly vital for kids, infants, and toddlers with disabilities to have
those early intervention programs before the age of 3.
I am also very pleased that we are able to make a start--not a big
one, but at least a start--on the Education Grant Infrastructure
Program. I think we can all agree that the infrastructure needs of our
school systems are truly staggering. Most estimates of nationwide
school repair and construction costs exceed $100 billion. Again,
clearly, school construction and repair will and should remain
primarily a State and local responsibility. Nevertheless, I think there
is a limited Federal role here, and it is one would that is connected
to the longstanding Federal support for the education of disadvantaged
children through the title I program.
I am often asked the question, Mr. President, ``Where is it indicated
in the Constitution of the United States that education funding must
come out of property taxes?'' I have here a little pocket copy of the
Constitution that I try to carry with me at all times. I find it a very
good reference. A lot of times I hold it up, and ask people, ``Where?
Show me where in the Constitution of the United States, as amended,
that it says that education in America is to be funded on the basis of
property taxes.''
You can read every word in the Constitution of the United States and
the Bill of Rights, all the amendments thereto, and you will not find
one thing in the Constitution that says how education is to be funded.
It doesn't say we have to pay for it through property taxes. But that
is sort of the system that evolved in our country over the years. So
what we have are these anomalies.
I happen to maintain a residence, as many of my colleagues do, in
suburban Virginia, in Fairfax County. To be sure, both of my daughters
have gone to public schools in Fairfax County, and I can tell you the
schools here are wonderful. They are great schools. That is 12 miles
from where we are standing right now.
Five blocks from here, in the District of Columbia, are some of the
worst schools in our country. Why is it? Why the difference in 12
miles? Well, it is because in Fairfax County, you have a lot of high-
income people who pay a lot of property taxes. And they have great
schools. Yet, five blocks from the Capitol, you have very low income
with very low property taxes, and no ability to fix up and repair their
schools. This is true all over our country.
I refer those who are interested to a book, of course, written by a
good friend of mine, Jonathan Kozol, called ``Savage Inequalities.'' It
is not a new book. It is at least 10 years old, I guess, by now. That
problem is very clearly across America--what it means to be a child
lucky enough to be born to moderate to well-to-do parents who live in
an area where there are high property taxes and high property values.
The schools are good. If you live in an inner city, or sometimes in
Appalachia, or rural areas of America where you have low property
taxes, you have bad schools.
So homeowners who are living in poor school districts have to carry a
much heavier tax burden to raise school construction funds. Where they
have the worst schools, they need the most repairs. Yet, they have the
least ability to do so because they have a low tax base.
Homeowners who live in affluent districts, however, have it much
easier. So the homeowners who live in the poor areas have a much harder
burden to carry in repairing and constructing new schools. And so I
have long felt it is, indeed, at least part of the responsibility of
the Federal Government to equalize this, to equalize it somewhat.
Now, in States we have acquisition formulas. In my State of Iowa, for
example, yes, property taxes are local, but the State recognizes, as
many other States have done, that it provides for a lot of
inequalities. So the State has stepped in with equalization formulas to
try to equalize funding for schools at least in regard to construction
and repair for those who are in poor areas and those who are in rich
areas, more affluent areas. But, again, we have anomalies existing
throughout the country, and so I think the Federal Government could
emulate a little bit of what the States have done and have some kind of
equalization where we will provide funds for repair and construction of
school facilities to those areas with the greatest needs and the fewest
local resources.
Now, again, I would not want this money to replace money that is
already being provided by the States. We do not want to do that. We do
not want to provide money to a low-income school district and the State
will say, well, good, we are getting all those Federal dollars; now we
don't have to do anything.
Therefore, there must be an effort at equity by the States to
continue to have their equalization programs. And I would envision that
the rules developed by the Department would take that into account in
providing this money that we have for school construction and repair.
A major concern I have about the bill is our inability to more
adequately address our health services and training needs while at the
same time simultaneously providing generous increases for health
research.
Now, again, I will not go into it at length here. I have talked about
it many times in the Chamber, and I will talk about it and keep talking
about it until we do something about it. And that is the need to
provide more money for biomedical research.
As my friend, the chairman, said earlier, a few months ago the Senate
went on record 99 to 0 to double NIH funding over the next 5 years. A
few weeks after that, Senator Specter and I offered an amendment, very
modest, to provide about a $1.1 billion increase out of our pot for
increased funding for NIH. And as Senator Specter pointed out, that
went down almost 2 to 1. We got 37 votes for it.
