[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 114 (Wednesday, September 3, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8693-S8710]
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 Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is amendment 1056, 
offered by Senator Kyl of Arizona.
  The Senator from Maine.


                           Amendment No. 1056

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Kyl 
amendment to the fiscal 1998 Labor, Health and Education appropriations 
bill, which would devastate an already underfunded Low-Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program. Although I am a strong supporter of the Pell 
Grant Program, which provides critical assistance and access for needy 
students, I cannot support the Kyl amendment, knowing that it will 
reduce the low-income fuel assistance limited funding.
  I regret the Senator from Arizona has offered this amendment to 
reduce the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program in order to 
provide an increase to the Pell Grant Program. I hope we can follow the 
House lead in this regard, by providing an increase in the Pell Grant 
Program but without affecting the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program. The bottom line is LIHEAP provides invaluable assistance to 
low-income and elderly households in America that must not be 
sacrificed. Make no mistake about it, this means-tested program is 
specifically targeted to those who already are in desperate need of 
financial assistance. To be precise, according to the Department of 
Health and Human Services, more than two-thirds of the households 
receiving Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program assistance have 
annual incomes of less than $8,000 a year, and more than half have 
incomes below $6,000 a year.
  While I believe that all programs must be asked to contribute their 
fair share in our efforts to balance the budget, it is worth noting 
that the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program has already taken 
more than its fair share of budget cuts in recent years. Overall, the 
funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program has fallen 
consistently and dramatically since 1985. In fiscal year 1985, the 
program received $2.1 billion. This year, it will receive $1 billion. 
In real terms, this represents a cut of more than 65 percent. Yet, 
despite this dramatic cut, the Senator from Arizona is proposing we 
further reduce this critically important but limited low-income 
assistance funding by an additional $528 million, or 53 percent of its 
already paltry budget.
  Furthermore, we should not be proposing a cut to a program that is 
already woefully underfunded and serves only a minority of its eligible 
recipients. Because of past spending cuts, LIHEAP now provides benefits 
to only 20 percent of all eligible households. This means that 80 
percent of America's households meet the income qualifications to 
receive benefits, but there is simply not enough money to provide 
assistance to them all. Needless to say, this proposed $528 million 
reduction represents a very real risk of keeping many low-income 
families from being able to heat their homes in the winters ahead, even 
as it eviscerates a program that has already contributed more than its 
fair share to deficit reduction.
  It is also worth noting that even for those families that do receive 
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program benefits, it is not a very 
high sum. In my home State of Maine, the average benefit last year was 
$308. In the midst of a severely cold winter, that $308 was the only 
way that 33,000 low-income and elderly Mainers were able to heat their 
homes. So, although a $528 million reduction may seem small in the 
overall budget of the U.S. Government, and $308 may not sound like much 
to many people, it means a great deal to the residents of my State who 
do not want to be forced this winter into the position of choosing 
between heat and food.
  The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program has already taken more 
than its fair share of reductions since its inception back in 1981, and 
simply cannot afford any further reductions in this very critical 
program. Any additional cut in this already underfunded program 
represents a very serious risk to low-income and elderly households in 
my State of Maine and all the cold weather regions of this country that 
rely on this very important, essential program.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Kyl 
amendment and adopting the approach that has been taken by the House 
that provides for increased support for the Pell Grant Program but 
without reducing LIHEAP that is so critical to many people in my State 
and so many other States who are located in cold weather areas of our 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to begin by thanking Senator 
Specter and the members of the Labor, Education, HHS appropriations 
subcommittee for bringing this bill to the floor.
  This bill contains a much needed funding increase for the National 
Institutes of Health. Earlier this year I joined with 97 of my 
colleagues in this Senate body in voting for a sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment calling for a doubling of NIH funding over the next 5 years. 
The bill that we have in front of us today represents a substantial 
step forward. It increases funding for NIH from $12.7 to $13.69 
billion. This funding, simply, Mr. President, will save lives.
  There are two measures in this bill that I would like to call to the 
attention of my colleagues, and that I believe deserve special mention. 
Earlier this year I introduced, along with Senator Kennedy and Senator 
Bond, a bill which would establish a pediatric research initiative 
within the Office of the Director of NIH. Senator Kennedy and I and 
Senator Bond, along with many sponsors of that bill, have worked hard 
to develop a proposal that we feel helps place appropriate emphasis on 
pediatric research while at the same time supporting the scientific 
judgment so important to the success of NIH.
  The value of this initiative really is without question. Research 
breakthroughs to treat pediatric illnesses have been enormously 
effective both in reducing costs and, more important, in freeing young 
children from a lifetime of illness and disability. From vaccines to 
treat polio to surfactant replacement to prevent respiratory distress 
syndrome, research has saved hundreds of millions of dollars and 
improved the lives of millions of children.
  Recently, the Public Health and Safety Subcommittee of the Labor and 
Human Resources Committee held a hearing on NIH reauthorization. During 
the hearing, a distinguished panel of pediatric researchers from NIH 
and also from the private sector described some of the enormous 
opportunities that now exist for scientific progress in combating and 
in preventing diseases affecting children. Their testimony dramatically 
underscored the critical need for additional emphasis and increased 
support for pediatric research.
  Last year, the Labor, Education, and HHS appropriations subcommittee, 
chaired by Senator Specter, allocated $5 million as an initial 
downpayment toward the pediatric research initiative. This year the 
appropriations subcommittee has allocated $20 million toward this 
initiative. I personally thank Chairman Specter and the members of his 
subcommittee for their continued commitment to pediatric research. By 
recognizing the critical need to encourage and promote pediatric 
research, the committee has really helped ensure the next generation of 
Americans grows up to be healthy, productive members of our society.
  Mr. President, the second provision I would like to talk about in 
this bill is the funding for substance abuse and mental health 
services. Without the provision contained in this bill, some States 
would have faced massive cuts in the funding for their programs to help 
people with substance abuse and/or mental health problems. My own State 
of Ohio would have faced a devastating funding cut of more than 20 
percent, our neighboring State to the north, Michigan, would have 
received a cut of 19 percent, and other States would have also been 
seriously hurt. Among the important programs threatened by these cuts 
would have been the

[[Page S8694]]

agencies promoting early intervention with young people to help them 
find alternatives to getting involved with drugs and crime. I have long 
believed that the problem of at-risk youth in this country is one for 
which an ounce of prevention truly is worth a pound of cure. The sooner 
we can reach these young people, the better off we will be in our 
efforts to help them avoid the tragedy of lifetime addiction.
  The SAMHSA provision contained in this bill averts the awful 
consequences of the proposed funding cuts. It is a good measure and 
deserves strong support of the entire U.S. Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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, starting yesterday morning at 11 o'clock, 
in conjunction with scheduling from the majority leader, Senator Lott, 
and the ranking member on this subcommittee, Senator Harkin, we asked 
that amendments be brought with the hope of concluding action on this 
bill today, and that all amendments be submitted, first, by the end of 
business yesterday or no later than noon today. We have not had a great 
deal of business.
  The one exception would be an amendment which would deal with 
prohibiting Federal funding for testing, which the administration has 
in mind. Congressman Goodling had announced his intention to seek that 
kind of prohibition in the House.
  There had been comments yesterday that someone would offer that kind 
of legislation on the Senate side. The distinguished presiding officer, 
Senator Judd Gregg, said, with a pointed finger, it was he. I don't 
want to name names here, but I am prepared to identify those who are 
willing to be identified.
  I received a telephone call from the Secretary of Education, Richard 
Riley, yesterday afternoon, as did Senator Harkin and others. It seems 
to me that might be one matter we might put over until tomorrow and 
schedule the hearing at 9 o'clock to find the specifics as to whether 
that ought to be done. There is a sense that testing, in general, would 
be a good idea, but maybe it ought not to be done by the Federal 
Government. There is a great deal of concern about having the Federal 
Government move into the field of education. So we are going to move 
ahead at that time.
  Mr. President, I intend to offer an amendment later this afternoon 
calling for a sense of the Senate for the appointment of independent 
counsel. Although that is obviously not germane to an appropriations 
bill on Labor, Health, Human Services and Education, it is a practice 
in the Senate, with some repetition, to offer extraneous amendments, 
certainly sense-of-the-Senate resolutions.
  I had stated my intention to deal with this issue last July 24 and 
spoke extensively on the Senate floor on the appropriations bill 
pending at that time about my concern that independent counsel ought to 
be appointed based on the state of the record. Then when it was 
apparent that would tie up that bill, and the majority leader and the 
minority leader both wanted to move ahead, I said on July 25 that I 
would not pursue this sense-of-the-Senate resolution at that time and 
waited an additional month.
  I do believe that we urgently need appointment of independent counsel 
at the present time. I base that judgment on a series of letters which 
have been written by a variety of Members of Congress to the Attorney 
General, and she has declined to do so--a formal letter written by the 
majority members of the Judiciary Committee calling on the Attorney 
General to appoint independent counsel, and she has declined to do so.
  Then we had extensive hearings last April 30 on the Judiciary 
Committee where I questioned Attorney General Reno about the 
withholding of information from the President on national security 
matters, which appear to me to be a highly questionable thing to do, 
and that the President was publicly quoted saying that those national 
security matters had been withheld from him and he thought he should 
have been given access to those matters.

  In our constitutional Government it is my judgment that the rule is 
plain, that those are matters for the President as long as he is the 
President. There are ways to alter his status as President, but as long 
as he is the President, it is not up to an appointed Attorney General 
to make the decision that the President does not get national security 
information because, as the Attorney General testified, he was a 
potential suspect in a pending investigation. The damage about such a 
disclosure to a potential subject, in my view, is far, far less 
dangerous than having national security information withheld from the 
President of the United States.
  But it did seem to me that in that context that if the matter was 
serious enough to withhold information from the President, that 
certainly the independent counsel statute ought to be triggered. That 
is the statute which provides for an independent lawyer to come in and 
handle the case where it involves certain levels of Federal Government 
enumerated officials such as the President and the Vice President and 
Cabinet officers, especially in the context where Attorney General Reno 
testified in her confirmation hearings about her view of the importance 
of independent counsel.
  There is also the question about the advertisements. According to 
Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, and also Dick Morris, the President's 
political adviser, advertisements had been edited, drafted, essentially 
written by the President himself. There would be no question that there 
would be coordination in violation of the Federal statute prohibiting 
coordination if those in fact were advocacy commercials. We went 
through the commercials with the Attorney General. This was done on 
both sides. But the ones that were edited by the President extolled the 
President's virtues and decried his opponent's alleged failings, but 
fell short of saying vote for x or vote against y. By any reasonable 
standard, those were advocacy commercials, but they were viewed as 
being instead issue commercials and did not constitute a violation of 
the statute which prohibits coordination.
  Well, that plus a great many other factors, I think, have set the 
stage for the need for independent counsel. We have had disclosures in 
this morning's Washington Post about funds being raised by the Vice 
President which were hard money and not soft money. The Attorney 
General had previously said that if it is soft money it is not a 
contribution under the Federal election laws, a judgment or 
interpretation which is inexplicable, in my opinion. It is a 
contribution nonetheless.
  Hundreds of millions of dollars were put into the campaigns on both 
sides, Democrats and Republicans. But now there has been the forceful 
allegation made, information that a good bit of the money raised by the 
Vice President was hard money, and that would take away the last 
vestige as to what Attorney General Reno had said justified her refusal 
to appoint independent counsel.
  So it is my intention, Mr. President, to call for a vote on this 
amendment that I send to the desk at this time so that it may be filed 
and reviewed by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Later this 
afternoon I do intend to offer it, and in fact had thought I would 
offer it when I sought recognition. But I see my colleague, Senator 
Dorgan, has come to the floor. I understand he intends to offer an 
amendment of his own. So I will defer offering this amendment at this 
time, but I will speak about it to this extent, to put my colleagues on 
notice that this issue will be on the floor at the conclusion of the 
Dorgan amendment.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor so my colleague, Senator 
Dorgan, may proceed.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page S8695]]

                           Amendment No. 1068

(Purpose: To increase the funding for heart and stroke research by the 
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of 
   Health, with an offset relating to funding for the buildings and 
            facilities of the National Institutes of Health)

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment.
  I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be laid aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1068.

