[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 114 (Wednesday, September 3, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8685-S8692]
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. The clerk will report the bill.
  The 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 resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Kyl amendment No. 1056, to increase funding for Federal 
     Pell grants, with an offset from fiscal year 1998 funding for 
     low-income home energy assistance.

  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, yesterday I had announced our hope to be 
able to conclude this bill by this evening. Senator Lott was on the 
floor when we were talking about scheduling and I discussed it briefly 
with our distinguished majority leader, and also with Senator Harkin, 
the ranking Democrat, and asked that anybody who intended to file 
amendments to let us know by the close of business yesterday, or in any 
event no later than noon today. We have been advised of a number of 
possible amendments. I believe it is possible to work some of those 
out. Others will have to go to votes.
  But I would restate at this time our urging anybody who intends to 
file an amendment to contact us by noon today so that we may proceed. 
There is one item which may not be completed by the close of business 
today, and that relates to the funding on testing which is now proposed 
by the administration.
  There was a statement in the media by Congressman William Goodling of 
Pennsylvania, chairman of their authorization committee, of his 
intention to oppose funding. And there was comment that a similar 
prohibition may be offered on this bill.
  Yesterday I was contacted by the Secretary of Education, Richard 
Riley, who urged support of their program, and we had a discussion. 
After sleeping on it I decided it would be a good idea to have a 
hearing on the subject, which we have put into effect for tomorrow 
morning at 9 o'clock, with the concurrence of Senator Harkin and also 
our chairman of the appropriations committee, Senator Stevens. So, if 
that amendment is offered, that one item of business might most 
appropriately be concluded tomorrow morning. But aside from that one 
item, it is my hope that we will be able to finish action on this bill 
this evening.
  I thank my colleague, Senator Kyl, for offering his amendment 
yesterday.
  I yield the floor so that Senator Kyl may proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 1056

  Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate that.
  I also appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Delaware preceding 
this. I think he makes very cogent points on a different subject.
  Mr. President, I don't think the yeas and nays have been ordered on 
my amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President.
  At this time, let me explain the reasons for my amendment to increase 
Pell grant funding. I submitted a statement for the Record yesterday. 
But I would like to discuss it in a little bit more detail today.
  There is particular reason for us to take this action which would 
bring us closer to the administration's request and into line with the 
recommendation from the House of Representatives. It seems odd to me 
that the Senate would not be willing to support Pell grant funding at 
the same level as recommended by the Appropriations Committee in the 
House of Representatives. This amendment would conform the Senate 
funding level to the House funding level, and there is a particular 
reason for this amendment coming up. That is, a problem that was 
created in a previous law with respect to two different groups of 
students that are funded. I would like to discuss that in a little bit 
more detail.
  First, let me note the numbers. This amendment would provide an 
additional $528 million for the Pell Grant Program. It would boost 
funding to the level recommended by the House Appropriations Committee. 
The Pell grant funding would go from $6.91 billion to $7.438 billion. 
The offset is from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which 
I will discuss in just a moment.
  The Pell grant funding amendment, as I said, is intended to finance 
changes in eligibility--that is, to correct problems that have arisen 
as a result of the current law phaseout of certain independent students 
at income levels that are lower than those for dependent students. Like 
the House bill, this funding level is contingent upon the authorization 
committee providing authorization.
  We have letters from both the chairman and ranking members of the 
House and Senate authorizing committees indicating that should the 
additional funding be approved they would work for that authorization 
to be established.
  It is also my understanding that the administration is in agreement 
with the House of Representative numbers with respect to the Pell grant 
funding.
  So I think we ought to put at least as high a priority on Pell grants 
as the President and the House of Representatives in this version of 
the Labor-HHS bill.
  Here is the problem that was created. In the Higher Education 
Amendments of 1992 we established a separate allowance for independent 
students without dependents--independent students, not dependent 
students--independent students who do not themselves have dependents.
  The problem is, the separate allowance established under the 1992 
act. It creates a substantial disparity among these groups of students 
very much to the disadvantage of the independent students without 
dependents. The proposed change in eligibility which the

[[Page S8686]]

funding in my amendment is intended to finance would bring the 
proportion of students in this group who would be eligible for Pell 
grants closer to the proportion that existed prior to the establishment 
of the separate allowance in the 1992 act. Students, incidentally, in 
this group are typically older students with annual family incomes of 
between $10,000 and $20,000.
  I obtained from the Department of Education a statistical list for 
the States of the number of students who lost eligibility under the 
separate allowance that we created in the 1992 act. Just for the 
benefit of some of the Senators who are here, I might note some of the 
numbers with respect to the States involved here.
  In California, for example, 24,314 students lost eligibility as a 
result of what we did. My amendment would provide a way for these 
students to go to school.
  In Iowa, the State of the distinguished ranking Member, 4,247 
students lost eligibility as a result of what we did. My amendment 
would reassert their eligibility to provide the funding for that.
  In the State of Michigan, the number of students who lost 
eligibility, according to the Department of Education, is 15,254;
  In the State of Minnesota, 7,432;
  In the State of Pennsylvania, the State of the distinguished chairman 
of the committee, 9,535 students lost eligibility as a result of what 
was done.
  My amendment will restore the funding so that these students will be 
eligible--will have the funding to get the Pell grants to get their 
education.
  So we are talking here about a significant number of students that 
will not be helped if our amendment is not adopted.
  The offset, as I said, is from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program, the so-called LIHEAP Program. I know there are some Members 
who rather reflexably react to any reductions in this program because 
there is a contingent of their constituency that relies on this program 
and that reacts very badly if there is an attempt to cut it. But, Mr. 
President, I think in this case we have to balance the interests of 
those people with the people who have lost their eligibility under the 
Pell Grant Program. And, if we do not act, these students are not going 
to have the opportunity to advance their education.
  So let's talk for just a minute about this tradeoff and about the 
LIHEAP Program.
  The LIHEAP Program was set up 16 years ago as a temporary program for 
just a few months to help people get over the energy crisis. The energy 
crisis is long gone. This is a typical program of the liberal welfare 
state. It gets established, and then can never be disestablished 
notwithstanding the fact that the reason for it has long ago 
disappeared.
  The world is a very different place than it was in 1981. Gone are the 
long lines at the gas pumps and the skyrocketing energy prices.
  It seems to me, as we prepare for the 21st century, that we should 
look beyond programs designed to cope with an energy crisis of nearly 
20 years ago--a crisis that has come and gone --and focus instead on 
how to prepare young people for the high-tech more competitive economy 
of the future.
  That is what this amendment does.
  Mr. President, fuel costs have not only stabilized since 1981, they 
have declined significantly in real terms; that is, in inflation-
adjusted terms.
  For example, I would refer to figures from the Clinton administration 
itself. In its 1995 budget submission the Clinton administration 
recommended substantial reductions in the LIHEAP Program because it too 
recognized that the fuel costs had gone down significantly. As noted in 
the President's budget, ``fuel prices have decreased by 40 percent in 
real terms; the cost of electricity has dropped by about 13 percent in 
real terms; and the percent of income spent for home heating for 
households at or below 150 percent of poverty guidelines has dropped by 
about one-third.'' The President's budget went on to propose a 50-
percent reduction in funding for the program that year.