So it was sort of the will of the Senate. It is our will to provide a
doubling
[[Page S8636]]
of funding for NIH over 5 years, but there is no money there to back it
up.
Now, there are some who say, well, we can take it out of our bill. If
we did so, Mr. President, under the constraints of the Balanced Budget
Act that we have adopted here, under the constraints of that balanced
budget agreement, if we doubled funding for NIH out of the pot of money
that we have, there would not be one single penny left for any other
discretionary health program.
What does that mean? There would be no Centers for Disease Control.
We would have no money for that. We would have no community health
centers in any States, no substance abuse programs, no family planning
money, no mental health program money from the Federal Government. All
of that would be wiped out. And we still would not have enough money to
double NIH funding over 5 years. So here we have it, on the one hand,
99 Senators saying we want to double NIH funding, biomedical research
funding over 5 years, but we don't have the money to do it--not within
our bill we don't, unless those 99 Senators, or at least 51 of those
Senators want to cut all of the funding for the Centers for Disease
Control and wipe it out, cut out all Ryan White funding, cut out every
one of our community health centers in America, and on and on and on.
If we do that, we get close. We do not get the double, but we get
close.
Obviously, there are not going to be 51 Senators who will vote to cut
out the community health centers in America or the Centers for Disease
Control. That would be ridiculous. As I have said many times, we have
to go outside the discretionary fund that we have for the National
Institutes of Health. We have to provide a different source of
funding--outside of our appropriations process.
What I have advocated, along with our former colleague, Senator Mark
Hatfield--we advocated it at least since 1991, 1992--is setting up a
medical research trust fund that would be funded out of the premiums
that we pay in for our health insurance coverage.
Again, Mr. President, you and I and all the rest of us here and
Americans throughout the country who have insurance programs, we pay in
every year and our employer pays in, matches it. It varies how much is
matched, but we pay in, both employers and employees pay in for health
insurance to the tune of about $700-some billion a year.
I always ask audiences when I talk about this, do you know how much
of that money goes for health research, to find the causes and cures
for things like diabetes and Alzheimer's and cancer and AIDS and
Parkinson's disease and mental health? How much of that money that you
put into your premiums goes to pay for medical research?
The answer is zero. Not one single penny. No corporation in America
would try to continue to move along without putting some money into
research. And yet we sort of stagger along in this country every year
putting more and more money into health insurance programs to pay for
taking care of people with Alzheimer's or with cancer or with
Parkinson's disease or with diabetes, et cetera, et cetera. We pay all
that money in to take care of those illnesses once they occur, but not
one penny is used to find the causes and cures.
It does not seem to make sense. So what Senator Hatfield and I
advocated for several years was that just one penny, just one penny out
of every dollar that we put into our health insurance programs go to a
trust fund.
Think of it like this. We have a highway trust fund. Every time you
buy a gallon of gas, some of that money goes into the highway trust
fund. It cannot be used for anything else. It must be used for
transportation purposes. We have an airport and airways trust fund.
When I buy an airplane ticket, some of that goes into the airports and
airways trust fund. So it is not new. Well, we have a Social Security
trust fund, obviously, but we have a lot of different trust funds to
meet what we have determined to be national priorities that otherwise
could not get sufficient funding through the appropriations process.
And the American people by and large have supported us. Most everyone I
know supports the highway trust fund and airways trust fund.
What they do not support is us using the money for something else.
But they support us using that trust fund money for highways and for
bridges and for airports and for airways because that is what the money
was put in there for. And so we have proposed that we set up that trust
fund. That one penny a year would provide us a little over a 50-percent
increase in funding for NIH. That would get us a long way toward
doubling that funding in 5 years.
Now, Senator Hatfield is no longer in the Senate, but my cosponsor on
the bill is now my colleague and our esteemed chairman, Senator
Specter. We are both pushing very hard again to find another source of
funding for biomedical research, and I believe the trust fund concept
is the way to go. We have hundreds and hundreds of different entities
throughout America supporting that concept.