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

       On page 30, line 21, strike ``$1,531,898,000.'' and insert 
     ``$1,539,898,000''.
       On page 35, line 22, strike ``$211,500,000'' and insert 
     ``$203,500,000''.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that floor 
privileges be granted to Jeff Hoffman of my staff.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator from 
Pennsylvania allowing me to offer this amendment at this time. I 
appreciate the cooperation of the Senator from Pennsylvania and the 
Senator from Iowa for their work on this legislation. I am going to 
talk just a bit about my amendment. Before I do, however, let me 
commend both Senator Specter and Senator Harkin for the work they have 
done on this piece of legislation.
  My amendment specifically deals with funding for the National 
Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and 
specifically an interest I have in trying to provide additional 
resources for NHLBI to be used to provide funding vitally needed for 
cardiovascular disease research.
  I am proposing $8 million be added to the Heart, Lung, and Blood 
Institute that I hope would be used for that purpose. The offset is 
from a corresponding reduction in the NIH buildings and facilities 
account. I believe that both the chairman and the ranking member, at 
the conclusion of my comments, will accept this amendment and for that 
I am grateful.
  It is undoubtedly true, as people watch the proceedings of the U.S. 
Senate, that many of us come to the floor of the Senate to talk about 
legislation that we think is necessary based on our personal 
experiences and observations. That has certainly been true with respect 
to a couple of issues I have worked on, including cardiovascular 
disease research.
  Madam President, I have a very personal interest in this, as others 
do. I have lost a daughter to heart disease. I have another daughter 
who has a heart defect that we hope, God willing, will not need surgery 
in the future. But I have spent enough time in cardiologists' offices 
and I have spent enough time talking about cardiovascular disease to 
understand that we must continue to substantially increase funding for 
research on cardiovascular disease.
  I have been involved, along with Senator Frist, as a Senate cochair 
of the Congressional Heart and Stroke Coalition to try to provide 
additional attention to the issue of heart disease and stroke and the 
need for greater research into these diseases.
  Many Americans are unaware of the extent and scope of heart disease 
and stroke, even though virtually all of us has a friend or loved one 
who has been affected by cardiovascular disease, so I would like to 
share some startling facts.
  Heart disease has been this country's No. 1 killer since 1919 for 
both men and women.
  Stroke continues to be the No. 3 killer in this country and the 
leading cause of disability in America.
  One in five Americans, more than 57 million people, suffer from one 
or more types of cardiovascular disease, including close to 14 million 
living with symptomatic coronary heart disease.
  One in two women will eventually die of heart disease or stroke.
  About one-sixth of cardiovascular disease deaths are among people 
under the age of 65.
  In 1979 there were 1.2 million cardiovascular operations and 
procedures performed in this country. That number climbed to 4.65 
million in 1994, close to a fourfold increase.
  The number of Americans suffering from congestive heart failure has 
grown to about 5 million, with hospital discharges rising from 377,000 
in 1979 to 874,000 in 1994.
  More Americans die from heart attack and stroke each year than from 
AIDS, cancer, and diabetes combined. Let me repeat that because I think 
it is important. More Americans die from heart attack and stroke each 
year than from AIDS, cancer, and diabetes combined.
  I do not come to the floor of the Senate to in any way suggest that 
we ought to enhance research funding on one disease at the expense of 
critically needed research funding for others. I have supported 
substantial research for AIDS, supported efforts to improve research 
and treatment of diabetes and cancer. In fact, I have supported a 
substantial increase in funding for the National Institutes of Health 
and I voted earlier this year to double funding for the National 
Institutes of Health over the next five years. I think this would be a 
wonderful investment for our country.
  I have become increasingly concerned, however, with what has been 
happening with respect to the amount of money spent on heart disease 
research. Even with the significant increases that Congress has been 
giving the National Institutes of Health over the past decade, funding 
for heart disease research specifically has simply not kept pace. In 
fact, heart disease research at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood 
Institute has decreased by 4.8 percent in constant dollars over the 
last decade, while the NIH overall budget has increased by 31 percent 
in constant dollars.
  A step toward rectifying this concern was taken this year. For that I 
commend Senator Specter and Senator Harkin. They have provided in this 
bill a $99.4 million increase for the National Heart, Lung, and Blood 
Institute, the third largest dollar increase among the NIH institutes. 
But even with this increase, if we look beyond the surface, we can see 
that, without my amendment, the funding for cardiovascular disease 
research would continue to decrease relative to the overall budget.
  The $8 million that my amendment would add would bring the National 
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute budget up to the same 7.5-percent 
level of increase as the overall budget at the National Institutes of 
Health. It is my hope that this funding would be devoted to 
cardiovascular disease research.
  It is interesting to visit the Bethesda campus of the National 
Institutes of Health. I encourage my colleagues to do so. There are 
wonderful men and women working there doing remarkable, breathtaking 
research on a wide range of issues. I have talked to physicians doing 
research in the area of cardiovascular disease and what they are doing 
is remarkable. It has already saved lives and can save even more lives 
with additional resources.
  We now routinely see people with advanced heart disease with symptoms 
that in previous decades would have caused death. Today, these patients 
are able to undergo procedures and operations that allow them to 
continue to lead productive, active lives. These advances are the 
wonderful result of an investment in research. We can do much, much 
more.

  I said I don't want to decrease research funding for other diseases. 
In fact, I would like to substantially increase the amount of funding 
for the NIH generally, far above its current level, because I think the 
rewards for the people in our country and around the world would be 
substantial.
  It should be noted, however, that heart disease and stroke receive 
one-twentieth of the research funding per death of AIDS, cancer, and 
diabetes combined. Now if you divide the amount spent on research into 
the number of people who are dying from various diseases, it is clear 
that the amount of research funding invested in cardiovascular disease 
is not keeping pace. That is why I offer this amendment.
  This amendment has the strong support of the American Heart 
Association, the Association of Black Cardiologists, Mended Hearts, 
Inc., and the

[[Page S8696]]

National Coalition for Heart and Stroke Research. I ask unanimous 
consent that letters from these organizations in support of my 
amendment be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   American Heart Association,

                                  Washington, DC, August 29, 1997.
     Hon. Byron Dorgan,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dorgan: On behalf of the 57.5 million 
     Americans suffering from heart attack, stroke and other 
     cardiovascular diseases, the American Heart Association 
     strongly supports your amendment to the Labor-HHS-Education 
     Appropriation bill. The AHA commends your leadership and 
     initiative in offering an amendment to increase the funding 
     pool for the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
     (NHLBI) by $8 million, targeted specifically for additional 
     heart and stroke-related research. Cardiovascular diseases, 
     America's No. 1 killer and a leading cause of disability, 
     suffer from disproportionately low research funding.
       As various indicators show, there has been a dramatic 
     increase in the prevalence of heart disease and stroke, with 
     an unparalleled cost to our society that threatens our 
     future. More than 1 in 5 Americans of all ages suffer from 
     heart attack, stroke and other cardiovascular diseases. These 
     diseases consume about 1 of 6 health care dollars, with a 
     price tag of an estimated $259 billion in medical expenses 
     and lost productivity in 1997. Heart diseases and stroke 
     represent 4 of the top 5 hospital costs to the health care 
     system for all payers, excluding childbirth and its 
     complications, and 4 of the top 5 Medicare hospital costs.
       In constant dollars from FY 1986 to FY 1996 funding for the 
     NHLBI extramural Heart Program decreased 5.5 percent. In a 
     recent nationwide survey 79 percent and 77 percent of 
     respondents support more federal funding for heart and stroke 
     research, respectively.
       Our government's response to the heart disease and stroke 
     problem today will help define the health and well being of 
     Americans in the next century. Now is the time to capitalize 
     on progress in understanding cardiovascular diseases when 
     breakthroughs are on the horizon. Promising research 
     opportunities will result in better treatment, prevention and 
     even cures for heart attack, stroke and other cardiovascular 
     diseases. A significant increase in research funding will 
     reduce premature death, improve quality of life, cut health 
     care costs and enhance America's scientific competitiveness.
       Thank you for your consistent leadership in the battle 
     against heart attack, stroke and other cardiovascular 
     diseases.
           Sincerely,
                                         Martha Hill, Ph.D., R.N.,
     President.
                                  ____

                                              Association of Black


                                          Cardiologists, Inc.,

                                   Atlanta, GA, September 2, 1997.
     Hon. Byron Dorgan,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Dorgan: The Association of Black Cardiologists 
     (ABC), is pleased that you have offered amendment S. 1061, 
     the FY 1998 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill to 
     increase resources for the National Heart, Lung, and Blood 
     Institute (NHLB) by $8 million, targeted specifically for 
     additional heart and stroke-related research. The Association 
     of Black Cardiologists (ABC), enthusiastically supports your 
     amendment. Our 600 plus members vigorously support this 
     amendment, and believe it is vital to the health of our 
     constituents.
       Despite progress, heart attack, stroke and other 
     cardiovascular diseases remain the leading cause of death in 
     the United States and a main cause of disability. Over 57 
     million Americans . . . more than 1 in 5, are afflicted by 
     one or more cardiovascular diseases. It is even severe 
     contact more in African Americans. Heart attack, stroke and 
     other cardiovascular diseases will cost this nation an 
     estimated $259 billion in medical expenses and loss of work 
     place productivity in 1997.
       An increase in research funding for NHLB heart and stroke-
     related research is critical to reduce premature death, 
     improve quality of life, cut health care costs and enhance 
     America's economic competitiveness. An overwhelming number of 
     respondents in a recent nationwide survey supports more 
     federal funding of heart and stroke research, 79% and 77% 
     respectively. However, in FY 1986 constant dollars, funding 
     for the NHLBI Heart Program decreased 5.5% from FY 1986 to FY 
     1996.
       Promising scientific opportunities in the battle against 
     cardiovascular diseases could be realized with more resources 
     for research. This is the time to capitalize on the progress 
     in understanding cardiovascular diseases.
       The Association of Black Cardiologists applauds your 
     leadership in the fight against these killer diseases and 
     commends your initiative in offering this amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                       B. Waine Kong, Ph.D., M.D.,
     Chief Operating Officer.
                                  ____



                                      The Mended Hearts, Inc.,

                                    Dallas, TX, September 2, 1997.
     Hon. Byron Dorgan,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dorgan: Mended Hearts is a national voluntary 
     organization of people who have heart disease, their spouses, 
     family members, caregivers and medical professionals. Mended 
     Hearts actively supports your floor amendment to the FY 1998 
     Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related 
     Agencies Appropriation bill that increases the funding pool 
     for the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) by 
     $8 million, targeted specifically for additional heart and 
     stroke-related research.
       About 20 million Americans of all ages live with the 
     ramifications of heart disease. Of this group, nearly 13.7 
     million, including about 7 million under age 60, live with 
     the effects of heart attack and about 5 million suffer from 
     congestive heart failure, the leading cause of 
     hospitalization for Americans age 65 and older. Heart defects 
     are the most common birth defect, the major cause of birth 
     defects-related infant deaths and a considerable cause of 
     childhood disability.
       The prevalence of heart disease is rising rapidly, with a 
     tremendous economic toll on the economy of the United States. 
     For example, in 1994 there were 4.7 million cardiovascular 
     operations and procedures, compared to 1.2 million in 1979--a 
     fourfold increase.
       It is estimated that heart attack, stroke and other 
     cardiovascular diseases will cost this nation $259 billion in 
     medical expenses and lost output in 1997. Despite the 
     seriousness and overwhelming costs of these diseases, in 
     constant dollars from FY 1986 to FY 1996 funding for the 
     NHLBI Heart Program decreased 5.5 percent.
       On behalf of the 24,000 members of Mended Hearts in 220 
     chapters nationwide, I commend your championship and 
     leadership in the battle against heart disease. Your 
     amendment will have a far reaching impact on the main cause 
     of death in the United States--heart disease. Promising 
     research opportunities for innovative cost-effective 
     approaches to the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of 
     heart disease can be developed with these needed resources.
       Thank you for your efforts.
           Sincerely,
                                                Charles Christmas,
     National President.
                                  ____

                                            National Coalition for


                                    Heart and Stroke Research,

                                Washington, DC, September 2, 1997.
     Hon. Byron Dorgan,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Dorgan: The National Coalition for Heart and 
     Stroke Research, enthusiastically supports your amendment to 
     S. 1061, the FY 1998 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriation bill 
     to increase resources for the National Heart, Lung, and Blood 
     Institute (NHLBI) by $8 million, targeted specifically for 
     additional heart and stroke-related research. Your amendment 
     is critical to the health of all Americans.
       About 57 million Americans--more than 1 in 5--are afflicted 
     by one or more cardiovascular diseases. Heart attack, stroke 
     and other cardiovascular diseases will cost this nation an 
     estimated $259 billion in medical expenses and lost 
     productivity in 197. These diseases place a heavy burden on 
     America's health care system, absorbing about 1 of 6 health 
     care dollars. Excluding childbirth and its complications, 
     heart diseases and stroke make up 4 of the top 5 hospital 
     costs for all players, and 4 of the top 5 Medicare hospital 
     costs.
       Despite progress, heart attack, stroke and other 
     cardiovascular diseases remain the leading cause of death in 
     the United States and a main cause of disability.
       An increase in research funding for NHLBI heart and stroke-
     related-research is critical to reduce premature death, 
     improve quality of life, cut health care costs and enhance 
     America's economic competitiveness. Many Americans agree! An 
     overwhelming number of respondents in a recent nationwide 
     survey support more federal funding for heart and stroke 
     research, 79 percent and 77 percent, respectively. However, 
     in FY 1986 constant dollars, funding for the NHLBI extramural 
     Heart Program decreased 5.5 percent from FY 1986 to FY 1996.
       Promising scientific opportunities in the battle against 
     cardiovascular diseases could be realized with more resources 
     for research. This is the time to capitalize on progress in 
     understanding cardiovascular diseases.
       The National Coalition for Heart and Stroke Research 
     applauds your leadership in the fight against these killer 
     diseases and commends your initiative in offering this 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                      Renee Smith, Representative.

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, it is my hope that in some small way, 
with this small step, a researcher will now unlock one more mystery of 
how the human heart works.
  I mentioned the wonderful discoveries that are made through research 
and the wonderful treatments that are provided in our hospitals in the 
area of cardiology, and yet there is so much we still do not know. 
Those of us who have waited through heart surgery with members of our 
family know that when you talk to the cardiovascular surgeons they will 
tell you that there are times when they simply don't know what has 
caused this or that condition.

[[Page S8697]]

  It seems to me more and more research can unlock those mysteries and 
give us the opportunity to save more and more lives in this country 
that otherwise would be lost to this insidious enemy called heart 
disease.
  With that, I thank very much the chairman and the ranking member and 
ask that my amendment be favorably considered. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
North Dakota for offering this amendment. I agree with him about the 
importance of additional funding for pulmonary research, for heart 
research. It is a major killer in the United States. We ought to be 
doing everything we can to investigate, find cures and implement them.
  The amendment which has been offered carries an offset on 
administration and it has been modified from what the Senator from 
North Dakota had originally suggested, which would have been 
earmarking, which poses problems, because we do not earmark but instead 
leave that designation to the National Institutes of Health so we do 
not have excessive management or micromanagement by the Congress as to 
what the NIH funds must have. I think Senator Dorgan made a forceful 
statement that those funds ought to be directed in that way, and the 
officials at NIH will have that before them. I am confident they will 
make every effort they can to carry out the intent with which my 
colleague has expressed here.
  We have vast sums of money at NIH. We are increasing it. It is $952 
million now, and is up to $13.7 billion. Notwithstanding all that 
funding, there are many applications which are not granted. This one 
expresses what the Senator from North Dakota thinks ought to be done.
  I am advised Senator Harkin is off the floor now attending a 
committee meeting and necessarily absent, but I am advised by his staff 
that Senator Harkin finds this amendment acceptable, as do I, as 
manager for the majority. We accept the amendment.
  I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1068) was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1070

  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set 
aside, and I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1070.

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

       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec.   . (a) Prohibition of Funds for National Testing in 
     Reading and Mathematics.--None of the funds made available in 
     this Act may be used to develop, plan, implement, or 
     administer any national testing program in reading or 
     mathematics.
       (b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the 
     following:
       (1) The National Assessment of Educational Progress carried 
     out under sections 411 through 413 of the Improving America's 
     Schools Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 9010-9012).
       (2) The Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS).