  Last year, President Clinton proposed outyear costs in LIHEAP--a $90 
million reduction in 1999, and a $181 million reduction in the year 
2000. The Office of Management and Budget advised my office that the 
declining figures were due to the standard percentage reductions 
applied to programs that were not considered a high priority--because 
of the statistics that I cited earlier from the Clinton administration.
  So, Mr. President, you have the Clinton administration recognizing 
that we need to increase the Pell grant funding, you have the Clinton 
administration recognizing that the LIHEAP Program can no longer be 
justified at its present level, you have the House of Representatives 
Appropriations Committee recommending that we end this disparity 
between the two different groups of students funded by Pell grants, and 
it seems to me that we have an opportunity here with very little 
detriment to increase the funding for these students.
  The States themselves as I have noted, have already shown a 
significant ability to meet the energy needs of those that require 
assistance.
  For example, many States refuse to allow public utilities to shut off 
power to delinquent customers. And they have set up payment plans and 
other options. So we do not need the old subsidy to deal with the 
problem that may exist for some people.
  It just seems to me given the States' track record, obviously, that 
they care as much about their low-income citizens as people here in 
Washington, DC, do. Given their track records and the stable or 
declining price of energy, this is a good time to begin, as the 
President recommended a couple of years ago, to begin cutting back on 
LIHEAP so that we can target these resources to other more pressing 
needs.
  In closing, Mr. President, the bipartisan budget agreement that we 
passed in July was intended to create new opportunities in education 
for middle- and upper-income families. It will through a variety of new 
tax breaks and tax credits. But we have the chance today to target 
additional Pell grant assistance to more lower- and middle-income 
people so that all American families will have the same opportunity to 
secure a brighter future.
  For those, as I said, who react somewhat automatically against this 
amendment because, as one friend put it, they come from a cold State, I 
simply think it is very hard to explain why you voted against the level 
of Pell grant funding recommended by the House of Representatives and 
the President of the United States simply because you wanted to 
preserve a 16-year-old temporary subsidy program, the justification for 
which has long since disappeared.
  This amendment literally represents a choice between an old welfare 
state subsidy and a brighter future for more young people through 
education that they might not otherwise receive.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment to add 
more money to the Pell Grant Program.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I agree with 50 percent of what the 
distinguished Senator from Arizona has said; that is, the part about 
the increasing Pell grants. I think he is exactly right about that. I 
wish we had more money to increase the Pell grants.
  What we have done is to increase the Pell grants by $1 billion. It 
has moved from fiscal year 1997 where it was at $5.919 billion to 
$6.910 billion which is a very, very substantial increase--in the 16- 
to 17-percent range.
  Senator Harkin and I, who have looked over these figures, take second 
place to no one on our concern for education and that created in the 
budget we have here, and what we have done over the years--most notably 
last April when we added $2.6 billion over some very considerable 
objection and instead having those funds go largely to education.
  As I said yesterday, on a very personal level, my concern about 
education goes to the roots of my own family. Both of my parents were 
immigrants. And my brother, my two sisters, and I have been able to 
share in the American dream because of our educational opportunities.
  We have not only added to the Pell grants the $1 billion here but 
have also increased the funding on guaranteed student loans so that 
every young man and woman--and this goes for the people who are not 
quite so young--would

[[Page S8687]]