We had a vote in the Senate a few weeks ago on this concept of having
this trust fund. I believe we got--we got over 51 votes, I know that,
for it, but we needed 60 votes because of a point of order. So over 50
Senators have, indeed, voted at least in concept for setting up this
type of a trust fund and funding it this way. I know I can speak for
Senator Specter in saying we will continue our efforts to enlist the
support of other Senators to set up this form of a trust fund.
Otherwise, we are simply never going to have the kind of funding for
biomedical research that we need. What we are going to do basically is
to keep raising insurance premiums to pay for the illnesses that
continue to plague us. But if we put the money into research and find
the causes and cures--Mr. President, we all struggle around here trying
to figure out what is the long-term solution to the Medicare problem:
People living longer, fewer and fewer people paying into the Medicare
trust fund. We know we have a problem. We have to do something about
it. Every medical expert will tell you, if you want to solve the
Medicare problem, find the causes and cures; it is early intervention
of illnesses and diseases.
If we, for example, could just delay, delay the onset of Alzheimer's
by 5 years, we could have no problem in the Medicare trust fund--just
delay it 5 years. That is not to mention actually finding the cure for
Alzheimer's. That is not to mention osteoporosis or diabetes that so
plagues our culture, or hearing loss or eye loss. All the things that
affect us in our older age are now coming back and costing Medicare
more and more money because people are living longer.
These are the things we can do to make sure the Medicare trust fund
is solvent in the future, but only if we put adequate money into
biomedical research.
I said I was not going to talk about it, but once I got on a roll I
could not stop myself because I feel so strongly that we really are
shortchanging ourselves when we are not putting the money into medical
research.
Finally, Mr. President, in our report we have tried to focus the
Department of Health and Human Services on the issue of fraud and abuse
in Medicare. Speaking of Medicare, a recent inspector general's report
found that improper Medicare billing losses could be as high as 17
percent of last year's $194 billion Medicare budget--17 percent.
Now, again, let me digress here a little bit, Mr. President. A few
years ago, when I held the position that Senator Specter now holds as
chairman of this subcommittee, I asked for a study to be done on losses
in Medicare due to waste, fraud, and abuse. Well, we did the study. It
came back and said it was as high as maybe 10 to 14 percent. Well, some
of those in the system challenged those findings. They said, well, your
survey wasn't big enough. You only did one area of the country. You did
not sample enough items. And so it was a skewed kind of study--the
losses surely are not that big.
Well, I said, OK, fair enough criticism. So then, under the
leadership of Senator Specter, when we changed hands in the Senate, we
went back and we asked them to do another study, nationwide. Several
thousand were sampled. Every region was sampled. Guess what happened.
The first study came up short. It was not 10 to 14 percent. It was as
high as 17 percent of Medicare payments were going out for waste and
abuse.
Well, we must make this a priority and address this serious problem.
We
[[Page S8637]]
have in this bill; we have focused on it. Senator Specter has taken the
lead.
Let me sum up once again by complimenting our chairman, Senator
Specter, and his staff and my staff for their work in putting together
this legislation. I look forward to a smooth process, hopefully, as
Senator Specter said, that will enable us to be done by tomorrow.
And I would again just close by referring, as I did earlier, to the
Constitution of the United States. Time and again I have had people
question why we do what we are doing here in this subcommittee--in
health and in human services and in education, labor, all of the
various things that we cover here. The National Institutes of Health,
what business is that of the Congress? Why are you getting involved in
all those things?
Well, you know, it is interesting, Mr. President, that twice in the
Constitution of the United States there is mention made of the general
welfare of the people of this country--first in the preamble when it
says, ``We the people of the United States,'' and it lays out why we
are developing the Constitution, ``in order to form a more perfect
Union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general welfare''--promote the general
welfare--``and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity * * *'' Right there in the preamble it says we are doing this
because we want to promote the general welfare of the people of this
country.
Well, how do you do that? Article I of the Constitution, which lays
out the structure of Congress and our responsibility, section 8 of
article I lays out what we are supposed to do here, lays out our
responsibilities. Congress shall have the power to do all kinds of
things--borrow money, regulate commerce, coin money, establish post
offices, declare a war, et cetera, et cetera. But, in the first
paragraph it says:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imports and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for
the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.