  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, as the excellent chairman of the labor 
subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee mentioned earlier, there 
is a pending issue which is of considerable significance which has 
arisen in the last few weeks as a result of the question of how we are 
going to pursue national testing. The chairman of the committee has 
mentioned he would hope this issue, from the standpoint of an amendment 
to the bill, would be taken up for final vote tomorrow sometime. I am 
certainly agreeable to that.
  However, it had been my intention, along with Senator Coats, to offer 
an amendment today on this issue, and in talking it over with the 
chairman he suggested we offer the amendment and then hold the vote 
until tomorrow. That certainly is an approach which I am perfectly 
happy to follow.
  This amendment, which is basically directed at codifying what we 
understand now to be the President's position--and we say ``now'' 
because the President's position on national testing appears to have 
undergone a transformation at some fairly high level of significance. 
It reflects that decision by the President to no longer push national 
testing as something that should be controlled and directed by the 
Department of Education but rather to have national testing to the 
extent it be developed by independent agencies. Using the term 
``independent,'' I mean agencies which are independent of the Federal 
Government and which are not under the Federal Government or even under 
the Federal Government's control through the use of the appropriations 
process.
  Why is this important? There are a large number of us involved in the 
issue of reforming education who feel very strongly that national 
testing makes sense, but to have it controlled by, designed by or in 
any way managed by the Department of Education here in Washington does 
not make sense. That would be a fundamental flaw.
  We are encouraged, and we think it is appropriate that the President 
appears to have come to this conclusion himself over the weekend. 
Although his initial reaction was to have the Department of Education 
run this type of a national testing program, his decision now is to 
move it to the private sector and allow the private sector and the 
private nonprofits to develop the proper testing standards.
  Why is this important? Because the issue of national testing is 
important at a variety of different levels. In a positive way it is 
important because it will give communities an opportunity to compare 
how their students are doing with other students, to compare how their 
schools are doing with other schools, compare how their educators are 
doing with other educators across the country. That is very 
significant.
  It is not unique, national testing. We have in this country one of 
the most expansive national testing programs probably anywhere in the 
world called the SAT test. It comes at the end of the school system, 
the end of the educational experience, at least as far as elementary 
and secondary schools are concerned, and juniors and seniors and 
sometimes sophomores, students in their high school years, will take 
tests. They have the SAT, the SAT 2, they have achievements, they have 
advanced placement tests, a whole series of tests which they take, 
quite a battery of tests. Anybody who has a child going through the SAT 
experience understands its intensity and recognizes this is one heck of 
a testing system which we have which is nationally driven which is, in 
fact, nationally directed, which is, in fact, nationally developed, and 
which is, in fact, a heck of a good system. I think the reason it 
worked so well is it has been energized and directed by the private 
sector of our country, not by the Federal Government.
  The downside of national testing is that if it is done by the Federal 
Government, at the direction of the Federal Government, under the 
control of the Federal Government or funded by the Federal Government, 
you are stepping, in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of many of 
us who view education as a critical asset of the community, of the 
State, of people at the lowest level of government who have the right 
to control how their children's lives are determined in their school 
systems rather than having it be controlled from Washington, those of 
us who view that education should be directed locally and not 
nationally, you are stepping on the slippery slope of once again the 
issue of national control over curriculum, national control over 
contents, national control over teachers' standards in the educational 
system because a federally designed, federally paid for, federally 
controlled national educational testing system would be, in my opinion 
and I think the opinion of many people who view this issue and who have 
looked at it for a while as I have, as being one of the first steps 
toward a nationally directed curriculum, a nationally directed content 
in education, and a nationally directed standard for our teachers.

[[Page S8698]]

  That is something that I would most vehemently object to and have 
objected to, and in fact when we went through Goals 2000, raising the 
issue of national curriculum was the core question. We amended that law 
dramatically from its initial structure so that it would not end up as 
a national curriculum exercise.
  Now that we have pushed forward onto the playing field a national 
testing system, at something other than the end of your high school 
years, a national testing system which will probably be targeted on the 
third grade or the eighth grade or maybe both grades, to determine 
competency, especially in objective types of discipline such as 
mathematics and science, such a national testing system has to be 
entered into with some caution to be sure that we do not end up going 
down the wrong path, that we use it for the purposes for which it 
should be used, which is to give our local communities the capacity to 
evaluate how their local school systems are doing in educating their 
children--not use it with the capacity of taking away from our local 
communities the capacity to control their local school systems by 
taking away control over curriculum or taking away control over 
content.
  So this amendment is basically directed at saying it is not 
appropriate for the Department of Education to be an aggressive 
participant, a funded participant in the designing of a national 
testing system. Rather, that should be left to the private or 
quasiprivate or nonprofit sector which presently does such a good job 
in areas such as SAT's.
  The view, which was not the original view of the President and now is 
the view of the President, is something which we congratulate him on 
changing his position on and coming to a conclusion that is of that 
position and which we want to support by passing this amendment.
  Senator Coats and I have put this amendment together. It tracks what 
was passed in the House, or what is being proposed in the House--I am 
not sure it has been passed yet--by Representative Goodling from 
Pennsylvania, chairman of the authorizing committee which deals with 
education in the House.
  I appreciate the courtesy of the chairman of the committee in 
allowing us to go forward with it and in his support in going forward 
with it. We are certainly sensitive to his desire to have the vote 
tomorrow if there is to be a formal vote, if it is not adopted by 
agreement, which I hope would be because it does reflect, we believe, 
the administration position.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I expect we will have a rather spirited 
debate about this amendment, and we should have. I think this is an 
interesting, timely, and important subject for the Senate at this 
point. My understanding is that there will be lengthy debate and a 
hearing in the Senate tomorrow morning, followed by a vote tomorrow on 
this subject.
  This debate is not about developing some sort of enforced Federal 
standard. Rather, this is a very important question about this 
country's educational system and whether parents, no matter where they 
live, have an opportunity and the ability to measure how well their 
children are doing at two levels. Can they read at the fourth-grade 
level, and how do they read relative to other kids in this country, and 
can they achieve basic proficiency in mathematics at the eighth-grade 
level?
  We have some significant choices to make in this country on the 
subject of education. No one that I know of suggests that we wrest the 
control of educating our kids in the elementary and secondary schools 
from the local school boards. No one. That is where we make decisions 
about how to educate our kids. But we do as a country have an 
obligation, I think, to begin asking the question: Should we not have 
some basic standard of measurement to find out what our children are 
achieving in our schools to be able to measure community to community, 
school to school, State to State? How are they doing? Are they able to 
read at the fourth grade level? Are they proficient in mathematics at 
the eighth grade level?
  I want to read a couple of comments as we begin.
  Jim Barksdale, the CEO and president of Netscape Communications, one 
of the new communications companies in our country, and L. John Doerr, 
a partner in the firm of Kleiner, Perkins, Caulfield & Byers, on behalf 
of 240 technology industry leaders in a bipartisan call for high 
national education standards in reading and math, say this:

       Every State should adopt high national standards, and by 
     1999, every State should test every fourth grader in reading 
     and eighth grader in math to make sure these standards are 
     met. President Clinton's national testing initiative offers a 
     new opportunity to use widely accepted national benchmarks in 
     reading and math against which States, school districts, and 
     parents can judge student performance.

  This national testing initiative is not about suggesting a national 
or Federal system by which anyone from up here can control someone down 
there.
  The Senator from New Hampshire, I think, began by saying he was not 
opposed to developing some kind of national testing program. I think 
from that statement we ought to be able to find a way to develop a 
program of achievement standards. I am not wedded to the notion that it 
be here or there or with this money or that money. I am wedded to the 
notion that this country deserves to know what it is getting for the 
money it is spending for elementary and secondary education.
  We spend a substantial amount of money sending our children to 
school. A substantial amount of money is spent sending our children 
into the classrooms of our country. The question is, what are we 
getting for that? What are we achieving? What kind of accomplishments 
exist at the fourth grade level? Are our fourth graders able to read? 
In which schools? In which States? And if not, why not? Before one can 
embark on a plan to improve education, you must first know where you 
are. And we don't have a basic approach by which we can measure 
achievement.
  You get to 17 or 18 years of age, and guess what? You want to go to 
college. You are going to show up someplace, and you are going to have 
to take a test. That test is going to measure what you have achieved, 
what you know, what you have studied, and what you have retained from 
that. So when you get to be 17 or 18 and begin to take the college 
entrance tests, then at that point somebody is going to measure what 
you have been given, what you have learned, and what you are prepared 
to do. But by that point, we have spent a substantial amount of money.
  Why don't we decide, as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and literally 
hundreds of other business leaders in this country have, that we ought 
to get more for our education system by measuring whether our students, 
student to student and school to school and State to State, are 
reaching certain levels of achievement?
  I am a parent. I have two little children sitting this afternoon in a 
public school classroom. They are the most wonderful kids in the world. 
I assume that every father would say that about their children. I want 
those children to have the best possible education that our school 
system can give them. But I, as one parent, believe that it is 
important for us to measure as we go along what our children have 
learned from that school system.
  Things have changed. This is not 40 years ago when we as a country 
could tie one hand behind our back and beat anybody else in the world 
at almost anything, and do it easily. We now face shrewd, tough 
international competition in every direction that we look. We now face 
competition, yes, in the job market, yes, in our economies, in our 
schools, and we face competition with countries who send their kids to 
school 240 days a year. We send our kids to school 180 days a year.
  You have seen and I have seen some of the comparisons of students in 
the United States with students from Japan, students from Korea, 
students from Jordan, and students from around the world.
  What the business leaders in this country, the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, technology industry leaders, and others, including education 
leaders, are saying, is let us find a way by which we establish a 
measurement of achievement, by which we aspire to a goal that says that 
by the fourth grade children ought to be able to read competently, and 
let's measure to make

[[Page S8699]]

sure that our school system makes that happen so that by the eighth 
grade they have certain proficiency in math. That is what this is 
about.
  From the discussion I just heard--I expect there will be a lot of it 
today--the issue is, should there be a Federal mandate by a Federal 
agency that federally enforces some Federal test? No, of course not. No 
one has proposed that. I would not support that.
  If you say, however, that with the money we spend for education, we 
ought to measure the output as taxpayers, and as parents we ought to 
find out what are we getting, if you say that ought to be the goal--it 
is my goal, I expect it is probably your goal--then let's find a way to 
do that. Parents have a right to know whether their kids have mastered 
the basics in education, no matter what State they live in, no matter 
what city or school district they live in.
  Those in this country who are concerned about our education system 
know that we must make some improvements. How do we make improvements? 
You create a blueprint, a plan, or a design for how you fix what is 
wrong. But before you can do that, you must assess what you have. What 
are the achievement levels? What are you getting for what you are now 
spending? That is what this is about.
  I think that the debate--I guess I shouldn't prejudge; I will listen 
to it--will not be so much about whether it is useful for parents to 
learn how their kids or how their schools stack up against other kids 
or other schools in other cities or in other States. I think the debate 
will not be about that because I would expect most parents and 
taxpayers would want that kind of information.
  Incidentally, this effort to develop tests to measure achievement is 
all voluntary. There is nothing here that is mandatory. Any school can 
opt out. Any student can opt out. Any State can opt out.
  If there is heartburn over the question of who develops these 
benchmarks, let us find agreement on some independent entity that would 
establish appropriate goals for ourselves and for our children.
  Occasionally, I--as I am sure everybody in the Senate does--get on a 
radio call-in show. Inevitably, someone will call in and say, ``This is 
some one-world international conspiracy. This is the Federal Government 
wanting to run the local school system.'' You have heard all of the 
debate about all of these issues. In fact, going back, that became the 
argument that was used to say, ``Let's get rid of the Department of 
Education at the Federal level.'' We do not hear much about that 
anymore. I don't expect we will see an amendment about that, although 
there may be Members in the Chamber who believe that we should offer 
that amendment and have that debate.
  Does education reach a level of national importance sufficiently so 
that we have a Department of Education? I think so. Most of the 
American people think so. But we have had in the not-too-distant past 
those who say, ``Let's abolish the Department of Education. What on 
Earth should we be doing thinking nationally about education?'' Well, 
the American people know what we should be doing nationally about 
education. It is not running the school systems--not at all. What we 
should be doing nationally is worrying about whether we as a country 
are able to measure achievement--basic achievement in a range of areas, 
especially reading and mathematics, sufficient so that our students are 
prepared to be everything they can possibly be. Achievement that allows 
them to contribute not only to themselves but to this country, and to 
help us compete internationally. That is what all of this is about.
  We are faced with tougher and tougher tests as a country. We are 
faced with a changing world economy and global markets. Companies these 
days are not national companies. They are international conglomerates. 
They want to produce where it is cheaper to produce. They want to go 
wherever they can find the skilled labor at the least cost, and so on. 
So it is tougher competitively for us than it was before. That is why 
our education system is so much more important now than it was. That is 
why it is so important that the education system work well. It is 
important that we as parents have information with which to measure 
what we are getting from this education system.
  So let me, so that no one misinterprets what I have just said, say it 
again. I think parents and taxpayers have every reason to believe that 
we ought to be able to measure what we are getting from our education 
system student to student, school to school, school district to school 
district, or State to State. We ought to be able to measure that. The 
first standard ought not be when you reach 18 decide to take a test to 
go to college. But the development of achievement standards ought not 
be confused with some of the discussion about a Federal agency 
developing a federally enforced standard that they will use to mandate 
Federal policy for local education. That is totally hogwash. That is 
not what this effort is about.
  I will be interested in listening to the later debate because my hope 
is that through this discussion perhaps we can find common ground to 
say, Yes, let's aspire to some achievement levels that we can measure 
across this country in order to better prepare our children for the 
future. If you measure achievement levels, you know how your children 
are doing relevant to other children; you know how your schools are 
doing; you know how your teachers are doing. If we aspire to do that 
and have the tools that give parents the ability to better manage the 
school, to better help their children, then we will be better off as a 
country. If that is a goal--and I hope it is--then we should be able to 
find a way to cooperate in reaching that goal through the development 
of some kind of entity that does not impose the specter of Federal 
control over local schools, because that is not the desire at all.
  The proposal originally by the President was a proposal for a 
voluntary system in which any State, any school, or any student can opt 
out. But even if that causes heartburn because it has the specter of a 
Federal entity creating the tests, then let us find a method by which 
we create that same kind of measurement and give parents the same kind 
of opportunity without inciting the fear that some would ascribe to it 
as representing a Federal initiative. We can do that. I think we can do 
that. But we cannot do that if we stand up and mischaracterize the 
initiative in the first place. This is not about Federal control and a 
federally enforced test and Federal usurpation of local prerogatives 
with respect to education.

  Having given that initial discussion, I will anxiously listen to the 
debate by two of the Members for whom I have the greatest respect. I 
think both are bright and interesting people who have contributed a 
great deal to this Senate, and while we might disagree on this, the 
purpose of my standing up is that my hope is perhaps we can find an 
area of agreement. Both of my colleagues are parents. I think they 
probably want the same output here that I want from this system, the 
best possible education our schools can give our children and along the 
way as parents the best opportunity to measure how our kids are doing 
and how our schools are doing. If we have those opportunities, we will 
improve not only our children's future but the future of this country.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.


