Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 117 (Monday, September 8, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 117 (Monday, September 8, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8898-S8919]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill.

A bill (S. 1061) making appropriations for the Departments
of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1998, and for other purposes.

The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:

Gregg amendment No. 1070, to prohibit the use of funds for
national testing in reading and mathematics, with certain
exceptions.
Coats-Gregg amendment No. 1071 (to amendment No. 1070), 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.
Specter amendment No. 1069, 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.
Nickles-Jeffords amendment No. 1081, to limit the use of
taxpayer funds for any future International Brotherhood of
Teamsters leadership election.
Craig amendment No. 1083 (to amendment No. 1081), in the
nature of a substitute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

Amendment No. 1087

(Purpose: To increase funding for the Head Start Act)

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I send an 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 Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an
amendment numbered 1087.

[[Page S8899]]

not be subject to the nondefense discretionary cap provided
in section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985; and
(2) the amount appropriated for purposes of the B-2 bomber
program for fiscal year 1998 is hereby reduced by
$331,000,000.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be temporarily laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1088

(Purpose: To increase funding for Federal Pell grants)

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I send an 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 Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an
amendment numbered 1088.

Mr. WELLSTONE. 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:
On page 61, after line 25, insert the following:
Sec. . If the amount appropriated to carry out the B-2
bomber program for fiscal year 1998 is more than
$579,800,000, then notwithstanding any other provision of
law--
(1) the total amount appropriated under this Act to carry
out subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 shall be $7,241,334,000, and such amount shall
not be subject to the nondefense discretionary cap provided
in section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985; and
(2) the amount appropriated for purposes of the B-2 bomber
program for fiscal year 1998 is hereby reduced by
$331,000,000.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be temporarily laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1089

(Purpose: To increase funding for the Education Infrastructure Act of
1994)

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I send an 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 Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an
amendment numbered 1089.

Mr. WELLSTONE. 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:
On page 61, after line 25, insert the following:
Sec. . If the amount appropriated to carry out the B-2
bomber program for fiscal year 1998 is more than
$579,800,000, then notwithstanding any other provision of
law--
(1) the total amount appropriated under this Act to carry
out the Education Infrastructure Act of 1994 shall be
$371,000,000, and such amount shall not be subject to the
nondefense discretionary cap provided in section 251 of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985;
and
(2) the amount appropriated for purposes of the B-2 bomber
program for fiscal year 1998 is hereby reduced by
$331,000,000.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be temporarily laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, this is not an amendment, and I know
the managers are not here. It is not really a debate I am trying to
generate here. I thought I would take a little bit of time, while I
have the floor, to thank the managers of the bill for their work.
Really, I think they have done a very, very impressive job, especially
when you consider what they have been able to put into this bill.
These amendments that I have introduced have more to do with what is
not in the bill, and we will be debating that later. I want to also
thank the managers of the bill for including an important item in this
appropriations measure. This bill, on the Senate side, it is my
understanding, includes the full amount requested by the President for
the budget of the Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health
Administration.
As the ranking member of the Labor Committee's Subcommittee on
Employment and Training, I am very interested in this whole area of
occupational health and safety. But, today, what I want to do is talk
about one aspect of this policy, and that is the sampling of coal mine
dust and its relation to black lung disease. Madam President, this is
of particular interest to me because of a recent trip that I took to
eastern Kentucky. I met with a number of coal miners, and I do think
that their story deserves to be told. It is a story that I intend to
follow, hopefully, as we in the Congress take further steps to make
sure that the Federal Government lives up to its responsibility
regarding miners' health and safety.
Mining has been really one of the most dangerous professions, and the
Federal Government has done much to correct or address some of its
hazards. But what I want to focus on is the Mine Safety and Health
Administration and a request for new staff and money--which we have on
the Senate side, it is my understanding--to increase the Federal
Government's sampling for respirable coal mine dust. The request is
modest, but it is significant; it calls for 24 new full-time employees
and $1.7 million.
Madam President, though it is a small amount of money, I think it is
very important that we keep this in conference. Last year, there was an
advisory committee appointed by the Secretary of Labor, which
recommended that a key step that the Federal Government could take
toward eliminating black lung disease would be to increase the
responsibilities of the Mine Safety and Health Administration for coal
mine dust compliance sampling. Simply speaking, that is a measurement
of coal mine dust levels to determine whether or not they are a threat
to the miners' health.
Madam President, the problem is that the majority of the dust
sampling is done by the mineowners themselves--that is to say the coal
companies. When I was in east Kentucky last week, what I heard over and
over again were really miners describing conditions that I think many
Senators would feel like they were in a time warp and they were really
living 50 years ago. We are talking about too many miners who work in
crawl spaces about this high for 12 or 14 hours a day and can't see 6
inches in front of them because of the dust level. So the problem is,
when you depend upon the companies to actually do the measurements of
the dust levels, there is a pretty obvious conflict of interest. As a
Senator, I am not naive to these conditions. Most of my work has been
in communities around the country, starting in Minnesota, with hard-
pressed people.
I met a woman--to expand this discussion--whose husband had begged
the company over and over again to please give him some relief from his
particular work situation. He was afraid he was going to be
electrocuted. Basically, the position of the company was: Look, if you
don't like the job, leave. When there aren't a lot of $20-an-hour jobs,
people don't have much of a choice. She spoke. She was 27 years of age.
Her husband was electrocuted. He lost his life.
I met other miners suffering from black lung. I met one woman, and
she is the only woman who is a deep mine miner. I said, ``Aren't you
afraid * * *''--the common complaint is that most of the mines are
nonunion, and if people complain, they lose their jobs. I said,
``Aren't you afraid * * *''--since there were TV cameras in Hazard,
KY--I said, ``Aren't you afraid that you are going to lose your job?''
She said, ``I don't think I will because I am the only woman miner. I
don't think they will let me go. I feel like I am speaking for a lot of
other miners that aren't here.''
I said to her and to the other 12 or 14 miners sitting around
talking, ``Look, I have to ask you this question. Can you tell me very
honestly and truthfully, if all of your friends and coworkers could be
here, without fear of losing their jobs, would they be saying the same
thing, or are you exaggerating in any kind of way?''
All of them, starting with this woman miner said, ``They would say
the same thing to you, except that people are afraid they may lose
their jobs.''
I will tell you, it was a very, very powerful meeting. So this is a
small step here to make sure there is some additional money for at
least some