have an opportunity for educational advancement in this country.
  So that I agree totally with what my distinguished colleague from 
Arizona has had to say about the value of the Pell grants. But we have 
stretched and stretched very, very far.
  It is true that the House has an additional $500 million in the Pell 
grants, and they have a larger sum of money to work with than we are 
allocated in the Senate. Without going into any extensive explanation, 
there are different technical rules which apply to the two bodies.
  I might say to my colleague from Arizona that with the additional 
arguments he has advanced today in a very cogent way, to the extent we 
can yield to the House figure, we will try to do so when we get to 
conference, recognizing his interest and being even more persuaded by 
his eloquence here this morning.
  The part of his presentation that I cannot agree with is the part 
relating to cutting the funding on low-income heat and energy fuel 
assistance. What we have done here, Mr. President, for those who may be 
listening in-house or on C-SPAN 2, is made an allocation of the almost 
$80 billion here by trying to place the funding on a priority basis, 
and having taken care of other priorities including Pell grants with 
the additional $1 billion, have made the allocation of $1 billion to 
the LIHEAP 1998 program and an advanced appropriation of $1.2 billion, 
which is slightly different.
  This program is on the decline from 1985 when it had $2.1 billion. We 
believe that this is an appropriate allocation of priorities. Some 55 
Senators have written to Senator Harkin and myself asking that LIHEAP 
be preserved. If you add 55 to 2, that is 57, and there may be some 
other votes out there.
  I make this comment not to prejudge the tabulation of the votes, 
because you never know until the votes are counted, but there are 57 
Senators who have been concerned enough about this one item who have 
spoken up--55 having written to us. And I can tell you how strongly 
Senator Harkin and I feel about this. I know obviously my own sense of 
it, and I have talked to Senator Harkin enough to know his sense.
  This program is for low-income families. Almost 70 percent of the 
recipient families have an annual income of less than $8,000--think of 
that, $8,000; 44 percent have at least one member who is elderly, and 
20 percent have a member disabled. Currently, the number of families 
served has been reduced to 5 million families, 1 million less than 2 
years ago, and this is part of our effort to target those who need it 
the most. The funding has been cut by more than 50 percent, from $2.1 
billion to this figure. There is no replacement for this funding.
  Thirty-five percent of all recipient households heat their homes by 
using oil, propane, wood, or coal. These sources of fuel do not have a 
monopoly control over their territories and cannot raise prices to 
cover the cost of providing discounted or free energy supplies to their 
low-income members. What we really face here is that in this category, 
many of the elderly, many of the disabled are faced with an alternative 
of either heating or eating, and that is a choice obviously that no 
American should face.
  Without LIHEAP, there would not be an opportunity for these low-
income families to utilize their other scarce resources for sustaining 
themselves. Obviously, in a civilized society, if the choice is heating 
or eating, we have to do both, and that is why this funding is so very 
important.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I was just going to comment on a couple 
things very briefly.
  Mr. HARKIN. Go ahead.
  Mr. KYL. I certainly appreciate the comments of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee. I just wanted to comment 
on two of the points he made.
  It is, indeed, true that the total amount of money to be expended on 
Pell grants has been increased by about $1 billion. That goes to 
increase the maximum Pell grant to $3,000. It does not, as the Senator, 
of course, is well aware, fund this category of people who I contend 
have been disadvantaged as a result of the 1992 act, the independent 
students without dependents. So the increase in the funding in the bill 
has made it better for those who receive the grants, but it has not 
enabled us to cover the people that I am proposing to cover.
  Second, with respect to the LIHEAP Program, just to make it very 
clear, this offset does not eliminate the LIHEAP Program. It reduces by 
about one-half the funding for the LIHEAP Program, which, incidentally, 
is almost the same amount of reduction that was recommended by 
President Clinton in his 1995 budget submission.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise--and I am sure this is no surprise 
to anyone--in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend from 
Arizona. Again, I would concur with what my distinguished chairman 
said. About half I agree with; half I do not agree with in terms of the 
Senator's comments.
  We are all in favor of increasing Pell grants and making sure 
everyone is covered, but I would say this committee, under the able 
leadership of Senator Specter, has done a great job of increasing the 
Pell grants to historically high levels--a maximum grant of $3,000, up 
from $2,700 last year. Certainly you always perhaps could have more. 
But I haven't heard from any institution of higher learning or anyone 
that is involved in the Pell grant program saying that this is 
insufficient. I think what I have heard is that they are very, very 
happy with what this committee has done in meeting these requirements 
and getting the level up.
  In taking the cut out of LIHEAP for this, though, talk about robbing 
Peter to pay Paul, because we are talking about the same kind of 
universe. We are talking about low-income families.
  Again, just to reiterate and reaffirm what the chairman said, the 
LIHEAP Program has gone down 50 percent in the last decade. We started 
out at about $2.1 billion in 1985 and it is down now to $1 billion--a 
50-percent drop in the amount of money, yet the eligible population for 
LIHEAP has grown by about 30 percent--33 percent in that same period of 
time. So the eligible number has gone up and the pie piece has gone 
down. Over 70 percent of the families receiving LIHEAP assistance have 
incomes of less than $8,000 a year; 7 out of every 10 have incomes--
that is not individuals--family incomes less than $8,000 a year, and 44 
percent of the households receiving it are elderly, over age 65. So 
that is the universe we are talking about.
  The Senator from Arizona said this is a program that's outlived its 
usefulness; the energy crisis is gone. Well, it may be that for those 
who are making more money it is gone, but my figures show that the 
prices of natural gas, electricity, if you adjust for inflation, are 
about as high now as they were in 1979. But if you look at the universe 
of people who are getting LIHEAP, their inflation-adjusted incomes have 
not gone up. So they are basically in the same position they were in, 
or like families were in, when the energy crisis hit in 1979.
  As Senator Specter said, 50 percent of these families in LIHEAP use 
natural gas, 15 percent use electricity, 35 percent use oil, propane, 
wood, and coal. So for these families the energy crisis still exists, 
and it especially exists when the weather gets the coldest.
  The Senator from Minnesota is in the Chamber, and as we found out 
last year when we had some extremely cold weather, we found anomalies 
in the upper Midwest where in some States the cost of propane and oil 
spiked, went up 25 percent during the coldest times of the year as 
compared to some other States. In other words, in those areas where it 
was the coldest, where it was needed the most, the price went up the 
highest.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question? And I say to my 
colleague from Maine, I will not go with other questions as I know she 
wants to speak, and I had a chance to speak yesterday.
  Isn't it also true, taking the experience of last winter--and I could 
ask this of the chairman as well, Senator Specter--what has been 
happening, because we have really been underfunded, we depend on the 
emergency funding and we go through this drill every year where then 
what we have to do is seek this additional emergency funding? We 
certainly had to do that last year. And then, of course, States never 
know what they are going to be able to do. So the last thing we should 
be doing, am I correct, is cutting $500 million?

[[Page S8688]]