* * *
Interesting, they put the common defense and the general welfare
together. That is our responsibility--article I, section 8. What we are
supposed to do in providing for that general welfare obviously changes
with times and circumstances. What was providing for the general
welfare in the last century certainly is not what we deem to be
providing for the general welfare in this century, and certainly it
will change in the future. But, nonetheless, I believe that the bill
before us meets our constitutional requirement in two ways: First, by
promoting the general welfare, and second, by providing for the general
welfare through the appropriations process. So, that is our
constitutional obligation and I believe that we have done our level
best, in a bipartisan manner, to meet that requirement of article I,
section 8 of the Constitution.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, do I understand that there will be a time
for general discussion of the spending bill for the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education? Am I correct that
there is a consent agreement on the time for debate on this legislation
before the Senate moves to the Agriculture appropriations bill? Will
the Chair clarify that for me?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. When do we move to the Agriculture Appropriations bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 2:15 we take up the agricultural
appropriations bill.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support this year's spending bill for
the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.
I commend Senator Specter and Senator Harkin for their outstanding
job in developing this bipartisan legislation. This bill also reflects
President Clinton's priorities in his 1998 budget for strengthening our
commitment to education, enhancing the productivity of the Nation's
workforce, and improving the health of all Americans.
Clearly there is an urgent need to allocate increased resources to
these important investments if the Nation is to maintain its
competitive edge in the 21st century.
We need to ensure that millions of children do not fall behind in
reading, in math, in science, and technology.
We need to make certain that the rising cost of tuition does not put
college education out of the reach for working families.
We need to ensure that the rising demand for job training services is
met, as 1.7 million welfare recipients leave the welfare rolls and seek
jobs under last year's welfare reform legislation.
We must also recognize the need for increased funding for biomedical
research, which holds great promise to cure or prevent so many
illnesses and can be an important factor in finding a long-term
solution to the fiscal problems facing Medicare.
This year's spending legislation for the Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education takes an important step toward making
these critical investments for our Nation's future.
Most notably, it increases the Pell grant maximum from $2,700 to
$3,000, which will increase college aid for over 3.6 million low- and
middle-income students.
The bill increases Head Start funding by $324 million over last
year's level, which will provide essential preschool services to an
additional 36,000 low-income children.
It increases the education technology funding by $275 million to help
teachers learn to use technology effectively and help raise student
achievement.
It provides $40 million for the construction and repair of schools in
needy areas. The General Accounting Office has found that a third of
the Nation's schools, with 14 million students, have one or more
buildings needing extensive repair. This was an concern that was
debated and discussed during the consideration of the budget. Great
leadership on this issue has been provided by our friend from Illinois,
Senator Moseley-Braun.
The legislation provides $81 million over last year's level for the
Ryan White AIDS Program and $24 million for the Community and Migrant
Health Program.
And it provides $1.2 billion in fiscal year 1999 for LIHEAP, which
will enable this important program to serve thousands of additional
senior citizens, the disabled, and working families by providing them
with heating and cooling assistance.
Yet the bill falls short in a number of important areas. It fails to
provide the additional $700 million that President Clinton requested to
help 218,000 independent students afford a higher education under the
Pell Grant Program. We need to make sure that individuals who are
moving through the economy are going to be able to upgrade their
skills. We know that unlike 30 years ago when an individual had a job
and kept that job for his or her entire life, individuals who now enter
the job market will probably have seven different jobs over the course
of their lives. What we are attempting to do is recognize the
importance of making available to these middle-income Americans the
opportunities to upgrade their skills and continue their education.
None of us can visit the various community colleges without seeing
the dramatic change that has taken place in the ages of many of the
students who will be attending. We see the average age increased now to
26 or 27 years of age. These are individuals who are taking advantage
of various training programs and educational opportunities to upgrade
their skills so they can participate in the new economy. This issue is
a high priority of the President, but we have seen the funding for
independent students fall short.
No funds were also appropriated this year for the new child literacy
program. Low achievement in reading is a national problem that deserves
our immediate attention. Children who lack reading skills by the fourth
grade are more likely to fall behind and eventually to drop out of
school. We have had extensive hearings in the Senate Labor and Human
Resources Committee on that particular need. We know the committee has
delayed funding for child literacy, and we know that we do not have, at
this time, the authorizing legislation needed to ensure that those
efforts and those resources would be
[[Page S8638]]
carefully targeted to get the most meaningful assistance to children.
But we also know that the chairman of our authorizing committee,
Senator Jeffords, and others--a broad, bipartisan group--are strongly
committed toward developing that literacy program. This issue is a
national priority, and we should not delay action.