[[Page S8900]]

compliance of the dust sampling. But it is terribly important.
Let me read from the testimony of Earl Shackleford, Jr., from Wallins
Creek in Harlan County, KY. He was 36 years old last year. This was
presented last year to the Secretary of Labor's advisory committee on
the elimination of black lung disease. He had been working as a miner
17 years, though he is only 36. His testimony indicates that he, his
father, his grandfather, and other friends and relatives all suffer
from black lung disease. Someone from my wife Sheila's family from
Cumberland in Harlan County, KY, also suffered from black lung disease.
I will read four sentences from the conclusion of Mr. Shackleford's
testimony:

There is nothing more terrible to me than watching a fellow
coal miner smother to death, one slow gasp at a time. There
is nothing anybody can do for a dying miner but pray for him.
But we can do something for the miners who labor in the mines
today. We can make sure that the coal dust they breathe is
accurately monitored by a Government that cares about their
health and safety.

Madam President, this bill takes a step toward better Federal
monitoring of coal mine dust sampling. I hope we can keep this
additional funding in the conference committee. At the same time, I
point out that I agree with the recommendation of the Secretary's
advisory committee on the elimination of black lung disease, which is
that the Federal Government should take more responsibility in this
area--perhaps full responsibility--of dust sampling.
I am going to be working with other colleagues. Eventually, I want to
come to the floor and push very hard on this. The story of these
Kentucky coal miners cannot be ignored. I had a chance to talk to
Senator Ford, who has cared about these issues and about what the
miners are facing. The testimony of Earl Shackleford, Jr., and others,
cannot be ignored.
I would like to thank the managers again of this bill for putting
money in here for at least some compliance work. I hope we can keep
that in conference committee.
I want to say to colleagues that one of the best things about getting
a chance to travel sometimes outside of your State--not necessarily to
another country, but in other communities --and for me, focusing on
poverty in the country has been a tremendous education and very
important. I met a lot of people who should be famous, a lot of strong
people who, under incredibly difficult conditions, can still manage to
survive and not only survive but flourish. But of all the meetings I
have been to and of all the things I have seen--and I have seen a lot
of children and a lot of pain, and I have seen a lot of housing that
nobody should ever have to live in, and I have seen schools that are
just as dilapidated as the schools that we talk about, where you can
walk in the hallway and you can smell the stench of urine, and you can
go into the bathrooms where the toilets don't even work, I have seen
all that and more than I want to see. But this meeting with these coal
miners in eastern Kentucky was jolting.
I asked one of the journalists that was there, off the record, to
tell me whether or not she thought they were exaggerating. She said,
``Absolutely not.'' My guess is that in some of the investigative work
that I hope will be done by journalists, we are going to see more
reports of these conditions. We are talking about conditions that these
coal miners are working under that we thought existed 50 years ago--
people not able to see 6 inches in front of them because of the dust
levels, which not only means people are gone to go suffer from and die
from black lung, it also means, it is my understanding, that when you
have that high concentration of dust levels, you have the ingredients
for all kinds of possibilities of explosions within the mine. And then
somebody will talk about a mine accident as if it were impersonal and
random and never should have happened.
We have a huge problem here because the coal mine operators, the
companies, are actually the ones doing the measurement of the dust
levels. I don't see how we can really get an independent and accurate
measurement of the dust levels and how that affects these miners,
unless we do much better by way of expanding the responsibility or at
least the resources for the Department of Labor's Mine Safety and
Health Administration. I am sure other people in the Senate would say
the same thing. But it is very difficult to meet with people and have a
couple of people talk about loved ones who were killed in the mines. I
still cannot remember. She is 27 years old. Her husband was 28 years
old when he was electrocuted. I have met a lot of the older miners who
were suffering with black lung. For reasons I don't actually understand
the actual motive for being turned down when they applied for
disability, which is something I want to know more about.