                Amendment No. 1071 to Amendment No. 1070

  (Purpose: To prohibit the development, planning, implementation, or 
     administration of any national testing program in reading or 
 mathematics unless the program is specifically authorized by Federal 
                                statute)

  Mr. COATS. Madam President, let me first say I very much appreciate 
the efforts of the Senator from New Hampshire in addressing this issue. 
I think it is an important issue and one which goes to a topic which 
deserves and needs a great deal of discussion and debate.
  Clearly, our public education system in this country has many cracks 
in the once solidly supported and, I think, respected position that it 
once had. We have many failing public schools, not just in our major 
cities, but across our land. The goal that we share, whether you are 
Republican, Democrat, liberal or conservative, is that we want to 
improve education in this country and we want to address some of the 
shortcomings that we find in education.

[[Page S8700]]

  The Senator from North Dakota raised a point which in many instances 
I think I do not disagree with. We do want to find ways of assessing 
where we are educationally, and giving parents a better idea of where 
their schools are in terms of preparing their children for a successful 
future.
  The proposal to look at reading levels of achievement at the end of 
the third grade in reading and in eighth grade in math is not 
necessarily a goal that we should not attempt to reach. The concern 
that was raised by the Senator from New Hampshire is that if we address 
this in a way in which the Department of Education controls and designs 
the way this will be tested and then potentially uses this to establish 
standards, we continue a process of Federal Government knows best in 
terms of how to fix the education system in this country.
  Frankly, the positive changes that are being brought about in the 
education of the young people in this country are not coming from 
Washington. They are coming from local and State initiatives. We do not 
want to do anything that deters that. In fact, we want to do everything 
we can to encourage that. I think it is safe to say if the initiatives 
that have been proposed and tried and are being tested and used in a 
number of our local educational jurisdictions and in a number of our 
States had to have the approval of the Federal Government, we would 
have gotten nowhere. We would not have charter schools in this country 
if the Department of Education had to approve it. We would not have had 
many of the experimental programs aimed at better addressing the 
situation of our at-risk children who are learning very little, or not 
at all, in many of our public schools, and particularly our public 
schools in urban areas across this country, because the national 
education unions have a lock on the public school process and a lock on 
the Department of Education.
  I have been in the Chamber proposing a number of new initiatives, 
most in the form of demonstration programs which merely ask that we 
test a new idea to gauge its effectiveness. I do this so often because 
the only thing we know about the current system for sure is that it is 
failing many of our children. So why not try something new, why not 
experiment with some new ideas? And if it works, then decide how we 
want to encourage it. And if it does not work, throw it out and try 
something else. But what we have is a Department of Education locked 
into a no-change system because the teachers unions, not merely the 
teachers but the teachers unions, say don't touch it--no merit pay for 
teachers, no changes in the rules on tenure. They just fight every 
change that is proposed.
  And so when the idea comes along of OK, let's set a testing standard 
so that we know where we stand, it looks good on its face--I think we 
all want that information; it can be useful to local jurisdictions and 
useful to States. But what we do not want is to get into the situation 
we got into with the national history standards whereby Federal 
bureaucrats and the organizations that currently control funding for 
public education basically say we will define what those standards 
ought to be, and we will set those standards and then we will measure 
the test against those standards.
  We don't want to get into that trap again. We went through that not a 
short time ago, and those standards were soundly rejected because they 
were taking us in absolutely the wrong direction.
  Now, I think that we can address the goals raised by the Senator from 
North Dakota, which I think Senator Gregg and I share in, of trying to 
find a way to provide local educational institutions and States with 
information about where students stand relative at least to reading and 
to math at fourth and eighth grade levels without falling into the 
problem that we would have if the administration were allowed to go 
forward with its original plan.
  What the Senator from North Dakota apparently was not aware of was 
that the Department of Education has already begun developing tests, 
and has already contracted with a consortium of testing agencies 
whereby the Department of Education defines how this is going to be 
done, without using an independent agency.
  Now, the President just this past Saturday in his national radio 
address wisely concluded that was not the direction the American people 
wanted to go, or that was not the way in which we ought to pursue this 
concept of trying to find where we stand at certain levels in regard to 
the subjects of reading and mathematics. And so the President announced 
on Saturday that he would defer to the critics' complaints that this 
should be done by an independent agency and should not be administered 
or controlled by the Department of Education.
  What Senator Gregg and I are trying to do is to hold the President to 
his word, so that it is not just something said on a radio address but 
it is something that is actually fulfilled by members of his own 
Department of Education. So the amendment that was offered was intended 
to prohibit the use of funds in this act, or any act, for the 
development or implementation of a national testing program.
  Now, we know that the Department has already signed a contract to 
begin developing this testing program, and as a consequence of that we 
are now trying to send a signal to the Department encouraging them to 
slow down. This is something that the Congress should debate, as the 
Senator from North Dakota said. This is something that the Congress 
should authorize. This is something on which the will of the people 
should be heard, that the input from the education institutions at the 
local and State levels ought to be heard before we proceed with this 
national effort. This truly should be a decision that is not first made 
in Washington and imposed on the States, but rather one that is first 
supported in State capitols and local jurisdictions around the country 
and only then decided on by Congress.
  Because there is a question raised about what the underlying 
amendment is intended to accomplish, I propose that we pause here, and 
agree to work together, as the Senator from North Dakota said, to 
achieve what many feel is a desirable goal. I think it would be helpful 
for local educational agencies and for States to have an assessment of 
where their students are. I think it would be helpful for parents to 
know how their schools are performing and measuring up in relation to 
other schools. I think that puts pressure for change on the system.
  I am trying to avoid the situation that we have frequently 
encountered after the passage of education legislation of parents 
getting involved because they don't like what is going on in 
Washington. For instance, if we don't take the time to check whether 
parents really want national testing, if they are unhappy, they will 
call up their Congressman and they will call up their Senators. They'll 
say, wait a minute; we are not so sure about this new Federal 
initiative to fix the problem of poor student performance because it 
looks like more Federal control. Federal control in education hasn't 
worked very well in the past, and we are not sure it is going to work 
in the future. Besides how does the Department of Education conclude it 
knows what is best for the education system when it has been over 15 
years since a blue ribbon commission came out with a shocking report 
talking about the mediocrity of public education in America, and since 
then the only real reforms that have taken place have not been at the 
Federal level; reforms have been at the local and the State level, and 
we want to preserve the right of local jurisdictions and States to make 
those reforms.

  So I am offering a second-degree amendment to the underlying 
amendment which says that no Federal funds can be used for national 
testing until Congress has specifically authorized those tests. It does 
not say that we should not pursue the goal of some type of national 
testing. But what it does say is that the Congress ought to debate this 
and it ought to be authorized by the Congress before the 
administration, through the Department of Education, simply goes 
forward.
  My second-degree amendment says that none of the funds made available 
in this act, or any other act, will be used to develop, plan, 
implement, or administer any national testing program in reading or 
mathematics unless the program is specifically authorized by Federal 
statute.

[[Page S8701]]

  The operative phrase is that you can't go forward with this and use 
Federal funds unless it is specifically authorized by the Congress. 
That allows us to engage in the debate that the Senator from North 
Dakota thought we ought to engage in, and I agree that allows us to 
define how this testing will take place, that allows us to acknowledge 
the concern that the Senator from North Dakota expressed that maybe we 
do not want the Department of Education running this.
  Having been involved in the issue of student loans over the past 
several years and raising objections to the Department of Education 
taking over the student lending business, which it says it can do more 
effectively and more efficiently than the private sector, I find it 
ironic that Congress Daily reports that the Department of Education has 
had to suspend all direct loan consolidation efforts because it is 
overwhelmed by the effort. It cannot handle the work. And so students 
who want to consolidate their loans in terms of paying them back are 
now not able to do so because the Department of Education cannot handle 
it.
  A number of us, including Senator Gregg and many others, have raised 
concerns about the ability of the Department of Education to properly 
manage and administer the very complex business of making and 
collecting student loans. Frankly, we have never thought that they have 
the capacity to handle it. It is not that they are not well intended. 
The problem is there are no competitive pressures. They do their own 
thing. And it is the nature of bureaucracy--that is why it is called 
bureaucracy--to become bureaucratized and inefficient.
  I remember when the First Lady was here promoting her health plan, 
and in her first presentation to the Congress to two of the committees 
here, one of which I sit on, I said it seems to me that this massive 
national health plan is based on a number of faulty assumptions, one of 
which is that Government can accomplish an objective more efficiently 
and effectively than the private sector. I said that in my experience 
in 18 years in government and in my reading over the history of this 
Government, I have not been able to identify an area where the Federal 
Government has performed a service more effectively or efficiently than 
the private sector. I said, can you name me one? And the First Lady 
said, ``Well, Senator, I think you are correct in terms of past 
performance of the Federal Government, but this time we think we have 
it right.'' We think, in terms of the health care plan that was being 
proposed here by Mr. Magaziner and herself, that we can avoid that 
problem.
  As we have learned, that health care plan was rejected overwhelmingly 
by the American people because they had no faith that the Federal 
Government could take 15 percent of our economy, the entire health care 
system of the United States, and turn it over to Government to run with 
any assurance that it would be run effectively and efficiently. And, 
therefore, those of us who have a philosophy grounded in the free 
enterprise system are very skeptical about new proposals to inject the 
Federal Government further and further into those efforts handled by 
the private sector.

  So, at the very time the Department of Education now admits that it 
can't handle a small fraction of the lending business that is the 
consolidation of loans, and that it is going to take months and months 
and months for it to get its act together, if then, it now wants to 
enter into a new area of national testing, who knows where this is 
going to take us. And of course, who knows how many additional people 
will have to be assigned to have to administer this, to oversee the 
contracts and define the standards.
  Those are the concerns that Senator Gregg and I have, and those are 
the concerns we are trying to address. What we would like to do with 
this amendment, then, is simply follow up on the President's concession 
last Saturday and basically say, No. 1, this should not be done by the 
Federal Government, should not be done by the Department of Education, 
it ought to be done, if done at all, through an independent agency. And 
since we are dual players in this town, both the administration and the 
Congress, in doing the people's business, this is something the 
Congress ought to authorize. Therefore my second-degree amendment would 
prohibit funds from being used to further this national testing program 
until it is authorized by Federal statute.
  The chairman of the relevant appropriations committee, Senator 
Specter, will be holding hearings as early as tomorrow whereby the 
Secretary of Education will come forward, as well as Mr. Goodling, whom 
I deeply respect in terms of his experience with education. They will 
both come to testify as to the pros and cons of national testing. I 
think we need hear those pros and cons. I think we need to debate those 
pros and cons, and then I think we need to go forward and make a 
decision as to how we proceed.
  Again, I say this as someone who is not unalterably opposed to 
national testing for reading in fourth grade and math at eighth grade. 
Frankly, one of the reasons I want these tests is because I think it 
will draw more attention to the failure of the public system to educate 
our children. When we look at the disparities that exist in public 
education in some of our schools and we look at some of our efforts, I 
think it will put additional pressure on the public system to open up, 
to try new alternatives, and parents will be demanding that we provide 
better education for their children and different ways of providing 
that education. So, from that standpoint, I think national testing can 
be of benefit.
  With that, Madam President, I send my second-degree amendment to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats], for himself and Mr. 
     Gregg, proposes an amendment numbered 1071 to amendment 1070.

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

       At the end of the pending amendment, add the following:
       Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act or any 
     other Act, may be used to develop, plan, implement, or 
     administer any national testing program in reading or 
     mathematics unless the program is specifically authorized by 
     Federal statue.

  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, I ask what is the current business before 
the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the second-degree 
amendment offered by the Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. GRAMS. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be set aside and I 
be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Grams pertaining to the introduction of S. 1145 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the second-degree 
amendment offered by the Senator from Indiana, Senator Coats, to 
Senator Gregg's amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment 
be temporarily set aside and the Kyl amendment, No. 1056, be 
temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1072

  (Purpose: To fund demonstration projects on Medicaid attendant care 
                  services, within amounts available)

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I now offer an amendment and send it to 
the desk for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1072.


[[Page S8702]]


  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 39, before the period on line 25, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That $2,000,000 of the 
     amount available for research, demonstration, and evaluation 
     activities shall be available for carrying out demonstration 
     projects on Medicaid coverage of community-based attendant 
     care services for people with disabilities which ensures 
     maximum control by the consumer to select and manage their 
     attendant care services''.

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, as noted, that $2 million will be 
utilized from an existing fund for a demonstration project to test the 
effectiveness of providing attendant care services to individuals with 
disabilities, regardless of age.
  Every State in the country currently provides long-term services to 
eligible individuals who require the assistance of an attendant in 
nursing homes or other institutions. However, under a curious provision 
of the current Medicaid law, these individuals are not guaranteed the 
right to remain in their own homes and communities while receiving the 
assistance of an attendant as an alternative to institutional care.
  I have sought to persuade the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
to change this provision in the Medicaid Program, and I wrote to 
Secretary Shalala accordingly on February 28, 1997. I ask unanimous 
consent a copy of that letter be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SPECTER. The amendment that I am introducing today directs the 
Department to test the cost effectiveness of this policy option to 
allow the disabled to remain at home and to obtain the Federal Medicaid 
benefits. It is clear that the current long-term care system is highly 
regulated and very costly. It is my thought that there is a clear-cut 
need for a program to be put into effect which will enable the disabled 
to stay at home or in the community as an alternative to institutional 
care.
  On February 17 of this year, I had the privilege of visiting a group 
of disabled individuals, many of whom have substantial disabilities, 
struggling to live independent lives. They gave me a sweatshirt, and I 
now display it for my colleagues and for those on C-Span II, showing, 
``Our Homes, Not Nursing Homes.'' And it is the symbol of someone who 
is disabled.
  When I met with these individuals, who were struggling in their 
wheelchairs, with enormous disabilities, and found that they could not 
receive Medicaid benefits unless they were in an institution, it seemed 
to me manifestly unfair. It is clear that it would be less costly to 
have the disabled remain in their communities or in their own homes so 
they could care for themselves and could receive the Medicaid benefits.
  So I said to these people in North Philadelphia that I would bring 
the matter to the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the view 
of having an administrative change. But I find that it is very 
complicated because the preliminary estimates from the Congressional 
Budget Office say that this would be an enormously expensive change to 
enable the disabled to have benefits to live in their communities or in 
their homes.
  I wondered why. The best explanation which I have been able to 
receive so far is that, at the present time, these people, the 
disabled, are cared for by their relatives, by friends or somehow by 
themselves because they don't want to go into an institution, so they 
forgo the assistance which Medicaid offers the disabled. The 
Congressional Budget Office asserts that if these individuals were to 
have the ability to have this care outside of the institution, the 
costs would skyrocket.
  It seems to me, Madam President, unfair that where the Medicaid law 
says the disabled are entitled to certain benefits if they are in an 
institution, that they should be compelled to be institutionalized when 
they want to live in their homes or their own communities. This is 
quite a conundrum, quite a Catch-22. So the best course that I see at 
the present time would be for us to undertake this program on a test 
basis, and to have a study, made to see what the costs would be in 
order to try to arrive at some fair determination.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Appropriations,

                                Washington, DC, February 28, 1997.
     Hon. Donna Shalala,
     Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Shalala: I am writing to alert you that I 
     intend to raise with your at next week's Subcommittee hearing 
     a matter concerning Medicaid coverage of attendant care 
     services for people with disabilities.
       It has been brought to my attention that considerable 
     savings to the Medicaid program could be achieved by 
     redirecting long-term care funding toward community-based 
     attendant services, and by requiring States to develop 
     attendant service programs meeting national standards to 
     assure that people of all ages with disabilities have full 
     access to such services. Please be prepared to summarize the 
     current status of Medicaid services to the disabled 
     population, and to discuss your views on establishing a 
     national program of community-based attendant services. I 
     would also appreciate your thoughts on what further could be 
     done, both administratively and through legislative action, 
     to better enable people with mental and physical disabilities 
     to live independently.
       I look forward to discussing this and other issues with you 
     next Tuesday when you appear to present the Administration's 
     fiscal year 1998 budget request for your Department.
       My best.
           Sincerely,
     Arlen Specter,
           Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
     Services, and Education.