As the ranking member of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, I
am strongly committed to seeing that legislation authorizing the child
literacy initiative is enacted this year. We cannot stand by and delay
the $260 million needed to implement this important program.
The Appropriations Committee also eliminated the Supplemental State
Incentive Grant Program that helped over 1 million students attend
college last year. Any of us who have had the chance to talk to
students who are using this program know what a difference it makes. I
think, given the very modest amount of resources we are talking about--
some $50 million--we ought to be able to continue the Supplemental
State Incentive Grant Program.
Both the National Labor Relations Board and the Health Professions
Education Program are seriously underfunded in this spending bill.
These shortfalls will adversely affect the investigation of unfair
labor practices and the access of minority and low-income Americans to
health care services.
There is in the country a sense that we have committed large
resources for the development of professional education in the area of
health care. You can make a case that in certain areas of our country
we do have greater numbers of trained professionals in our health care
system than are necessary. But what we do not have is the kind of
outreach programs which this Health Professions Education Program was
meant to have--to ensure that many low-income individuals and
minorities would be able to access the education and be able to go and
serve in underserved areas of the Nation.
The initial proposal by the administration in the area of health
professions was dramatically even below what has been appropriated--or
requested for appropriations in the House or the Senate. Both the House
and Senate bills have made improvements on the Clinton administration's
proposal, and I think that Health Professions Education programs ought
to be strengthened in the final legislation.
Also, the appropriations for the National Labor Relations Board will
mean that the opportunity for investigations of various unfair labor
practices will be unattended. If we are really interested in the
continued fairness in the workplace, and when we recognize that, over
the past year, hundreds of thousands of workers were shortchanged in
terms of back pay and other types of unfair practices, we want to make
sure their interests are going to be adequately protected.
I commend the Appropriations Committee for its 7.8 percent increase
for the National Institutes of Health. But much more funding is needed
if the Nation is to continue to make progress in the development of new
and more effective treatments for cancer, AIDS, heart disease, and many
other serious and debilitating conditions.
Both Senator Harkin, Senator Specter, Senator Mack, and many others
have worked tirelessly on behalf of the NIH over the years. I have
welcomed the opportunity to join with them and others to try to make
sure that the opportunities that are out there now, which are
unparalleled in terms of our research history, are taken advantage of
in order to make an important difference in terms of the health of our
fellow citizens and American families; but also in terms of reducing
the burden of health care for those families, and also to the States
and the Federal Government.
Increased funding for biomedical research will reap other rewards as
well. It will encourage more of the best and brightest of America's
college graduates to make their careers in scientific research. It will
provide benefits to the larger economy as scientific advances move from
the laboratory into the private sector, creating new businesses and job
opportunities for many individuals.
Equally important is a recent study by researchers at Duke University
that indicates expanded funding for NIH can help keep Medicare solvent
for the long term. Currently, the very ill account for the overwhelming
majority of Medicare costs. If we invest in biomedical research to make
senior citizens healthier, we can save enormous sums, protect Medicare
for future generations, and prevent many of the illnesses of old age.
Mr. President, yesterday the Nation saluted its working families on
Labor Day. This year's spending bill pays tribute to these families by
making a downpayment on important education, labor, and health
programs.
More still needs to be done. Legislation still can be approved, but
it should not be weighted down with poison pill amendments, as was the
case in the 104th Congress when language was offered which would have
prohibited Medicaid funding of abortions, and it would have barred OSHA
from considering new ergonomic rules. The bill represents a careful
bipartisan compromise, and I strongly support its adoption.
I mentioned, Mr. President, in my comments, the provisions on the
increase in the Pell Grant Program and education technology. We find a
number of States are moving ahead in voluntary ways, such as
Massachusetts, to make sure that all of their schools are actually
going to be tied into the Internet system. A combination of the
excellent cooperation between the software council in my State of
Massachusetts and the labor unions resulted in every school in the
State tied into the Internet system. They have laid 50 miles of cable
in Boston alone, which was the result of voluntary contributions of
labor in wiring those schools and voluntary contributions from the
various industries in providing the software.
What we need to do is make sure we not only have the education
technology, but have trained educators who are going to be using
technology in various ways that are going to enhance education. There
are important resources in this bill for that program.