  It would gut the whole program.
  Mr. HARKIN. It would gut the whole program. To answer the Senator's 
question, we always come in for emergency funds. But here is what 
happens. When you don't fund the LIHEAP Program enough, what happens is 
family--let's face it; the average family gets about 215 bucks. It's 
what, around 30 percent, I think, of their heating bill. But what 
happens--and we know this from experience in my State of Iowa 
especially--when they don't know if they are going to get the money to 
pay their heating bills--and you know elderly people are very proud. 
They don't want to be on welfare and most of them are not on welfare. 
They are getting Social Security, very small Social Security checks. 
What they do is they turn the heat down and they put their shawls on, 
they put on coats, they wear coats around the house. And then what 
happens. Well, they get ill and then they have to go to the hospital, 
and they go to the emergency rooms.
  We have found this time and time and time again. That is what poor 
people, and especially elderly people, will do when they don't know if 
they are going to get their heating money. And so again, the crisis is 
real for these people, very, very real.
  As I pointed out, last year we had--and I have called for an 
investigation of it--in some States, a 25-percent increase, and I do 
not think there is any need for it other than the demand was there, it 
was very cold, and a lot of these elderly people simply could not pay 
these prices.
  Lastly, let me sort of respond philosophically to the Senator from 
Arizona. I couldn't help but notice the comment that this was a program 
of the liberal welfare state; like a lot of programs of the liberal 
welfare state, it just goes on and on and on even when the need is not 
there.
  Well, I could ask the Senator from Arizona, what about the Pell Grant 
Program? That was a program of the Lyndon Johnson Great Society just as 
well as--well, not LIHEAP; that came later, but the Pell grant was a 
program from under the Great Society, and the need was there and the 
need is still there for the Pell Grant Program.
  So I would submit to the Senator from Arizona that this is not a 
program of the liberal welfare state. It is a program of a caring and 
compassionate and fair state. We are, as I said the other day, 
fulfilling our obligation under the Constitution of the United States.
  A lot of people do not realize this, but twice in the Constitution 
the word ``welfare'' is mentioned--twice--first, in the preamble when 
it says, ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more 
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide 
for the common defence, promote the general Welfare.''
  ``Promote,'' it does not say just stand by. It says ``promote the 
general Welfare.'' That is why we established the Constitution. So that 
is the first place it is mentioned. And then in article I, section 8 of 
the Constitution. Article I is, of course, Congress and what Congress 
is supposed to do. Section 8 outlines the responsibilities of Congress: 
To borrow money, regulate commerce, to establish post offices and 
roads, provide and maintain a Navy, et cetera, et cetera. Here is the 
first paragraph of section 8 of article I of the Constitution.

       The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, 
     Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for 
     the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

  It is our obligation, first, to promote the general welfare and then, 
using the powers that we have to lay and collect taxes and disburse 
those moneys, to provide for the general welfare of the people.
  That is what we are talking about. Whether we are talking about Pell 
Grant Programs or whether we are talking about heating energy 
assistance programs for the elderly and the poor, we are fulfilling our 
obligation as a caring and compassionate state to promote the general 
welfare and to use our taxing and spending powers outlined in the 
Constitution of the United States to provide for the general welfare of 
our people.
  So, no, this is not a program of a liberal welfare state. It is a 
program of a caring and compassionate and fair state, just as the Pell 
Grants Program is. These are good programs. We should not be robbing 
one that hits at the poorest, those with the lowest incomes of our 
people--70 percent of these families have less than $8,000 a year 
income--to use that to try to help other low-income people to get an 
education. Don't tell me there are not other sources of funds here. 
There are.
  I might submit that we now have this B-2 bomber we are building that 
cannot even sit out in the rain, $1 billion a copy, and now we have to 
build special hangars for them because they cannot sit outside. We 
can't forward deploy them. All this is coming out now. We are going to 
put money in that, but we are going to take money out of the heating 
energy assistance programs to help other poor people get an education? 
I am sorry, that doesn't quite compute for this Senator.
  So I am hopeful--and I know the Senator from Arizona means well. As I 
said, I support half of what he is talking about, in terms of getting 
the Pell grants up. I just think his sources of getting the money are 
just not good for this country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maine, 
who is going to speak next, but I ask if I can have just 1 minute to 
respond to one point the Senator from Iowa just made. I think it is 
important for me to respond to it.
  He said, first, that the inflation-adjusted prices are about the same 
and then challenged my assertion that the liberal welfare state 
program, as I described the LIHEAP Program, which I said the need for 
had largely been eliminated, is similar, in terms of welfare, to the 
Pell grant funding and suggested perhaps I was failing to appreciate 
the similarity in both programs being welfare programs.
  I simply wanted to respond to the Senator from Iowa in this fashion. 
What I said was that once a welfare state program is instituted, it is 
very difficult to get rid of it even if the need for it has been 
eliminated or reduced. That, in my opinion--and I know the 
distinguished Senator from Iowa disagrees with this opinion--but in my 
opinion, the LIHEAP Program is a program which was originally intended 
to be temporary. That is a fact. But it has now become permanent 
notwithstanding, in my opinion, the fact that the need for it has 
largely been eliminated or reduced, thus demonstrating a program 
instituted for very good reasons but, in my view, which no longer is 
justified--as distinguished from the Pell Grant Program. I think none 
of us would argue the need for that has been reduced or eliminated.
  So my point is not that one is welfare and one is not welfare in the 
broadest sense of the term, as the Senator from Iowa noted, but rather 
that the need for one has largely been eliminated, yet it is very 
difficult if not impossible for us to eliminate these programs once 
they have begun.
  To the point that the energy costs are about the same as they were, I 
can only cite the statistics from the Clinton administration budget 
submitted in 1995. And I am quoting now.

       [F]uel prices have decreased by 40 percent in real terms; 
     the cost of electricity has dropped by about 13 percent in 
     real terms; and the percent of income spent for home heating 
     for households at or below 150 percent of poverty guidelines 
     has dropped by about one-third.

  That is the reason for my assertion that the energy costs have indeed 
gone down dramatically.
  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield for this colloquy, just yield 
for a question. Even taking the Senator's figures, if the real prices 
have dropped by a third, the fact is that since 1985 the LIHEAP Program 
has come down 50 percent. So we are spending half as much money today. 
Of course, in real terms it would be even less than that, if you 
adjusted for inflation. I am just talking about the actual dollars. 
It's $2.1 billion in 1985, it's $1 billion now. So, even if the cost--I 
ask the Senator to think about this and see if my reasoning is wrong 
here--even if the cost of energy has come down by a third, if in fact 
the amount of money we are putting in the program has come down by over 
a half, does that not compute out to the fact that there is less money 
going into the program today and that less money is there to meet the 
heating