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, Senator Harkin is now attending a 
committee meeting, and I have been advised by his staff that this 
amendment is agreeable to him, so I ask unanimous consent that it be 
adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1072) was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 1070 and Amendment No. 1071

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, now briefly addressing the amendments 
offered by Senator Gregg and Senator Coats, it is my hope that the 
amendments will be debated today for all those who have views and care 
to express them; that is, as I said earlier, because this is a 
complicated matter. In my conversation yesterday in a telephone call 
which I received from the Secretary of Education, he asked for my 
support, and I told him that I did not know enough about the matter to 
render a judgment and had said earlier it seems to me that testing is 
desirable, but I do not know that it ought to be undertaken by the 
Federal Government.
  We have scheduled a hearing tomorrow which we have advanced from 9 
o'clock to 8:30 in the morning because we have since had a request from 
Congressman Goodling to testify at the hearing. So we are now going to 
have the Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, we are going to have 
the chairman of the House Education Committee, and we are looking, as a 
matter of balance, to find someone in opposition to the Department of 
Education program. So that hearing will be conducted from 8:30, 
hopefully until 10 a.m. It is my hope that we will complete action on 
the remainder of this bill today, with the exception of the vote on the 
Gregg amendment, and take that up tomorrow.
  Madam President, I now call up amendment No. 1069.


                           Amendment No. 1069

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Attorney General 
has abused her discretion by failing to appoint an independent counsel 
   on campaign finance matters and that the Attorney General should 
      proceed to appoint such an independent counsel immediately)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside, and the clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1069.

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam 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:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF 
                   INDEPENDENT COUNSEL.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) press reports appearing in the early Spring of 1997 
     reported that the FBI and the

[[Page S8703]]

     Justice Department withheld national security information 
     from the Clinton administration and President Clinton 
     regarding information pertaining to the possible involvement 
     by the Chinese government in seeking to influence both the 
     administration and some members of Congress in the 1996 
     elections;
       (2) President Clinton subsequently stated, in reference to 
     the failure by the FBI and the Justice Department to brief 
     him on such information regarding China: ``There are 
     significant national security issues at stake here,'' and 
     further stated that ``I believe I should have known'';
       (3) there has been an acknowledgment by former White House 
     Chief of Staff Leon Panetta in March 1997 that there was 
     indeed coordination between the White House and the DNC 
     regarding the expenditure of soft money for advertising;
       (4) the Attorney General in her appearance before the 
     Senate Judiciary Committee on April 30, 1997 acknowledged a 
     presumed coordination between President Clinton and the DNC 
     regarding campaign advertisements;
       (5) Richard Morris in his recent book, ``Behind the Oval 
     Office,'' describes his firsthand knowledge that ``the 
     president became the day-to-day operational director of our 
     [DNC] TV ad campaign. He worked over every script, watched 
     each ad, ordered changes in every visual presentation and 
     decided which ads would run when and where;''
       (6) there have been conflicting and contradictory 
     statements by the Vice President regarding the timing and 
     extent of his knowledge of the nature of a fundraising event 
     at the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple near Los Angeles on April 29, 
     1996;
       (7) the independent counsel statute requires the Attorney 
     General to consider the specificity of information provided 
     and the credibility of the source of information pertaining 
     to potential violations of criminal law by covered persons, 
     including the President and the Vice President;
       (8) the independent counsel statute further requires the 
     Attorney General to petition the court for appointment of an 
     independent counsel where the Attorney General finds that 
     there is a reasonable likelihood that a violation of criminal 
     law may have occurred involving a covered person;
       (9) the Attorney General has been presented with specific 
     and credible evidence pertaining to potential violations of 
     criminal law by covered persons and there is a reasonable 
     likelihood that a violation of criminal law may have occurred 
     involving a covered person; and
       (10) the Attorney General has abused her discretion by 
     failing to petition the court for appointment of an 
     independent counsel.
       (b) It is the Sense of the Senate that the Attorney General 
     should petition the court immediately for appointment of an 
     independent counsel to investigate the reasonable likelihood 
     that a violation of criminal law may have occurred involving 
     a covered person in the 1996 presidential federal election 
     campaign.

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, this is the amendment that I had 
referred to earlier on sense of the Senate for independent counsel.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Senator McCain to Attorney 
General Reno dated October 11, 1996, requesting independent counsel be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                                 October 11, 1996.
     Hon. Janet Reno,
     Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
       Dear Attorney General Reno: I am writing to you to request 
     that you use the authority granted to you in the Independent 
     Counsel Reauthorization Act to immediately appoint an 
     Independent Counsel to investigate charges raised in the 
     media regarding the Democratic Party and Clinton-Gore 
     Reelection Committee's use of soft money contributions which 
     appear to have been in violation of election law.
       These allegations charge that foreign nationals have been 
     circumventing the law in order to funnel large campaign 
     contributions to the Democratic party. I have enclosed copies 
     of recent New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street 
     Journal articles regarding this situation.
       During this election season, I believe it is impossible for 
     any Administration officials to determine whether any 
     illegalities or ethical lapses have been committed regarding 
     this situation. Therefore, it is crucial for the sake of the 
     integrity of the Office of the President and the political 
     party fundraising apparatus that this matter be investigated 
     by an Independent Counsel.
       Your immediate attention to this matter is appreciated.
           Sincerely,
                                                      John McCain,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated October 29, 
1996, from five Members of the House of Representatives requesting 
independent counsel be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                 Washington, DC, October 29, 1996.
     Hon. Janet Reno,
     Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
       Dear Attorney General Reno: We are writing to request that 
     you immediately apply for the appointment of an Independent 
     Counsel to investigate the serious allegation that Federal 
     criminal laws may have been violated by a number of high 
     ranking officials in the Clinton Administration and at the 
     Democratic National Committee (``DNC'').
       This investigation should include, but not be limited to, 
     the following specific reports that indicate violations of 
     Federal law may have taken place:
       1. The involvement of President Clinton, Vice President 
     Gore, and officials of the Democratic National Committee in 
     the solicitation, acceptance, and receipt of $250,000 from 
     Cheong Am America, when the corporation had little or no 
     domestic income, in direct violation of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act, and in the solicitation or receipt of over 
     $300,000 from Arief and Soraya Wiriadinata at a time when the 
     Wiriadinatas no longer resided in the United States, 
     violating the plain language in Federal law prohibiting 
     contributions by non-citizens outside the United States. 
     Although the Cheong Am America contribution was returned 
     following media inquiries, the $300,000 from the Wiriadinatas 
     has been retained by the DNC for use in influencing American 
     elections.
       2. Incorrect reporting to the Federal Election Commission 
     by officials of the DNC of the residence address of Arief and 
     Soraya Wiriadinata, which presented the public appearance 
     that the Wiriadinatas were in the United States and 
     potentially intended to conceal the fact that their 
     contributions were in fact unlawful. News reports indicate 
     that the contributions apparently came after the Wiriadinatas 
     had returned to Indonesia and that the Vice Chairman of 
     Finance of the Democratic National Committee knew that the 
     Wiriadinatas were out of the country (Los Angeles Times, 10/
     14/96). Property records on file in Fairfax County, Virginia 
     show that the home reported on DNC Federal Election 
     Commission (``FEC'') Reports as the Wiriadinata home address 
     was sold by the Wiriadinata family on December 15, 1995, yet 
     contributions received as late as July, 1996 continued to be 
     reported as coming from that address.
       3. The solicitation, acceptance and receipt of 
     contributions from individuals, including Arief and Soraya 
     Wiriadinata ($450,000), Yogesh Gandhi ($325,000), and 
     individuals who made contributions in connection with the 
     April 29, 1996 event at the Hsi Lai Temple in 
     Hacienda Heights, California (an estimated $140,000) and a 
     fundraiser at the Hay-Adams Hotel in Washington, D.C., in 
     February 1996 (an estimated $1,000,000), when DNC 
     officials involved in fundraising may have had good reason 
     to know that these contributors did not have the financial 
     resources to make contributions in the large amounts 
     reported, and the contributors may therefore have been 
     conduits for prohibited funds from foreign sources.
       4. Fundraising activities on behalf of the DNC by John 
     Huang while he was a Presidential appointee at the Department 
     of Commerce, possibly with the knowledge of officials of the 
     DNC, in violation of the Hatch Act. Contributions from the 
     Wiriadinatas to the DNC were received in November of 1995, 
     while Huang was serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
     Commerce for International Economic Policy. DNC Press 
     Secretary Amy Weiss Tobe has stated to the press (Washington 
     Post, October 12, 1996) that Arief and Soraya Wiriadinata 
     contributed to the DNC after meeting John Huang in 1995, 
     during the time he was employed at the U.S. Department of 
     Commerce.
       5. Possible improper influence on official government 
     decisions as a result of large contributions made to the DNC 
     or other entities by associates and allies of the Riady 
     family and the Lippo group of foreign-owned and foreign-
     controlled corporations. Press reports indicate that a series 
     of events, which would economically benefit the Lippo Group 
     and the Riady family, took place after meetings between 
     President Clinton, Clinton Administration officials, John 
     Huang and James Riady. Federal bribery statutes prohibit the 
     performing of any official government act in return for 
     campaign contributions or other payments.
       6. Knowing use of tax-exempt facilities at the Hsi Lai 
     Temple by the DNC for fundraising purposes and knowing 
     solicitation and acceptance of prohibited in-kind 
     contributions from a non-profit entity to a political 
     campaign through the DNC's failure to reimburse the Temple 
     for its expenses in connection with the event until 
     questioned by the media. Further, despite statements by Vice 
     President Gore that the event was not a fundraiser, news 
     reports have indicated that Mr. Huang called it a fundraiser, 
     contributions were collected at the event, and attendees 
     believed that they had to pay to attend.
       7. The possible attempt by Mr. John Huang, an employee of 
     the DNC, with either the knowledge or implicit approval of 
     the DNC, to obstruct any investigation of his activities by 
     evading the service of a subpoena for the purpose of 
     preventing the release of information about his fundraising 
     activities until after the November 5, 1996 election. Mr. 
     Huang is reported to have raised as much as

[[Page S8704]]

