[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]]
____________________