[[Page S8689]]

needs of those families who are getting the money?
  Mr. KYL. Relatively speaking, the Senator from Iowa is certainly 
correct. We would simply then engage in a philosophical debate as to 
whether or not, if that number continued to drop to one-third and one-
tenth and so on, whether the program should continue. My view would be 
this was a temporary program designed to meet a temporary need, that it 
was never designed to pay for 100 percent of the bill for heating, and 
therefore there is a point at which the need for the program should go 
away, when the prices have been reduced to a certain point. He and I 
obviously simply disagree about what that point would be.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the distinguished Senator from Arizona, which would cut 
funding severely for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and 
increase funding for the Pell Grant Program.
  There is no stronger supporter of the Pell Grant Program in the U.S. 
Senate than I. In fact, very shortly I will be introducing legislation 
to expand working students' eligibility for Pell grants. However, when 
faced with this amendment, I must ask the question: Are we so poor a 
country that some must be cold, go hungry, forgo medications so that 
others may learn? The answer is obvious. This amendment presents a 
false choice.
  Maine is well known for its cold and very long winters. Many of 
Maine's residents, along with the citizens of other Northern States, 
are heavily dependent on the aid provided by LIHEAP in order to heat 
their homes during the cold winter months. Without the assistance of 
LIHEAP, 33,000 of Maine's most vulnerable and needy citizens--I am 
talking about elderly people, the disabled, and very low-income 
families--will go without adequate heat during the coming winter or 
will be forced to forgo medications or even food. We must not allow 
this to happen.
  As Senator Specter and Senator Harkin have noted, 70 percent of the 
people receiving this home heating assistance have incomes under $8,000 
a year. We are talking about people who are very needy. This bill's 
funding for LIHEAP is not excessive. In fact, it's approximately the 
amount that was spent last year, and that amount was not adequate to 
serve all of the people needing assistance. Last year this program 
provided 33,000 Mainers with an average subsidy of $308. That is only 
enough to buy a couple of tanks of heating oil. For many, this small 
amount of help is, however, the difference between being in a 
comfortably heated home and freezing.
  This is not an excessive expenditure. Failure to appropriate at least 
this amount will only result in a call for emergency funding later this 
year, an event that has occurred in each of the past 4 years. I agree 
with the able and distinguished Senator from Arizona that funding for 
Pell grants should be increased, but I cannot support a reduction in 
LIHEAP as a means of accomplishing this.
  A recent editorial from the Portland Press Herald in my State put it 
well when it stated:

       The idea of LIHEAP may seem frivolous to lawmakers from 
     warm, southern States. However, the subsidy remains essential 
     to residents in colder climates. That's especially true now 
     when welfare cuts and a rising cost of living have pushed so 
     many poor families so much closer to the edge. Asking low-
     income and elderly Mainers to choose between filling their 
     fuel tanks or their cupboards is not fair.

  I conclude my remarks by stating that asking the U.S. Senate to 
choose between LIHEAP and Pell grants is also not fair. It is a false 
choice and I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment offered by the 
distinguished Senator from Arizona.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am advised that the vote will not occur 
until 3 o'clock under our scheduling. So, if there are any additional 
speakers who wish to come to the floor at this time, we invite them to 
do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am aware the Senator from Minnesota, 
Senator Wellstone, had desired to speak against my amendment here. I am 
not aware of anyone else who intends to speak on it.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Do I understand there has been an agreement reached to have the vote 
at 3?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as is usually the case, there are absent 
Senators, one not due to return until 1 o'clock. We then have a 
conference until 2:15. Then there are hearings. So it will be our 
expectation, subject to checking with the distinguished majority 
leader, that the vote on this amendment would occur at 5 o'clock. But 
it would be our expectation that this would conclude the debate on the 
amendment. It wouldn't absolutely foreclose somebody who wanted to come 
down and speak on the matter, perhaps, briefly, but that would conclude 
the debate and we would hope to set the vote here for 5 o'clock and 
perhaps stack it with other votes at that time.
  Mr. HARKIN. If I might just ask the distinguished chairman.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield to my colleague.
  Mr. HARKIN. Obviously, we are open for business now. There are other 
amendments that I have heard about that are out there. So if other 
Senators have them, now is the time to come over, and perhaps if 
amendments are offered now and after the caucuses, after the 2:15 time, 
we could stack a bunch of votes at 5 o'clock. I know Senators like to 
do that, because they can schedule their time a little bit better. I 
hope any Senators who have amendments will come over now before we 
break for our party caucuses or come over at 2:15 and then we can stack 
the votes at 5 o'clock.
  Mr. SPECTER. If my distinguished colleague will yield, Mr. President, 
I think that would be a good arrangement. I said earlier, repeating 
what we said yesterday, it is our hope to finish action on this bill 
this evening. That is what we said yesterday after concurring with the 
majority leader. There is one possible exception to that, and that 
would relate to a possible amendment to preclude any funding for the 
administration testing, and an issue arose yesterday as to whether that 
amendment might be offered. Secretary Riley called Senator Harkin, 
myself and others yesterday, and we have scheduled a hearing for 
tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock so that we may have a better factual 
understanding on that matter before the vote comes up, if it does come 
up. It would be our hope we can conclude action on the bill this 
evening, with the exception of that possible vote following the hearing 
tomorrow morning.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside so that we might receive an amendment by the distinguished 
Senator from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, on a matter which I believe is 
acceptable to both sides. This involves an issue which has been 
resolved after laborious debates on related subjects, and it is one 
where the House of Representatives has worked out an accommodation. The 
amendment will now be offered by our colleague from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania 
and the Senator from Iowa for their allowing me to bring this amendment 
to the floor at this time.


                           Amendment No. 1061

 (Purpose: To provide for limitations with respect to expenditures for 
                               abortions)

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1061.


[[Page S8690]]


  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 77, strike lines 6 through 11, and insert the 
     following (and redesignate the following section 
     accordingly):
       Sec. 508. (a) None of the funds appropriated under this Act 
     shall be expended for any abortion.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated under this Act shall be 
     expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage 
     of abortion.
       (c) The term ``health benefits coverage'' means the package 
     of services covered by a managed care provider or 
     organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.
       Sec. 509. (a) The limitations established in the preceding 
     section shall not apply to an abortion--
       (1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or 
     incest; or
       (2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical 
     disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a 
     life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from 
     the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a 
     physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an 
     abortion is performed.
       (b) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as 
     prohibiting the expenditure by a State, locality, entity, or 
     private person of State, local, or private funds (other than 
     a State's or locality's contribution of medicaid matching 
     funds) for abortion services or coverage of abortion by 
     contract or other arrangement.
       (c) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as 
     restricting the ability of any managed care provider or 
     organization from offering abortion coverage or the ability 
     of a State or locality to contract separately with such a 
     provider for such coverage with State funds (other than a 
     State's or locality's contribution of medicaid matching 
     funds).