     $5 million in contributions for the DNC, and has so far 
     refused to answer questions in public about his fundraising 
     activities. Until a U.S. District Court Judge intervened, the 
     DNC refused to cooperate or assist in having its employee, 
     John Huang, provide information which would resolve questions 
     as to the legality of the contributions which he solicited 
     and which the DNC is now using to influence American 
     elections.
       8. Reports filed by the DNC with the Federal Election 
     Commission for the period ending September 30, 1996 list the 
     home address of at least thirty-one contributors to the DNC 
     (with contributions totaling over $225,000) as 430 South 
     Capitol Street SE, Washington, D.C. This address is not a 
     residence, it is the address of the business offices of the 
     DNC. By filing false and misleading information with the FEC, 
     DNC officials may have sought to conceal and impede 
     investigation into the true source and nature of these 
     contributions.
       Equally important as each of these individual acts is the 
     overall pattern of questionable fundraising activity and the 
     apparent deliberate flaunting of federal election law and 
     usurpation of power and official privilege by the DNC's Vice 
     Chairman of Finance, John Huang, for the benefit of and with 
     the apparent cooperation of President Bill Clinton, Vice 
     President Gore, and the Democratic National Committee. The 
     magnitude of the funds involved, the high-rank of the 
     officials involved and the potential knowing and willful 
     violations committed make it impossible for any officials of 
     this Administration's Justice Department to carry out an 
     investigation that will be considered fair and free of 
     outside influence!
       Therefore it is crucial for the sake of the integrity of 
     the Office of the President and the Office of the Vice 
     President that this matter be investigated promptly by an 
     independent counsel.
       We look forward to a reply to this communication by Friday, 
     November 1, 1996. Your early reply will reassure the American 
     people that you are committed to preserving the integrity and 
     independence of the Department of Justice.
           Sincerely,
     Bill Thomas,
                           Chairman, Committee on House Oversight.
     Ben Gilman,
                                            Chairman, Committee on
                                          International Relations.
     Bill Clinger,
                                            Chairman, Committee on
                                  Government Reform and Oversight.
     Gerald B. Solomon,
                                     Chairman, Committee on Rules.
     John McCain,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated March 13, 
1997, from the 10 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee 
requesting independent counsel be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                   Washington, DC, March 13, 1997.
     Hon. Janet Reno,
     Attorney General of the United States, U.S. Department of 
         Justice, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Attorney General: This letter serves as a formal 
     request, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 592(g)(1), that you apply 
     for the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate 
     possible fundraising violations in connection with the 1996 
     presidential campaign. The purpose of this letter is not to 
     provide an exhaustive list of the particular allegations 
     that, we believe, warrant further investigation. Indeed, 
     since the Department of Justice has been conducting an 
     extensive investigation into fundraising irregularities for 
     several months now, you presumably have far greater knowledge 
     than do we of the various matters that are being, and will 
     need to be, investigated, and we presume that your judgment 
     as to the necessity of an independent counsel is based on all 
     of the information before you. Rather, the purpose of this 
     letter is to articulate why we believe this investigation 
     should be conducted by an independent counsel. As you know, 
     the Senate Committee on the Judiciary has, to date, refrained 
     from joining the assortment of other individuals who have 
     called upon you to initiate an independent counsel 
     appointment. Recent developments over the past few weeks, 
     however, have persuaded us that such an appointment is now 
     necessary.
       When you appeared before the Senate in 1993 when we were 
     considering reenactment of the Independent Counsel statute, 
     you stated:
       ``There is an inherent conflict of interest whenever senior 
     Executive Branch officials are to be investigated by the 
     Department of Justice and its appointed head, the Attorney 
     General. The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the 
     President. Recognition of this conflict does not belittle or 
     demean the impressive professionalism of the Department's 
     career prosecutors, nor does it question the integrity of the 
     Attorney General and his or her political appointees. 
     Instead, it recognizes the importance of public confidence in 
     our system of justice, and the destructive effect in a free 
     democracy of public cynicism.''
       You further testified that:
       ``It is absolutely essential for the public to have 
     confidence in the system and you cannot do that when there is 
     conflict or an appearance of conflict in the person who is, 
     in effect, the chief prosecutor. * * * The Independent 
     Counsel Act was designed to avoid even the appearance of 
     impropriety in the consideration of allegations of misconduct 
     by high-level Executive Branch officials and to prevent * * * 
     the actual or perceived conflicts of interest. The Act thus 
     served as a vehicle to further the public's perception of 
     fairness and thoroughness in such matters, and to avert even 
     the most subtle influences that may appear in an 
     investigation of highly-placed Executive officials.''
       We believe that, in light of recent developments, a 
     thorough Justice Department investigation into possible 
     fundraising violations in connection with the 1996 
     presidential campaign will raise an inherent conflict of 
     interest, and that the appointment of an independent counsel 
     is therefore required to ensure public confidence in the 
     integrity of our electoral process and system of justice.
       First recent revelations have demonstrated how officials at 
     the highest level of the White House were involved in 
     formulating, coordinating and implementing the DNC's 
     fundraising efforts for the 1996 presidential campaign. 
     Recent press reports, the files released by Mr. Ickes, and 
     public statements by very high ranking present and former 
     Clinton Administration officials indicate how extensively the 
     Administration was involved in planning, coordinating, and 
     implementing DNC fundraising strategy and activities. All 
     this has led The New York Times to a conclusion which we find 
     hard to challenge; namely, that ``the latest documentation 
     shows clearly that the Democratic National Committee was 
     virtually a subsidiary of the White House. Not only was 
     [President] Clinton overseeing its fund-raising efforts, not 
     only was he immersed in its ad campaigns, but D.N.C. 
     employees were installed at the White House, using White 
     House visitors' lists and communicating constantly with 
     [President] Clinton's policy advisers.'' The New York Times, 
     February 27, 1997. As a consequence, we believe that a 
     thorough investigation of all but the most trivial potential 
     campaign fundraising improprieties necessarily includes an 
     inquiry into the possible knowledge and/or complicity of very 
     senior White House officials in these improprieties. We 
     believe that, without questioning in the slightest the 
     integrity, professionalism or independence of the Attorney 
     General or the individuals conducting the present Justice 
     Department fundraising investigation, the fact that the 
     Department's investigation will inescapably take it to the 
     highest levels of the Executive Branch presents an inherent 
     conflict of interest calling for the appointment of an 
     independent counsel under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 591(c).
       Moreover, these revelations raise new questions of possible 
     wrongdoing by senior White House officials themselves, 
     including but not limited to whether federal officials may 
     have illegally solicited and/or received contributions on 
     federal property; whether specific solicitations were ever 
     made by federal officials at the numerous White House 
     overnights, coffees, and other similar events, and whether 
     these events themselves, often characterized in White House 
     and DNC memoranda as ``fundraising'' events, constituted 
     improper ``solicitations'' on federal property; whether 
     government property and employees may have been used 
     illegally to further campaign interests; and whether the 
     close coordination by the White House over the raising and 
     spending of ``soft''--and purportedly independent--DNC 
     funds violated federal election laws, and/or had the legal 
     effect of rendering those funds subject to campaign 
     finance limitations they otherwise would not be subject 
     to. It seems to us that, even accepting the narrow 
     constructions of some of the governing statutes that have 
     been suggested--which are not necessarily the 
     constructions an independent counsel would render--the 
     answer to whether criminal wrongdoing has occurred will of 
     necessity turn on the resolution of disputed factual, 
     legal, and state of mind determinations. Because the 
     inquiry necessary to make these determinations will 
     inescapably involve high level Executive Branch officials, 
     we believe they should be left to an independent counsel 
     in order to avoid a real or apparent conflict of interest. 
     Moreover, where individuals covered by the independent 
     counsel statute are involved, as they plainly were here, 
     see 28 U.S.C. Sec. 591(b), the Ethics in Government Act 
     requires that these inquiries be conducted by an 
     independent counsel. Whether the Act simply permits or 
     requires the appointment of an independent counsel, 
     however, we believe that prudence and the American 
     people's ability to have confidence that the investigation 
     remains free of a conflict of interest, requires it.
       Second, the emerging story regarding the possibility that 
     foreign contributions were funneled into U.S. election 
     coffers to influence U.S. foreign policy further highlights 
     the conflict of interest your ongoing investigation 
     inescapably confronts. A March 9, 1997, Washington Post 
     article quoted ``U.S. government officials''--presumably 
     familiar with the Department's ongoing investigation--as 
     stating that investigators have obtained ```conclusive 
     evidence' that Chinese government funds were funneled into 
     the United States last year,'' and quoted one official as 
     stating that ``there is no question that money was 
     laundered.'' This article reported that U.S. officials 
     described a plan by China ``to spend nearly $2 million to buy 
     influence not only in Congress but also within

[[Page S8705]]

     the Clinton Administration.'' If the FBI truly is 
     investigating these allegations, as is reported, and this 
     investigation extends to high level Executive Branch 
     officials, it raises an inherent conflict of interest.
       Moreover, a closer look at the activities and associations 
     of some of the particular individuals who are reported to be 
     the principal figures in the ongoing investigation further 
     illustrates why this investigation ultimately must involve 
     high levels of the Executive Branch. Especially troubling is 
     the information revealed to date regarding the Riady family 
     and their associate, Mr. John Huang, but serious questions 
     are also raised by the activities and associations of Mr. 
     Charles Yah Lin Trie, Ms. Pauline Kanalanchak, and Mr. Johnny 
     Chung, among others. Taken together, these reported events 
     raise a host of serious questions warranting further 
     investigation: To what extent were illegal contributions from 
     foreign sources, in particular China, being funneled into the 
     United States, and with whose knowledge and involvement? To 
     what extent was U.S. policy influenced by these 
     contributions, and with whose knowledge and/or involvement? 
     To what extent were the decisions to hire Huang at the 
     Commerce Department, to support most-favored-nation status 
     for China and Chinese accession to the World Trade 
     Organization, or to normalize relations with Vietnam, 
     influenced by contributions, and with whose knowledge and/
     or involvement? To what extent was the standard NSC 
     screening process for admission to the White House waived 
     or modified so as to permit special access to large donors 
     and their guests where it would ordinarily be denied, and 
     with whose knowledge and/or involvement? To what extent 
     was John Huang placed at the DNC to raise money in 
     exchange for past and future favors, and with whose 
     knowledge and/or involvement?
       It is evident that these questions cannot be properly 
     investigated without a conflict of interest, since 
     investigating most of these questions will require inquiring 
     into the knowledge and/or conduct of individuals at the 
     highest levels of the Executive Branch. Moreover, several of 
     the principal figures in this investigation, including the 
     Riadys and the Lippo Group and Charlie Trie, reportedly have 
     longstanding ties to President Clinton.
       Indeed, the conflicts at issue here are precisely the sort 
     of ``inherent conflict[s] of interest'' to which you 
     testified during Senate hearings in 1993 on the re-enactment 
     of the Independent Counsel Act. Avoiding an actual or 
     perceived conflict of interest was the basis not just for 
     your application for the appointment of an independent 
     counsel to investigate James McDougal, but also for your 
     recent requests to extend that counsel's jurisdiction to 
     include investigations of Anthony Marceca and Bernard 
     Nussbaum. The same concern warrants your application for an 
     independent counsel here, where public confidence can be 
     assured only by the appointment of an independent counsel to 
     investigate any alleged wrongdoing in connection with DNC, 
     Clinton Administration, and Clinton/Gore Campaign fundraising 
     during the 1994-1996 election cycle. As you yourself 
     testified, applying for an independent counsel, and our 
     request that you make such an application, in no way detracts 
     from the integrity and independence of the Attorney General 
     or the career prosecutors presently investigating these 
     allegations.
       Pursuant to the statute, please report back to the 
     Committee within 30 days whether you have begun or will begin 
     a preliminary investigation, identifying all of the 
     allegations you are presently investigating or as to which 
     you have received information, and indicating whether you 
     believe each of these allegations are based on specific 
     information from credible sources, and either pertain to a 
     covered individual or present a conflict of interest. Please 
     also provide your reasons for those determinations. See 28 
     U.S.C. Sec. 592(g)(2). In the event you conduct a preliminary 
     investigation, but do not apply for the appointment of an 
     independent counsel, or apply for an independent counsel but 
     only with respect to some of the various allegations on which 
     you have received information, please identify all those 
     allegations which in your view do not warrant appointment of 
     an independent counsel, and explain your view whether those 
     allegations warrant further investigation, pertain to a 
     covered individual, and/or present a conflict of interest. 
     See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 592(g)(3).
           Sincerely,
         Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, John Ashcroft, Spencer 
           Abraham, Mike DeWine, Strom Thurmond, Arlen Specter, 
           Jon Kyl, Fred Thompson, Jeff Sessions.

  Mr. SPECTER. And I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter 
from Attorney General Reno dated April 14, 1997, responding to Senator 
Hatch be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                   Washington, DC, April 14, 1997.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
               Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
                                                   Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On March 13, 1997, you and nine other 
     majority party members of the Committee on the Judiciary of 
     the United States Senate wrote to me requesting the 
     appointment of an independent counsel to investigate possible 
     fundraising violations in connection with the 1996 
     presidential campaign. You made that request pursuant to a 
     provision of the Independent Counsel Act, 28 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 592(g)(1), which provides that ``a majority of majority 
     party members [of the Committee on the Judiciary] * * * may 
     request in writing that the Attorney General apply for the 
     appointment of an independent counsel.'' The Act requires me 
     to respond within 30 days, setting forth the reasons for my 
     decision on each of the matters with respect to which your 
     request is made. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 592(g)(2).
       I am writing to inform you that I have not initiated a 
     ``preliminary investigation'' (as that term is defined in the 
     Independent Counsel Act) of any of the matters mentioned in 
     your letter. Rather, as you know, matters relating to 
     campaign financing in the 1996 Federal elections have been 
     under active investigation since November by a task force of 
     career Justice Department prosecutors and Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation (FBI) agents. This task force is pursuing the 
     investigation vigorously and diligently, and it will continue 
     to do so. I can assure you that I have given your views and 
     your arguments careful thought, but at this time, I am unable 
     to agree, based on the facts and the law, that an independent 
     counsel should be appointed to handle this investigation.


                     1. The Independent Counsel Act

       In order to explain my reasons, I would like to outline 
     briefly the relevant provisions of the Independent Counsel 
     Act. The Act can be invoked in two circumstances that are 
     relevant here:
       First, if there are sufficient allegations (as further 
     described below) of criminal activity by a covered person, 
     defined as the President and Vice President, cabinet 
     officers, certain other enumerated high Federal officials, or 
     certain specified officers of the President's election 
     campaign (not party officials), see 28 U.S.C. Sec. 591(b), I 
     must seek appointment of an independent counsel.
       Second, if there are sufficient allegations of criminal 
     activity by a person other than a covered person, and I 
     determine that ``an investigation or prosecution of [that] 
     person by the Department of Justice may result in a personal, 
     financial or political conflict of interest,'' see 28 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 591(c)(1), I may seek appointment of an independent 
     counsel.
       In either case, I must follow a two-step process to 
     determine whether the allegations are sufficient. First, I 
     must determine whether the allegations are sufficiently 
     specific and credible to constitute grounds to investigate 
     whether an individual may have violated Federal criminal law. 
     28 U.S.C. Sec. 591(d). If so, the Department commences a 
     ``preliminary investigation'' for up to 90 days (which can be 
     extended an additional 60 days upon a showing of good cause). 
     28 U.S.C. Sec. 592(a). If, at the conclusion of this 
     ``preliminary investigation,'' I determine that further 
     investigation of the matters is warranted, I must seek an 
     independent counsel.
       Certain important features of the Act are critical to my 
     decision in this case:
       First, the Act sets forth the only circumstances in which I 
     may seek an independent counsel pursuant to its provisions. I 
     may not invoke its procedures unless the statutory 
     requirements are met.
       Second, the Act does not permit or require me to commence a 
     preliminary investigation unless there is specific and 
     credible evidence that a crime may have been committed. In 
     your letter, you suggest that it is not the responsibility of 
     the Department of Justice to determine whether a particular 
     set of facts suggests a potential Federal crime, but that 
     such legal determinations should be left to an independent 
     counsel. I do not agree. Under the Independent Counsel 
     Act, it is the Department's obligation to determine in the 
     first instance whether particular conduct potentially 
     falls within the scope of a particular criminal statute 
     such that criminal investigation is warranted. If it is 
     our conclusion that the alleged conduct is not criminal, 
     then there is no basis for appointment of an independent 
     counsel, because there would be no specific and credible 
     allegation of a violation of criminal law. See 28 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 592(a)(1).
       Third, there is an important difference between the 
     mandatory and discretionary provisions of the Act. Once I 
     have received specific and credible allegations of criminal 
     conduct by a covered person, I must commence a preliminary 
     investigation and, if further investigation is warranted at 
     the end of the preliminary investigation, seek appointment of 
     an independent counsel. If, on the other hand, I receive 
     specific and credible evidence that a person not covered by 
     the mandatory provisions of the Act has committed a crime, 
     and I determine that a conflict of interest exists with 
     respect to the investigation of that person, I may--but need 
     not--commence a preliminary investigation pursuant to the 
     provisions of the Act. This provision gives me the 
     flexibility to decide whether, overall, the national interest 
     would be best served by appointment of an independent counsel 
     in such a case, or whether it would be better for the 
     Department of Justice to continue a vigorous investigation of 
     the matter.
       Fourth, even this discretionary provision is not available 
     unless I find a conflict of interest of the sort contemplated 
     by the Act. The Congress has made it very clear that this 
     provision should be invoked only in certain narrow 
     circumstances. Under the Act, I must conclude that there is a 
     potential for an actual conflict of interest, rather than 
     merely an appearance of a conflict of interest. The Congress 
     expressly adopted this higher standard to ensure that the 
     provision

[[Page S8706]]

     would not be invoked unnecessarily. See 128 Cong. Rec. H 9507 
     (daily ed. December 13, 1982) (statement of Rep. Hall). 
     Moreover, I must find that there is the potential for such an 
     actual conflict with respect to the investigation of a 
     particular person, not merely with respect to the overall 
     matter. Indeed, when the Act was reauthorized in 1994, 
     Congress considered a proposal for a more flexible standard 
     for invoking the discretionary clause, which would have 
     permitted its use to refer any ``matter'' to an Independent 
     Counsel when the purposes of the Act would be 
     served. Congress rejected this suggestion, explaining that 
     such a standard would ``substantially lower the threshold 
     for use of the general discretionary provision.'' H.R. 
     Conf. Rep. No. 511, 103rd Cong., 2nd Sess. 9 (1994).