The Head Start Program, which under the more recent authorization
will help expectant mothers in parenting skills as well as reaching
down into the early childhood years. Still, there is enormous need for
the expansion of that program which is so important.
Years ago, we felt that the principal advantage of Head Start was
just to equip children with confidence-building measures, so as they
entered education in kindergarten and the first grade, they would be
able to move ahead in learning. Now we are finding out that they are in
a position in the very early years--2 years old, 3 years old, 4 years
old--to actually learn something. That is what the most recent research
is showing, and we need to make sure we are going to be able to reach
out to many of the disadvantaged children, the poorest children who do
not have the opportunities for the development of that kind of early
start and give some help and assistance for them.
School construction and repair work has been an issue that has, in
recent times, come before us. I can mention in terms of Boston, New
Bedford, Fall River, Lowell, Lawrence, and Springfield--and the list
goes on--the number of schools that are closed every day in major
cities during the wintertime because of poor repairs and temperatures.
The need for school repairs are so important.
Local school districts are doing something, and we have a modest
Federal program, as has been outlined, to begin to show that such an
initiative is enormously important. If children go to schools that are
deteriorating and dilapidated, you are sending a message to the
children--maybe it is a subliminal message, but a message nonetheless--
that even though as political leaders we are making speeches about the
importance of children and the importance of education, the children
see that education is not the priority of a State, a community, or the
Nation as it should be. This is a modest effort to address this
important issue.
There is support of the Ryan White bill and community and migrant
health, which is important in reaching out to so many people. And the
LIHEAP program which is a tried and tested program which is absolutely
essential for so many of our elderly who live in the colder climates.
[[Page S8639]]
Independent students, as I mentioned, is a key element and needs
support. I believe students--young, middle age, and older--who are
going back to upgrade their skills at community colleges should be able
to get some help and assistance under the various education programs.
The importance of this was understood in the budget agreement. I know
both Senators Specter and Harkin understand the importance of these
programs. Still, this is an area that we need to give, I think, some
attention to as we go on into the conference.
We will have some opportunity to debate child literacy as we move
ahead. The real question is in timing. I think all of us here
understand the importance of the enhancement of the literacy program.
There are many excellent programs that are taking place now, and we
want to continue to make progress. We are not making progress
nationwide, and this is an area of enormous importance.
Again, with NIH and health professions education, the appropriations
exceed what was initially proposed by the administration. The House has
a more favorable funding level. This program is very, very important in
creating opportunities for people to go into the health professions who
will go out and serve in many different parts of our communities.
Mr. President, again, I express strong support for the job that was
done, and I commend our committee for those areas where they have, I
think, made a very, very important commitment of scarce resources. We
understand that there will be at least an expectation that as we move
into the conference, there may be additional resources that will be
available that could be used for funding some of these areas where
there is an important need.
I look forward, as this debate takes place, to try to see if we
cannot find either offsets to enhance these programs that are a
priority or at least to work with the committee to see if out of the
conference we cannot get greater attention.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent that Mr. Jim Sourwine and Mr. Jack Chow, detailees to this
committee, be granted the privilege of the floor during the
consideration of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had referred earlier to the allocation
of funding of the various Departments in fiscal year 1998 for the
current bill, and the specific breakdown is as follows: Labor, $11
billion; Health and Human Services, $31.9 billion; Education, $29.3
billion; and related agencies, $7.5 billion; with the total being $79.7
billion.
There is a long list of related agencies made a part of this bill,
but illustrative of those agencies are agencies such as the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting, Federal Mediation Conciliation Service, the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, the National Labor
Relations Board, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission,
the Railroad Retirement Board. Those are illustrative of the agencies
covered by the bill. I make that delineation to give those watching on
C-SPAN 2 a fuller picture of what this bill covers, and for the Record.