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, as a result of this amendment having 
been agreed to by both sides, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment? If not, the 
question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1061) was agreed to.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am pleased to have this opportunity to 
have updated our appropriations legislation so that the traditional 
Hyde amendment, which forbids and prohibits the utilization of Federal 
funds in abortions, could be a part of what we are doing as it relates 
to HMO's. Government's role is to help people to respond to their 
highest and best in life. However, I don't believe the highest and best 
utilization of Federal funding would be to fund the destruction of 
children in this country. For a long time, the Congress of the United 
States has agreed that Federal funds would not be used in conducting 
abortions.
  Yet, as developments transpire in health care, and as we change from 
one sort of service delivery system to another, old policies might need 
clarification to make sure that we do not change the prohibition on 
Federal funding for abortions. Let me explain.
  Twenty-one years ago, Congressman Henry Hyde offered an amendment to 
the then Labor-HEW bill to ban Federal funding of abortions. Every year 
since then, Congress has adopted that amendment. While there is 
substantial disagreement in America over the practice of abortion--very 
substantial disagreement--there has never been majority support in this 
body for Federal funding of abortions. As a matter of fact, there has 
been substantial agreement that we should not force Americans to pay 
with their Federal tax dollars for elective abortions.
  Many individuals simply feel that as a matter of conscience, they 
should not be participants in the destruction of unborn lives. I happen 
to be one of those individuals.
  The opposition to Federal funding for abortion has been so consistent 
in Congress and in America that normally the Hyde amendment is just 
included in Labor-HHS appropriations bills and passed with no 
discussion. In fact, that traditional Hyde amendment is in the bill 
which we are debating today. However, after 21 years, the language 
needs to be clarified, and I say ``clarified'' because we are not 
expanding it nor weakening it, we are just making its meaning crystal 
clear.
  To keep up with rapidly changing health care delivery modifications 
in Medicaid, and to prevent misinterpretations of the life-of-the-
mother exception, a technical change to the Hyde amendment is necessary 
if the amendment is to continue to prevent Federal tax dollars from 
subsidizing elective abortions. Such a subsidy would be a mandate on 
the U.S. taxpayers to pay for elective abortions. It would literally be 
an affront to the American people to take their money and demand that 
it be used to destroy unborn children. Such a Federal taxpayer subsidy 
would further sear the American conscience. It would offend the moral 
sensitivity of a great many Americans.
  The Hyde amendment in its current form may allow such subsidies to 
occur in today's health care environment. Just as other laws have had 
to be tweaked to function appropriately with HMO's, so does the Hyde 
amendment.
  The Medicaid Program has traditionally been a fee-for-service health 
care delivery system, and the Hyde amendment was written with that kind 
of system in mind. Under the system, it was relatively easy for the 
Government to block any utilization of Federal tax resources for 
subsidizing abortion.
  However, as the Medicaid structure is rapidly changing, many States 
are experimenting with delivery systems such as managed care, in which 
Federal funds are used to help pay for premiums for complete benefit 
packages instead of reimbursing for specific procedures after the fact.
  According to HCFA, 9 percent of Medicaid patients were served in 
managed care plans in 1991. By 1996, that figure had risen to 40 
percent, and it is important to make sure that those health care 
packages, which are purchased with Federal resources, do not include 
the destruction of children in elective abortions. The use of Medicaid 
managed care is expected to continue to increase in the future, and 
there is a legitimate concern that since the Federal Government no 
longer receives billings for specific medical services under these 
managed care contracts, but simply pays for a portion of the overall 
premium, that some States might allow coverage of abortion on demand 
with these federally funded contracts.
  For example, under a fee-for-service structure, we would never allow 
a bill from a provider to be paid for an elective abortion. However, 
when you are paying for medical services in advance in a lump sum to an 
organization like an HMO, and in return for that lump sum they are 
meeting the medical needs of individuals, you don't get individual 
bills. So there would be no way to make sure that you weren't paying 
for elective abortions in such a setting, absent the clarifications 
which we are placing in the law today.
  Federal subsidy of elective abortions has never been the intent of 
Congress. The amendment which we have adopted today will make sure that 
we continue to state with clarity that, regardless of the method of 
payment for Medicaid services, Federal resources are not to be used to 
destroy the lives of unborn children in elective abortions.
  How will this new change apply in practice? Federal funds are 
currently used to pay the premium or capitation fees to enroll Medicaid 
patients in managed care plans. Without any accountability to the 
Federal Government, those plans could routinely provide abortion 
alongside other benefits as part of their complete packages. The HMO 
gets an amount of money. It provides a complete package of health care 
service. Technically, under this payment structure, the Federal funds 
are never used to pay for a particular service or a particular 
abortion, but, in practice, they could be used to subsidize abortions 
beyond those permitted by the Hyde amendment. To prevent this from 
happening, today we have updated the Hyde amendment to specify that 
States may not use Federal money to purchase health care coverage that 
includes abortion coverage.
  Precedent exists for clarifying such a Federal funding limitation. 
Congress already considered this indirect funding situation when it 
gave almost unanimous approval to similar language in the Assisted 
Suicide Funding Restriction Act which Senator Dorgan and I introduced 
earlier this year. President Clinton signed this legislation on April 
30, so we have an existing law on the books that deals with this issue. 
The Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act stated that no funds could 
be appropriated for the purpose