        2. covered persons--the mandatory provisions of the act

       Let me now turn to the specific allegations in your letter. 
     You assert that there are ``new questions of possible 
     wrongdoing by senior White House officials themselves,'' and 
     you identify a number of particular types of conduct in 
     support of this claim. While all of the specific issues you 
     mention are under review or active investigation by the task 
     force, at this time we have no specific, credible evidence 
     that any covered White House official may have committed a 
     Federal crime in respect of any of these issues. 
     Nevertheless, I will discuss separately each area that you 
     raise.
       a. Fundraising on Federal Property. First, you suggest that 
     ``federal officials may have illegally solicited and/or 
     received contributions on federal property.'' The conduct you 
     describe could be a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 607. We are 
     aware of a number of allegations of this sort; all are being 
     evaluated, and where appropriate, investigations have been 
     commenced. The Department takes allegations of political 
     fundraising by Federal employees on Federal property 
     seriously, and in appropriate cases would not hesitate to 
     prosecute such matters. Indeed, the Public Integrity Section, 
     which is overseeing the work of the campaign financing task 
     force, recently obtained a number of guilty pleas from 
     individuals who are soliciting and accepting political 
     contributions within the Department of Agriculture.
       The analysis of a potential section 607 violation is a 
     fact-specific inquiry. A number of different factors must be 
     considered when reviewing allegations that this law may have 
     been violated:
       First, the law specifically applies only to contributions 
     as technically defined by the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     (FECA)--funds commonly referred to as ``hard money.'' The 
     statute originally applied broadly to any political 
     fundraising, but in 1979, over the objection of the 
     Department of Justice, Congress narrowed the scope of section 
     607 to render it applicable only to FECA contributions. 
     Before concluding that section 607 may have been violated, we 
     must have evidence that a particular solicitation involved a 
     ``contribution'' within the definition of the FECA.
       Second, there are private areas of the White House that, as 
     a general rule, fall outside the scope of the statute, 
     because of the statutory requirement that the particular 
     solicitation occur in an area ``occupied in the discharge of 
     official duties.'' 3 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 31 (1979). The 
     distinction recognizes that while the Federal Government 
     provides a residence to the President, similar to the housing 
     that it might provide to foreign service officers, this 
     residence is still the personal home of an individual within 
     which restrictions that might validly apply to the Federal 
     workplace should not be imposed. Before we can conclude that 
     section 607 may have been violated, we must have evidence 
     that fundraising took place in locations covered by the 
     provisions of the statute.
       Thus, while you express concerns about the possibility of 
     ``specific solicitations * * * made by federal officials at 
     the numerous White House overnights, coffees, and other 
     similar events,'' we do not at this time have any specific 
     and credible evidence of any such solicitation by any covered 
     person that may constitute a violation of section 607.
       We do not suggest, of course, that our consideration of 
     information concerning fundraising on Federal property is 
     limited to whether the conduct constituted a violation only 
     of section 607. However, at this point in time, we have no 
     specific and credible evidence to suggest that any crime was 
     committed by any covered person in connection with these 
     allegations.
       b. Misuse of Government Resources. You next assert that 
     Government property and employees may have been used 
     illegally to further campaign interests--conduct which might, 
     in some circumstances, constitute a theft or conversion of 
     Government property in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 641. 
     Again, we are actively investigating allegations that such 
     misconduct may have occurred. However, we are unaware at this 
     time of any evidence that any covered person participated in 
     any such activity, other than use of Government property that 
     is permitted under Federal law, such as the reports that the 
     Vice President used a Government telephone, charging the 
     calls to a nongovernment credit card. Federal regulations 
     permit such incidental use of Government property for 
     otherwise lawful personal purposes. See, e.g., 5 C.F.R. 
     Sec. 2635.704; 41 C.F.R. Sec. 201-21.601 (personal long 
     distance telephone calls). Thus, for example, allegations 
     that a Government telephone or telefacsimile machine may have 
     been used on a few occasions by a covered person for personal 
     purposes does not amount to an allegation of a Federal crime. 
     To the extent that there are allegations warranting 
     investigation that individuals not covered by the Independent 
     Counsel Act diverted Government resources, it is my 
     conclusion, as I explain below, that there is at present 
     no conflict of interest for the Department of Justice to 
     investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute those involved 
     in any such activity.
       c. Foreign Efforts to Influence U.S. Policy. You next cite 
     reports suggesting the possibility that foreign contributions 
     may have been made in hopes of influencing American police 
     decisions. These allegations are under active investigation 
     by the task force. The facts known at this time, however, do 
     not indicate the criminal involvement of any covered person 
     in such conduct.
       It is neither unique nor unprecedented for the Department 
     to receive information that foreign interests might be 
     seeking to infuse money into American political campaigns. 
     That was precisely the scenario that underlay the criminal 
     investigations, prosecutions and congressional hearings 
     during the late 1970s involving allegations that a Korean 
     businessman was making illegal campaign contributions, among 
     other things, to Members of Congress to curry congressional 
     support for the Government of South Korea. In a more recent 
     example, in 1996 an individual was prosecuted and convicted 
     for funneling Indian Government funds into Federal elections 
     through the cover of a political action committee.
       Absent specific and credible evidence of complicity by a 
     covered person, it has never been suggested that the mere 
     allegation that a foreign government may have been trying to 
     provide funds to Federal campaigns should warrant appointment 
     of an independent counsel. Nor can it be the case that an 
     independent counsel is required to investigate because 
     campaign contributors or those who donated to political 
     parties believed their largesse would influence policy or 
     achieve access. The Department of Justice routinely handles 
     such allegations, and because of its experience in reviewing 
     and investigating these sensitive matters, embracing, among 
     other things, issues of national security, is particularly 
     well-equipped to do so.
       d. Coordination of Campaign Fundraising and Expenditures. 
     You also suggest that the ``close coordination by the White 
     House over the raising and spending of `soft'--and 
     purportedly independent--DNC funds violated Federal election 
     laws, and/or had the legal effect of rendering those funds 
     subject to campaign finance limitations they otherwise would 
     not be subject to.'' We believe this statement misapprehends 
     the law. The FECA does not prohibit the coordination of 
     fundraising or expenditures between a party and its 
     candidates for office. Indeed, the Federal Election 
     Commission (FEC), the body charged by Congress with 
     primary responsibility for interpreting and enforcing the 
     FECA, has historically assumed coordination between a 
     candidate and his or her political party.
       Of course, coordinated expenditures may be unlawful under 
     the FECA if they are made with funds from prohibited sources, 
     if they were misreported, or if they exceeded applicable 
     expenditure limits. However, we presently lack specific and 
     credible evidence suggesting that any covered person 
     participated in any such violations, if they occurred.
       With respect to coordinated media advertisements by 
     political parties (an area that has received much attention 
     of late, the proper characterization of a particular 
     expenditure depends not on the degree of coordination, but 
     rather on the content of the message. Indeed, just last year 
     the FEC and the content of the message. Indeed, just last 
     year the FEC and the Department of Justice took this position 
     in a brief filed before the Supreme Court, in a case decided 
     on other grounds. See generally, Brief for the Respondent, 
     Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC (S. Ct. 
     No. 95-489), at 2-3, 18 n. 15, 23-24. In this connection, the 
     FEC has concluded that party media advertisements that focus 
     on ``national legislative activity'' and that do not contain 
     an ``electioneering message'' may be financed, in part, using 
     ``soft'' money, i.e., money that does not comply with FECA's 
     contribution limits. FEC Advisory Op. 1995-25, 2 Fed. Elec. 
     Camp. Fin. Guide (CCH)  6162, at 12,109-12,110 (August 24, 
     1995); FEC Advisory Op. 1985-14, 2 Fed. Elec. Camp. Fin. 
     Guide (CCH)  5819, at 11,185-11,186 (May 30, 1985). 
     Moreover, such advertisements are not subject to any 
     applicable limitations on coordinated expenditures by the 
     party on behalf of its candidates. AO 1985-14 at 11-185-
     11,186.
       We recognize that there are allegations that both 
     presidential candidates and both national political parties 
     engaged in a concerted effort to take full advantage of every 
     funding option available to them under the law, to craft 
     advertisements that took advantage of the lesser regulation 
     applicable to legislative issue advertising, and to raise 
     large quantities of soft political funding to finance these 
     ventures. However, at the present time, we lack specific and 
     credible evidence suggesting that these activities violated 
     the FECA. Moreover, even assuming that, after a thorough 
     investigation, the FEC were to conclude that regulatory 
     violations occurred, we presently lack specific and credible 
     evidence suggesting that any covered person participated in 
     any such violations.

[[Page S8707]]

    3. Conflict of Interest--The Discretionary Provisions of the Act

       In urging me to conclude that the investigation poses the 
     type of potential conflict of interest contemplated by the 
     Act, you rely heavily on my testimony before the Senate 
     Committee on Government Affairs in 1993 in support of 
     reauthorization of the Independent Counsel Act. I stand by 
     those views and continue to support the overall concept 
     underlying the Act. My decisions pursuant to the Act have 
     been, I believe, fully consistent with those views.
       The remarks you quote from my testimony should be 
     interpreted within the context of the statutory language I 
     was discussing. When, for example, I referred to the need for 
     the Act to deal with the inherent conflict of interest when 
     the Department of Justice investigates ``high-level Executive 
     Branch officials,'' I was referring to persons covered under 
     the mandatory provisions of the Act. With respect to the 
     conflict of interest provision, my testimony expressed the 
     conviction that the Act ``would in no way preempt this 
     Department's authority to investigate public corruption,'' 
     and that the Department was clearly capable of ``vigorous 
     investigations of wrongdoing by public officials, whatever 
     allegiance or stripes they may wear. I will vigorously defend 
     and continue this tradition.'' While I endorsed the concept 
     of the discretionary clause to deal with unforeseeable 
     situations, I strongly emphasized that ``it is part of the 
     Attorney General's job to make difficult decisions in tough 
     cases. I have no intention of abdicating that 
     responsibility[.]'' These principles continue to guide my 
     decisionmaking today.
       There are times when reliance on the discretionary clause 
     is appropriate, and indeed, as you point out, I have done so 
     myself on a few occasions. However, in each of those cases, I 
     considered the particular factual context in which the 
     allegations against those persons arose and the history of 
     the matter. Moreover, even after finding the existence of a 
     potential conflict, I must consider whether under all the 
     circumstances discretionary appointment of an independent 
     counsel is appropriate. In each case, therefore, the final 
     decision has been an exercise of my discretion, as provided 
     for under the Act.
       I have undertaken the same examination here. Based on the 
     facts as we know them now, I have not concluded that any 
     conflict of interest would ensue from our vigorous and 
     thorough investigation of the allegations contained in your 
     letter.
       Your letter relies upon press reports, certain documents 
     and various public statements which you assert demonstrate 
     that ``officials at the highest level of the White House were 
     involved in formulating, coordinating and implementing the 
     [Democratic National Committee's (DNC's)] fundraising efforts 
     for the 1996 presidential campaign.'' You suggest that a 
     thorough investigation of ``fundraising improprieties'' will 
     therefore necessarily include an inquiry into the ``knowledge 
     and/or complicity of very senior White House officials,'' and 
     that the Department of Justice would therefore have a 
     conflict of interest investigating these allegations.
       To the extent that ``improprieties'' comprise crimes, they 
     are being thoroughly investigated by the agents and 
     prosecutors assigned to the task force. Should that 
     investigation develop at any time specific and credible 
     evidence that any covered person may have committed a crime, 
     the Act will be triggered, and I will fulfill my 
     responsibilities under the Act. In addition, should that 
     investigation develop specific and credible evidence that a 
     crime may have been committed by a ``very senior'' White 
     House official who is not covered by the Act, I will decide 
     whether investigation of that person by the Department might 
     result in a conflict of interest, and, if so, whether the 
     discretionary clause should be invoked. Until then, however, 
     the mere fact that employees of the White House and the DNC 
     worked closely together in the course of President Clinton's 
     reelection campaign does not warrant appointment of an 
     independent counsel. As I have stated above, the Department 
     has a long history of investigating allegations of criminal 
     activity by high-ranking Government officials without fear or 
     favor, and will do so in this case.
       I also do not accept the suggestion that there will be 
     widespread public distrust of the actions and conclusions of 
     the Department if it continues to investigate this matter, 
     creating a conflict of interest warranting the appointment of 
     an independent counsel. First, unless I find that the 
     investigation of a particular person against whom specific 
     and credible allegations have been made would pose a 
     conflict, I have no authority to utilize the procedures of 
     the Act. Moreover, I have confidence that the career 
     professionals in the Department will investigate this matter 
     in a fashion that will satisfy the American people that 
     justice has been done.
       Finally, even were I to determine that a conflict of 
     interest of the sort contemplated by the statute exists in 
     this case--and as noted above I do not find such a conflict 
     at this time--there would be a number of weighty 
     considerations that I would have to consider in determining 
     whether to exercise my discretion to seek an independent 
     counsel at this time. Because invocation of the conflict 
     of interest provision is discretionary, it would still be 
     my responsibility in that circumstance to weigh all the 
     factors and determine whether appointment of an 
     independent counsel would best serve the national 
     interest. If in the future this investigation reveals 
     evidence indicating that a conflict of interest exists, 
     these factors will continue to weigh heavily in my 
     evaluation of whether or not to invoke the discretionary 
     provisions of the Act.
       I assure you, once again, that allegations of violations of 
     Federal criminal law with respect to campaign financing in 
     the course of the 1996 Federal elections will be thoroughly 
     investigated and, if appropriate, prosecuted. At this point 
     it appears to me that that task should be performed by the 
     Department of Justice and its career investigators and 
     prosecutors. I want to emphasize, however, that the task 
     force continues to receive new information (much has been 
     discovered even since I received your letter), and I will 
     continue to monitor the investigation closely in light of my 
     responsibilities under the Independent Counsel Act. Should 
     future developments make it appropriate to invoke the 
     procedures of the Act, I will do so without hesitation.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Janet Reno.