Earlier I had referred to certain consolidations and eliminations of
programs which Senator Harkin and I have worked on for fiscal year 1994
through fiscal year 1997. There are a total of 134 programs, according
to information provided by staff, totaling $1,471,405,000. I ask
unanimous consent that the programs in the various departments and the
amount of savings be printed in the Record, with this information being
provided by staff, as I say, totaling 134 programs and almost $1.5
billion.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
PROGRAM TERMINATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY '95 FY '95
originally post FY '96 FY
enacted rescission '97
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LABOR
Youth Fair Chance............... 24,785 0 0 0
Rural Concentrated Employment... 3,861 0 0 0
JTPA Capacity Building.......... 6,000 0 0 0
Natl Commission Employ. Policy.. 2,223 0 0 0
Veterans' Homeless Programs..... 5,011 0 0 0
Natl Center for the Workplace... 1,113 0 0 0
Glass Ceiling Commission........ 738 738 142 0
Office of the American Workplace 7,415 7,082 0 0
HHS
HRSA:
HPSL Recap.................... 8,020 8,020 0 0
Trauma Care................... 4,793 293 0 0
SAMHSA
CMHS:
Clinical Training/AIDS 5,394 5,379 0 0
Training.....................
Community Support Demos....... 24,184 24,147 0 0
Homeless Service Demos........ 21,227 21,205 0 0
AIDS Demos.................... 1,487 1,485 0 0
CSAT:
Target Cities................. 35,520 35,520 0 0
Pregnant/Postpartum Women..... 54,228 54,228 0 0
Campus Program................ 0 0 0 0
Criminal Justice Programs..... 37,502 37,502 0 0
Critical Populations.......... 23,561 23,561 0 0
Comprehensive Comm. Treatment. 27,277 27,073 0 0
Training...................... 5,590 5,590 0 0
AIDS Training................. 2,787 2,787 0 0
AIDS Linkage.................. 7,739 7,739 0 0
AIDS Outreach................. 7,500 7,500 0 0
Treatment Capacity Expansion.. 6,701 6,701 0 0
CSAP:
Pregnant Women & Infants...... 22,501 22,501 0 0
Other Programs................ 6,643 6,318 0 0
Community Partnerships........ 114,741 114,741 0 0
Prevention/Ed Dissemination... 13,465 13,465 0 0
Training...................... 16,049 16,049 0 0
B and F....................... 0 0 0 0
Assistant Secretary:
Natl. Vaccine Program......... 1,000 988 0 0
Health Care Reform Data....... 2,760 1,344 0 0
Streamlining Costs............ 1,500 1,500 0 0
Health Service Management..... 17,801 18,432 0 0
Natl. AIDS Program Office..... 1,750 1,730 0 0
HCFA:
Essential Access Comm. Hosp... 3,500 2,000 0 0
New Rural Health Grants....... 1,737 0 0 0
Rural Hosp. Transition Demos.. 17,621 17,621 13,089 0
ACF:
Civics & English Ed Grants.... 6,000 4,000 0 0
Children & Families Services:.
Comp. Child Develop. Cntrs.... 0 0 0 0
Child Devel. Assoc. 1,372 1,372 0 0
Scholarship..................
Runaway Youth-Drugs........... 14,466 14,466 0 0
Youth Gang Substance Abuse.... 10,520 10,520 0 0
Child Abuse Challenge Grants.. 0 0 0 0
ABCAN......................... 288 288 0 0
Dependent Care Plan. & Dev.... 12,823 12,823 0 0
Emerg. Protection Grants...... 0 0 0 0
Child Welfare Rsch............ 6,395 6,395 0 0
Family Support Centers........ 7,371 7,371 0 0
Community Services:...........
Homeless Service Grants....... 19,752 19,752 0 0
Rural Housing................. 2,927 0 0 0
Farmworker Assistance......... 3,084 0 0 0
Demonstration Partnerships.... 7,977 601 0 0
Violent Crime Reduction Progs:
Youth Education Demo.......... 0 0 400 0
Administration on Aging:
Federal Council on Aging...... 176 176 0 0
White House Conf. on Aging.... 3,000 3,000 0 0
SSA Notch Commission.......... 0 0 0 0
ED
Education Reform:
Goals 2000, National Programs. 21,530 0 0 0
School to Work, National Progs 6,875 6,875 0 0
Ed for the Disadvantaged: State 27,560 27,560 0 0
School Improvement.............
School Improvement:
Safe/Drug Free-Postsecondary.. 0 0 0 0
Safe/Drug Free-National Progs. 25,000 25,000 0 0
Safe/Drug Free-Safe Schools... 0 0 0 0
Law Related Education......... 5,899 0 0 0
Christa McAuliffe............. 1,946 1,946 0 0
Women's Ed Equity............. 3,967 3,967 0 0
Dropout Prevention Demos...... 28,000 0 0 0
Genl Assist-Virgin Islands.... 0 0 0 0
Territorial Teacher Training.. 0 0 0 0
Follow Through................ 0 0 0 0
Training Early Child Ed 13,875 0 0 0
Violence.....................