[[Page S8691]]

of paying, directly or indirectly, for health benefit coverage for 
assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing. We are using similar 
health benefits coverage language in this bill.
  In the abortion context itself, we have precedent, in that a similar 
provision was included in the so-called kid care legislation passed in 
the reconciliation legislation which the President signed on August 5. 
Congressional leaders and the administration negotiated this language, 
which the Senate approved by a vote of 85 to 15.
  Also, similar language on abortion funding was approved by the 104th 
Congress without controversy as a part of Medicaid revisions in the 
fiscal year 1996 OBRA bill which the President vetoed for reasons 
unrelated to this issue.
  It is important to point out that we should not have the wrong 
incentives in our Medicaid Program, and it is true that it is cheaper 
to abort a child than it is to care for the mother through the 
pregnancy and to deliver the child. I would be very leery about having 
a system where the Federal Government provided an amount of money to an 
HMO which, having a financial incentive to do the cheaper thing, aborts 
the child rather than encouraging the mother to have the child and 
provide for delivery. And similarly, I have serious reservations about 
the potential for assisted suicide, where the HMO could deliver lethal 
drugs to a patient and, as a result, reduce the cost of doing business. 
We want to have incentives to life and incentives to health, especially 
for HMO's who might otherwise be tempted by financial situations not to 
encourage individuals to fight the fight for life.
  Whenever the lives of unborn children are destroyed, I believe there 
is a toll on the American conscience, and I think it is substantial. 
When Government provides an opportunity for abortion with Federal 
funds, we certainly find ourselves in a serious situation where the 
moral fabric of the country would be stretched, if not permanently 
torn. I am pleased today that the Senate has agreed to say that we 
should not provide the opportunity for elective abortions to be funded 
by Federal resources, even in the HMO setting.
  In each such instance where Government is making a judgment, it needs 
to make a judgment that favors life, that respects the lives of 
children, that provides for the dignity of the lives of older Americans 
as well. Any time we unduly disregard and devalue life, we have carved 
something important out of the American personality.
  If we are to indelibly stamp the next century with American values, 
the values of opportunity and freedom, as we have in this century, if 
we are to be a leader in the world, as we have in this century--and 
there are hundreds of millions of people that are free today around the 
globe because we have been strong and we have been free and we have 
been dedicated to freedom--we need all of our resources, we need the 
moral fabric of America, and we cannot destroy it or unduly sear the 
conscience of Americans by requiring the payment for elective abortions 
out of Federal tax dollars.
  I say as well that we need our children. As we look to the next 
century, America will not survive without our children. Destroying 
children is contradictory to preparing for the future.
  I believe that the assault on the sanctity of life is a moral crisis 
and that any use of taxpayer funds to pay for such an assault and 
perpetuate the destruction of America's children would be disabling to 
the moral compasses of all Americans.
  When he wrote on slavery in America, Thomas Jefferson, the South's 
first and greatest President, confronted the great moral issue of his 
time. Jefferson said of slavery, ``I tremble for my country when I 
reflect that God is just and that his justice cannot sleep forever.'' 
Sometimes I tremble when I reflect on abortion's terrible toll on lives 
and the siphoning off of our moral indignation and our capacity to 
prepare for the next century.
  I am pleased the Senate today has taken a very clear step in saying 
there will be no Federal funding of elective abortions in the Medicaid 
HMO setting, just as we have for over 20 years provided that there 
would be no Federal funding for elective abortions in Medicaid fee-for-
service programs.
  I thank the Chair, and I thank the managers of the bill.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment conforms the provisions of 
the Hyde amendment, which were developed for fee-for-service, so that 
the same limitations would apply on Medicaid, on managed care.
  This has been a very controversial issue for many years and has taken 
up the attention of this Chamber and the House of Representatives. 
After many votes and a lot of deliberation and a lot of negotiations, 
the Hyde amendment has been crafted in its existing form as it applies 
to fee-for-service, and this carries it forward to managed care.
  I am advised that in the House of Representatives they have worked 
through this same amendment and have made the request, through their 
staff, that we have it accepted here. We had intended to put it in a 
managers' package. I have conferred with my distinguished colleague, 
Senator Harkin, who is on the floor at the present time. The 
distinguished Senator from Missouri discussed it with the managers and 
sought to offer it in the form that it has been offered and to make a 
statement. I think that concludes the matter in a way that has existed 
for many, many years as an accommodation of many complex and 
conflicting issues.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his 
accommodation in this respect. He is entirely correct; this extends the 
same protections and the same regime of Federal funding to the HMO 
setting that we have had in the fee-for-service setting, and it is 
appropriate that we extend the commitment of the Congress in this 
respect.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, despite their many disagreements, 
supporters of both the pro-life and pro-choice positions on abortion 
have been able to agree on one fundamental point: American taxpayers 
should not be forced to subsidize abortions. This is a consensus view 
of long standing.
  Back in 1976, Congress first passed what has come to be called the 
Hyde amendment. First introduced by Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois, 
this amendment prevents the use of Federal funds to pay for abortions. 
Specifically, the Hyde amendment prevents Federal Medicaid 
reimbursement for abortion procedures, with certain exceptions. This 
provision has proven effective without being excessively onerous.
  Now, however, the nature of health care services is changing. 
Traditional fee-for-service Medicaid programs in many cases are giving 
way to managed care. Indeed, according to the Health Care Financing 
Administration [HCFA], 40 percent of Medicaid recipients were served by 
managed care plans in 1996.
  This surge in managed care requires that we alter the Hyde amendment 
language to ensure that taxpayer dollars will continue to be protected 
from use in abortion procedures. This is necessary, Mr. President, 
because, under managed care delivery, Federal funds are used to help 
pay premiums for complete benefits packages instead of reimbursing for 
specific procedures.
  I would like to thank Senator Ashcroft for offering an amendment that 
would close this loophole. This updated language specifies that States 
may not use Federal funds to purchase, in whole or in part, health care 
packages that include abortion coverage. States should be able to use 
their own separate funds to purchase additional abortion coverage.
  Mr. President, this language represents no departure from our 
existing policies. Rather, it is a measured attempt to maintain current 
policies, regarding the use of Federal funds for abortion, in the face 
of changing circumstance. Similar language to that being proposed has 
been used already, in the Assisted Suicide Funding Restrictions Act, 
and in the Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Reconciliation Act.
  This language is the product of a compromise reached by Congressman 
Hyde and pro-choice Congresswoman Nita Lowey. It should, in my view, be 
noncontroversial.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, Senator Harkin and I are now looking for 
business. A solicitation, I believe, is appropriate under these 
circumstances. As we had announced yesterday and today, it is our hope 
we will finish this