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have circularized my intent to pursue 
this amendment, and there is no other Senator on the floor now who 
seeks recognition. Before suggesting the absence of a quorum, let me 
say that we had talked earlier about having a vote on the Kyl mendment 
at 5 o'clock this afternoon. We have not yet locked in that amendment, 
but it is now being hot lined. It is my expectation that we will vote 
at 5 o'clock this afternoon on the Kyl amendment.
  I now ask, Madam President, that anybody who opposes the sense-of-
the-Senate resolution for independent counsel come to speak, anybody 
who favors it come to speak, or if somebody has another amendment, come 
to speak. We will be glad to set this aside and proceed with the 
business.
  We also ask there be a hot line looking for a unanimous consent 
agreement later this afternoon, perhaps early evening, 6 o'clock, 6:30, 
to limit any further amendments which may be offered so that we may get 
a calendar as to what we are going to do on this bill to proceed to 
third reading and final disposition, because it is the intention of the 
managers to move for third reading if no other amendments are pending.
  I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ann McKinley, 
a fellow on my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during 
consideration of the fiscal year 1998 Labor-HHS appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1056

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I actually will be 
brief. I had a chance yesterday to speak in opposition to the amendment 
of my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl. I know that other Senators 
have spoken about this as well.
  I was on the floor early this morning when both Senator Specter and 
Senator Harkin spoke about it. Mr. President, the part of the Kyl 
amendment which I am sympathetic to, and my guess is that a good many 
other Senators are sympathetic to it as well, would be the effort to 
try to expand funding for the Pell Grant Program. And, Mr. President, 
as my colleague, Senator Harkin from Iowa, said earlier this morning, 
interestingly enough, the Pell Grant Program, named after Claiborne 
Pell, our Senator--I think all of us really came to admire and believe 
in Claiborne Pell--really does represent a kind of positive role for 
the public sector, for Government, because what we as a country have 
decided is that there are certain decisive areas of life in a

[[Page S8708]]

nation where you do not just leave it up to a market verdict.
  If, in fact, you have a family, a young person or not such a young 
person who cannot afford higher education, there is a role to make sure 
that man or that woman can afford to go on to college, especially since 
this is becoming more and more important in determining how they will 
do economically or how their families will do.
  Indeed, there is a statistic that is a shameful statistic that we 
have had since the late 1970's, about an 8-percent graduation rate from 
colleges and universities of those men and women from families with 
incomes under $20,000 a year, the main reason being that they have not 
been able to afford to go on and get their higher education.
  I said this yesterday--and I will have an amendment that will try to 
speak to this today or tomorrow--it is also true that with all the 
discussion about HOPE scholarships and tax credits, since they are not 
refundable, all families with incomes below $28,000 a year are not 
going to become eligible. So we still have a huge hole, especially for 
those students from moderate- and low-income families. So it seems to 
me, if we are going to be talking about providing support for higher 
education and for families and for young men and women and older men 
and women--many of our students are older now in our community 
colleges--we ought to make sure that low-income are included.
  The problem with the Kyl amendment is that he takes the funding from 
the LIHEAP, the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program, which is a 
lifeline program for very vulnerable families, especially for those of 
us who represent cold weather States, although part of low-income 
energy assistance is also, I say to the Chair, since he is from the 
great State of North Carolina, some of it also is for cooling 
assistance. I think it was two summers ago that we had a number of 
people in Chicago, poor people, who died, elderly people, from exposure 
to heat. They just could not afford air conditioning.
  So, Mr. President, what the Kyl amendment does is it rescinds about 
$500 million, takes about half of what is in a $1 billion program--it 
has already been cut way down--and it essentially ends the program.
  Mr. President, I just want people to know, my colleagues to know--I 
think they do--I think we are going to have a strong vote in opposition 
to the amendment, and that the vast majority of the recipients of an 
energy grant is maybe $300 a year, or thereabouts. It is a lifeline 
program. It just enables an elderly person to be able to afford heat 
and not have to then spend more than she can afford and, therefore, not 
be able to get ahold of a prescription drug she needs or maybe have to 
cut back on food on the table.
  It is not much. It is extremely important. The vast majority of the 
citizens--there are about 110,000 households in Minnesota that have 
participated, have incomes under $8,000 a year. These are not wealthy 
people or middle-income people. These are people who are hard pressed. 
This is a lifeline program. It represents the goodness in us. And we 
cannot be gutting this program.
  I have been involved in this fight to kind of maintain or protect the 
LIHEAP program for the last 3 or 4 years. I do not know why we have to 
go through this every time.
  Mr. President, let me just make it clear that if you wanted to expand 
the Pell Grant Program, I can think of other ways to do it. I mean, now 
we know that with the B-2, the stealth bomber program, we have planes 
that cannot fly in the rain or the snow. I mean, I will have an 
amendment later on that will say, let us not build any more of these 
turkeys. And you can just transfer that funding for the Pell Grant 
Program. But do not take it out of low-income energy assistance.
  I see my colleague from Pennsylvania here. I thank him for his 
graciousness in allowing me to have some time to speak about this. But 
again, colleagues have heard it from the Senator from Pennsylvania, 
Senator Specter, Senator Harkin, any number of Senators who have come 
to the floor on this. And, again, I hope there will be a strong vote 
against the amendment.
  It is extremely important. It is a matter of elementary decency, if 
you will, to provide people with some support that they need. It is a 
lifeline support program. And I tell you, to a cold weather State like 
Minnesota, it is very important. We already know in Minnesota right now 
that we are going to have to ask for some additional emergency energy 
assistance. We did last winter. That is what happens. This is an 
underfunded program, not overfunded. The only reason I do not have an 
amendment calling for more funding is I know the White House, the 
administration, has been good about providing that emergency funding 
for States that need it.
  So, Mr. President, the last thing in the world that makes any sense 
is to essentially gut this program by rescinding $500 million. To all 
my colleagues, I hope you will vote against this amendment. To Senator 
Kyl, who is a Senator that I like and respect, I think you are 
profoundly mistaken with this amendment, as much as I appreciate your 
good work here. I hope that we will have a very strong bipartisan vote 
against this amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered by Senator 
Kyl. I am reluctant to do so because I strongly support changes in the 
eligibility rules for independent and dependent students for Pell 
grants.
  Congress needs to make changes in the eligibility rules for these 
students. Both independent students and dependent students are unfairly 
disadvantaged by the rules now in effect. Today, single independent 
students at public 4-year institutions are not eligible for a Pell 
grant if their income is over $10,000. Many of these students will not 
benefit from the HOPE tax credit and the tax credit for lifelong 
learning. Federal funds should be available to help them meet their 
most basic college expenses.
  A similar problem faces dependent students. The income protection 
allowance is so low for them that it has become a disincentive for 
college students to work part-time to help them contribute to college 
costs. Over three-quarters of undergraduates work part-time while 
enrolled in college. The current system penalizes students who work 
during the summer and part-time through the school year by reducing 
their Pell grant eligibility. We should be encouraging students to take 
part-time jobs, rather than take out additional loans.
  The budget agreement contains a commitment to allocate $700 million 
for changes to the needs analysis formula under the Pell grants. The 
House appropriations subcommittee provided over $500 million toward 
this commitment, but the Senate bill contains no funds for this needed 
change.
  I am working with others in Congress and with the Department of 
Education to ensure that a satisfactory appropriation level is 
contained in the final bill.
  Senator Kyl supports making funds available to reform the needs 
analysis. But unfortunately, to pay for the reform, he makes a deep cut 
in the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
  For the 5 million beneficiaries of LIHEAP across the Nation, 
including 120,000 in Massachusetts, it will be an unnecessarily harsh 
winter if this important program is slashed.
  Some 95 percent of the households receiving LIHEAP assistance have 
annual incomes below $18,000. They spend an extremely burdensome 18 
percent of their income on energy, compared to the average middle-class 
family, which spends only 4 percent.
  Researchers at Boston City Hospital have documented a ``heat or eat 
effect.'' Higher utility bills during the coldest months force low-
income families to spend less money on food. The result is increased 
malnutrition among children.
  Almost twice as many low-weight and undernourished children were 
admitted to Boston City Hospital's emergency room immediately following 
the coldest month of the winter. No family should have to choose 
between heating and eating.
  Low-income elderly will be at the greatest risk if LIHEAP funds are 
slashed, because they are the most vulnerable to hypothermia. In fact, 
older Americans accounted for more than half of all hypothermia deaths 
in 1991.
  In addition, the elderly are much more likely to live in homes built 
before 1940, which are less energy efficient and put them at greater 
risk.
  Low-income elderly who have trouble paying their fuel bills are often 
driven

[[Page S8709]]

to rely on room heaters, fireplaces, ovens, and wood-burning stoves to 
save money. Between 1986 and 1990, these higher-risk heating sources 
were the second leading cause of fire deaths among the elderly. In 
fact, elderly citizens are up to 12 times more likely to die in 
heating-related fires than adults under 65.
  LIHEAP is a lifeline for Massachusetts and many other cold weather 
States. I hope we can work together to make the needs analysis changes 
in the Pell grants, without denying this lifeline to a very vulnerable 
group. I urge that the Kyl amendment be defeated.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to join with the 
distinguished chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Specter and the 
subcommittee's ranking member Senator Harkin, in opposition to Senator 
Kyl's amendment to cut funding for the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program [LIHEAP]. While I applaud the Senator from Arizona's 
goal to increase funding for Pell grants, I can not sanction a move 
that would essentially gut the LIHEAP program, effectively depriving 
millions of the disadvantaged, elderly, and disabled of critical 
assistance.
  Mr. President, the appropriation for LIHEAP has declined more than 50 
percent over the past decade, down from $2.1 billion in fiscal 1985. 
During that time, the eligible population has grown from 23 to 30 
million. In Vermont, Federal cutbacks have forced the State to push 
back the deadline for applying for fuel aid to September 2. Mr. 
President, I strongly disagree with the contention that the need for 
fuel assistance has declined since the program's founding. Last winter, 
two-thirds of the 1,400 Vermonters who missed the State's benefits 
deadline were denied assistance; and the number of people who ran out 
of fuel and requested emergency aid doubled.
  Mr. President, Federal cutbacks since 1995 have reduced the number of 
families in Vermont that receive assistance from over 24,000 to around 
12,000 this year. These families should not face the prospect of 
further cutbacks.
  Mr. President, I want to emphasize to the program's critics that 
LIHEAP helps the neediest of the needy. As others have already stated, 
almost 70 percent of recipient families have an annual income of less 
than $8,000, and 44 percent have at least one member who is elderly and 
20 percent have one member who is disabled. Currently, only 5 million 
families are being served nationally, a million less than 2 years ago.
  Mr. President, this is a time to increase funding for LIHEAP not 
decrease it. Last month, as cochair of the Northeast-Midwest Senate 
Coalition, I spearheaded a letter to Senators Specter and Harkin that 
asked for an increase in regular funding for LIHEAP so that the program 
is not forced to rely on releases of emergency funds to meet basic 
needs. Fifty-five Senators signed on to this letter.
  Mr. President, the Appropriations Committee should be commended for 
recognizing that the need for LIHEAP is greater than current resources. 
The committee has included $1.2 billion in so-called advance funds for 
fiscal 1999. I urge my colleagues to overwhelmingly reject this 
amendment to cut LIHEAP and support Senators Specter and Harkin in 
their effort to increase LIHEAP funding in fiscal 1999.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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, there has been a hotline run, that is to 
say, Senators on both sides of the aisle have been notified, and I now 
ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on or in relation to the 
pending Kyl amendment at 5 p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I again renew the request that any 
Senator who has an amendment to offer should come to the floor. And 
again I say that we are going to be seeking a unanimous-consent 
agreement to limit amendments which were filed, trying to get that 
accomplished by late afternoon or early evening.
  Again, in the absence of any Senator on the floor seeking 
recognition, 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. CONRAD. 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. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the pending amendment. I 
understand we will soon vote on the amendment of the Senator from 
Arizona, Senator Kyl. I wanted to take just a moment to address that 
amendment that is before the body.
  Mr. President, Senator Kyl has suggested that we increase Pell grant 
funding by $528 million. That is a worthy goal. That is something that 
I would like to see done. But he suggests paying for it by taking that 
money out of the low-income heating assistance program.
  The Senator from Arizona experiences a different reality than the one 
I experience. The Senator from Arizona says the energy crisis is over; 
the need for low-income heating assistance has ended. I could not 
disagree more. We have just had in my State the worst winter in our 
history. In fact, we saw heating oil prices spike significantly, with 
natural gas hitting an all-time high. Propane spiked dramatically, 
hitting an all-time high.
  Mr. President, this is not the time to end the low-income heating 
assistance program. We just went through a winter in which not only did 
we have the worst winter in terms of snowfall in our history, but we 
had, if I am not mistaken, eight blizzards and nine major winter 
storms. We also had the most powerful winter storm in 50 years in the 
first week of April.
  Mr. President, that was devastating in my State. In fact, this 
collection of storms was devastating in my State. Low-income heating 
assistance played a key role in helping people who are faced with the 
choice between heating and eating. That is not a choice anybody should 
have to make in this country.
  So, while I certainly support the underlying intention of the Senator 
from Arizona to increase assistance for Pell grants, I would simply 
point to the record of what we have already done.
  We have a $1 billion increase for Pell grants in this legislation; 
funding of $6.9 billion for Pell grants. Again, I would like to see 
that increased further. But I don't think the way to fund it is to 
dramatically reduce what is available for low-income heating 
assistance. This bill has $1 billion for fiscal year 1998 in low-income 
heating assistance and $300 million in an emergency contingency fund. 
To cut back by $528 million to add to Pell grants I don't think can be 
justified.
  So I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing the Kyl amendment, not 
because I am opposed to an increase in Pell grants but because I am 
opposed to taking it out of low-income heating assistance at a time 
when we have just experienced in the northern plains the worst winter 
in our history, and, if the almanac is to be believed, we may be faced 
with another tough winter this year. I hope that is not the case, but 
if it is, low-income heating assistance may make the difference between 
people making a decision of heating versus eating. Again, that is not a 
decision anybody should have to make.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. 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. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be given an 
extra 5 minutes past 5 o'clock to make statements.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S8710]]



                          ____________________