Family/Comm. Endeavor Schls... 11,100 0 0 0
Indian Education:
Special Progs Indian Children. 14,342 12,342 0 0
Special Progs Adult Indians... 5,420 5,420 0 0
Indian Ed Natl Activities..... 125 125 0 0
Bilingual/Immigrant Ed:
Bilingual Ed Support Services. 14,330 14,330 0 0
Bilingual Ed Prof Development. 24,866 25,180 0 0
Special Institutions:
NTID-Endowment Grants......... 336 336 0 0
NTID-Construction............. 150 150 0 0
Gallaudet Endowment grants.... 1,000 1,000 0 0
Gallaudet Construction........ 0 0 0 0
Voc Ed:
Comm. Based Orgs.............. 9,479 0 0 0
Consumer Homemaking Ed........ 34,409 0 0 0
State Councils................ 8,848 8,848 0 0
Natl Programs, Demos.......... 20,684 0 0 0
Natl Programs, Data systems... 6,000 4,250 0 0
Bilingual Vocational Training. 0 0 0 0
Adult Ed Evaluation/Tech 3,900 3,900 0 0
Assist.......................
State Lit Resource Cntrs...... 7,787 0 0 0
Workplace Lit Partnerships.... 18,736 12,736 0 0
Lit Training for Homeless 9,498 0 0 0
Adults.......................
Student Financial Assist: State 20,000 0 0 0
Postsec. Review................
HIGHER ED
Aid for Institutional Develop:
Endowment Grants.............. 6,045 6,045 0 0
HBCU-Set Aside................ 2,015 2,015 0 0
Evaluation.................... 1,000 1,000 0 0
Endowment Challenge Grants.... 8,060 8,060 0 0
Native Hawaiian/Alaska Arts... 1,000 0 0 0
Eisenhower Leadership......... 4,000 1,080 0 0
Innovative Proj. Comm. Serv/.. 1,423 1,423 0 0
Cooperative Ed................ 6,927 6,927 0 0
Law School Clinical Experience 14,920 0 0 0
Financial Aid Database........ 496 0 0 0
Assistance to Guam............ 0 0 0 0
Natl Science Scholars......... 6,424 3,303 0 0
Natl Acad Science-Space/Tech.. 2,000 0 0 0
Douglas Teacher Scholarships.. 14,599 299 0 0
Olympic Scholarships.......... 1,000 0 0 0
Teacher Corps................. 1,875 0 0 0
Women/Minority Graduate Ed.... 0 0 0 0
Harris Fellowships............ 20,244 10,144 0 0
Javits Fellowships............ 7,787 0 0 0
Faculty Develop. Fellowships.. 3,732 0 0 0
School, Coll, Univ 3,893 3,893 0 0
Partnerships.................
Legal Training for 2,964 2,964 0 0
Disadvantage.................
Howard University:
Howard U Research............. 4,614 4,614 0 0
Howard U Construction......... 5,000 5,000 0 0
Regular Program............... 3,530 3,530 0 0
Clinical Law Center........... 5,500 5,500 0 0
College Housing Acad. Fac.
Loans:.......................
National Diffusion Network.... 14,480 11,780 0 0
Ed Tech-Natl Activities....... 13,000 13,000 0 0
Loan Subsidies................ 168 0 0 0
OERI:
Natl Brd Prof. Teach. 0 0 0 0
Standards....................
Fund for Improve of Schools... 0 0 0 0
Blue Ribbon Schools........... 0 0 0 0
Libraries:
College Library Tech.......... 0 0 0 0
Research Libraries............ 0 0 0 0
Literacy...................... 8,026 8,026 0 0
Departmental Management.......
HBCU Capital Financing Brd.... 74 74 0 0
Natl Brd-FIPSE................ 128 128 0 0
RELATED AGENCIES
CNCS:
Vista Literacy................ 5,024 5,024 0 0
[[Page S8640]]
Senior Demo Program........... 1,000 1,000 0 0
Natl Ed Standards/Improvement. 2,000 2,000 0 0
RRB Special Management Fund... 659 659 659 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________