[[Page S8692]]

bill today. We ask that any Senator who intends to offer an amendment 
to let us know by noon today.
  There may be one amendment which we cannot complete today. That 
involves the limitation of funding on testing proposed by the 
administration. As I had said earlier, Congressman Goodling has stated 
publicly his intention to offer such an amendment on the House 
appropriations bill. It had been suggested that a similar amendment be 
offered on this bill.
  Secretary of Education Riley contacted Senator Harkin and I, and 
others, yesterday on this subject. Senator Harkin and I, in 
collaboration with our committee chairman, Senator Stevens, have 
scheduled a hearing tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock. So if that vote is 
to occur on the bill, it would occur after we have been informed on 
some of the specifics of the administration's proposal.
  So we are now looking for amendments.
  In the absence of any Senator seeking recognition, Mr. President, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. I will talk for just a few minutes on the bill before the 
Senate. Of course, we are talking about the Labor, HHS, Education bill, 
one of the largest bills before the Senate. As a matter of fact, a 
total of about $270 billion of expenditure. Only about $80 billion of 
that are we really discussing because that is discretionary. The rest 
are entitlements.
  However, I do think it is illustrative of one of the things I feel 
very strongly about, and that is the opportunity to have oversight on 
the expenditure of large amounts of tax money, or small amounts for 
that matter.
  I want to make it clear that I will support this bill. I think the 
appropriations folks have worked hard on it. I have no particular 
quarrel with what they have done, but I want to make a point that it 
seems to me this system needs to be reviewed. The system needs to be 
changed. I cannot think of another institution in the civilized world 
that spends $270 billion annually and has no more oversight than we do 
in the U.S. Congress. We have a remedy for that. We think we ought to 
go to a biannual budget so that we would do this on a 2-year basis, 
which has some advantages. It allows the agencies to know what their 
funds will be for a longer period of time. But more importantly, in 
this instance it allows the Congress to have some oversight of the 
efficiency of the spending of these dollars.
  For example, Mr. President, we are talking here about drug abuse 
prevention and treatment programs, $2.8 billion. I am for that. We 
certainly need drug abuse prevention and treatment programs. But how 
are they working? Is the $2.7 billion giving us the kind of results we 
hoped it would? I do not think we know that. Now, certainly there is 
some oversight.
  We are also talking about Head Start, $4.3 billion for Head Start. I 
am a fan of Head Start. I think it is a program that brings young 
people, in their early formative ages, into a position of having some 
hope, to help form their lives. Is it doing the job? Are we spending 
the money as efficiently as we might? Are the dollars going to the 
people that really need the help? I do not know that. I do not know 
that.
  Job Corps; I am not a particular fan of Job Corps. Nevertheless, we 
are spending $1.3 billion on Job Corps. What are the results? What are 
we doing? Who is being helped? Is the help getting there? What is the 
administrative cost and the overhead?
  It seems to me those are things that we ought to be as interested in 
as we are in providing funding for the programs, and I think taxpayers 
are entitled to have that kind of oversight.
  Individuals for Disabilities Education, IDEA. I am very, very 
impressed with that. My wife is a special ed teacher. I was chairman of 
the Disabilities Council in Wyoming. There is nothing more important. 
But the question is, are we spending the money as well as we might? I 
find some administrators in schools who say, ``Look, we have to change 
this or we will never be able to afford the kinds of services for the 
handicapped because we are always in court,'' and we do everything to 
avoid courts.
  If that is the case, it seems to me we ought to take a long look at 
what is happening to the bucks. Who are they going to? Are they as 
efficient as they possibly could be? Are the regulatory constraints 
something that disallow the efficient spending of this money?
  With respect to the Government Performance and Results Act, which I 
also support and think may have some merit, this is to improve the 
management of Federal agencies, to require emphasis on planning, 
hopefully on results. Planning, I hope has in it measurable activities 
so we can see if we are making progress. Here is what the committee 
says: ``We were encouraged the Federal agencies are making an effort to 
fulfill their requirements.'' Frankly, Mr. President, that is not good 
enough--we are hopeful they are making an effort to fulfill the 
requirements. Give me a break. We are spending $280 billion, $70 
billion on the things we are talking about here in discretionary 
spending.
  Let me make it clear one more time that I am not opposed to these 
ideas. These are programs we need to have but we also need to have 
oversight. We need to make as sure as we can, as the U.S. Congress, 
that those dollars are producing the best results that we possibly can.
  I hope we will take a long look--I think we should--at the idea of 
biannual budgeting, and give us an opportunity to have oversight. The 
authorizing committee should, in fact, have the opportunity to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Would the distinguished Senator from Wyoming have the 
goodness to remain on the floor for a moment--I know he has a party 
conference to go to--just to allow me to congratulate him on his 
remarks.
  Two of the programs he mentioned, the Job Corps and Head Start, it 
happens I was a member of the Kennedy-Johnson administration. I was an 
Assistant Secretary of Labor and was on the group that put together the 
Economic Opportunity Act in 1964 which led to Head Start and to the Job 
Corps. These are not new initiatives. They go back now a third of a 
century. I didn't mean to think of myself as that ancient already.
  It is the case, sir, that we have had very little evaluation, very 
little longitudinal evaluation, where we follow things over time--
persons who entered the Job Corps in the 1960's will now be getting 
into their own fifties--and what has been the result cumulative, one 
way or the other. This is not something very attractive to governments 
that live on 2-year cycles, 4-year cycles and, at most, 6-year cycles, 
yet if we want to do something about these matters we ought to attend 
them in exactly the mode the Senator spoke of. This can be done.
  The mathematics, if you like, of evaluation have been very much in 
place since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorized the Coleman study. 
It was called an equality of educational opportunity in which we 
learned great things which surprised us. We thought we knew all about 
education in those days and we found out we knew very little. I am not 
sure we have learned much since.
  I take the opportunity to thank the Senator from Wyoming for what he 
has said, and I hope he will stay with the issue.
  Mr. THOMAS. Thank you. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from 
New York. I suspect there is nobody in this body who has the kind of 
background institutional knowledge about these programs as the Senator. 
I appreciate your comments.
  I yield the floor.
  (The remarks of Mr. Moynihan and Mr. D'Amato pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 1144 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________