But at the very least, I think we have to make sure that somehow the
clock has not been turned back 50 years. People ought not to have to
work under conditions which are uncivilized. People have every right in
our country to be able to focus on how they earn a decent living and
how they have a job that pays a decent wage under civilized working
conditions. The miners in eastern Kentucky, or some of the miners and
the miners that I met with, should not be in a situation where if they
should speak up about this, they lose their jobs. The choice for them
is whether you do and, if you work, you work under these uncivilized
conditions and it is going to take years off your life, possibly kill
you, or you don't work and you lose your job.
I know that some of these issues are just like off the radar screen
here in the Senate. But I think really this should be part of our
focus.
Madam President, I yield the floor. 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 1087, 1088, and 1089 Withdrawn

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I withdraw my amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments are withdrawn.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from the State of
Maine, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MACK. Madam 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. 1090

(Purpose: To increase the appropriations for the Mary McLeod Bethune
Memorial Fine Arts Center)

Mr. MACK. Madam President, I have an amendment on behalf of myself
and my colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, that I send to the desk
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack], for himself and Mr.
Graham, proposes an amendment numbered 1090.

Mr. MACK. 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:

On page 57, line 24, strike ``$929,752,000, of which'' and
insert ``$934,972,000, of which $6,620,000 shall be expended
to carry out Public Law 102-423 and of which''.
On page 85, line 19, strike ``$30,500,000'' and insert
``$35,720,000''.

Mr. MACK. Madam President, this amendment would provide an additional
$5.2 million to fund the construction phase of the Mary McLeod Bethune
Memorial Fine Arts Center and Hospitality Management Training Facility.
It would bring the fiscal year 1998 appropriation for this center to
$6.6 million, which is the same as the House committee recommendation.
This center was authorized in 1992 as a freestanding bill and became
Public Law 102-423. It would be offset by decreasing the salaries and
expense accounts.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be
temporarily laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S8901]]

Mr. MACK. Madam President, I yield the floor. 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. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the pending
business before the Senate be laid aside for purposes of proposing an
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1091

(Purpose: To eliminate medicare incentive payments under plans for
voluntary reduction in the number of residents)

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I send an 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 Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself and Mr.
Gramm, proposes an amendment numbered 1091.

Mr. McCAIN. 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:

On page 49, after line 26, add the following:
Sec. . (a) Section 4626 of the Balanced Budget Act of
1997 (Public Law 105-33) is repealed.
(b) For any fiscal year (beginning with fiscal year 1998),
the Secretary of Health and Human Services may not enter into
an agreement with any institution to provide incentive
payments to the institution for the reduction of medical
residents in the approved medical education training programs
(as defined in section 1886(h)(5)(A) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(5)(A)), of that institution.
(c) The repeal made by subsection (a) shall take effect as
if included in the enactment of the Balanced Budget Act of
1997 (Public Law 105-33).

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I would like it known I also have one
other amendment that I want to have considered by the Senate on this
legislation. I will wait before proposing that amendment, but make it
clear I do have another one.
Madam President, I also intend to ask for the yeas and nays on this
amendment. I understand there is still some uncertainty as to when a
vote will be held on this particular amendment.
Madam President, I rise, with my colleague, Senator Phil Gramm, to
offer an amendment that would eliminate the financing incentives
created in the Balanced Budget Act for teaching hospitals to reduce
their medical residency programs. This new program will make teaching
hospitals eligible for hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars for
not training medical students. Let me repeat that, Madam President.
Under the Balanced Budget Act, which we voted on before we went into
the August recess, a program was created that would make teaching
hospitals eligible for hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars for
not training medical students--not for training medical students, but
for not training medical students. In short, the Federal Government
will pay hospitals for doing nothing.
Unbeknownst to most of my colleagues when we considered and voted for
the Balanced Budget Act, that legislation created yet another wasteful,
unnecessary, and inappropriate Federal subsidy program. This newly
created subsidy is no different from the wasteful agricultural subsidy
programs which pay farmers millions of dollars not to grow certain
crops or to reduce their production of a certain crop. This is wasteful
and a blatant misuse of taxpayers' funds.
Proponents of the new incentive program argue that there is an
overabundance of medical doctors, particularly specialists, in this
country. They believe that providing financial incentives to hospitals
to reduce the number of medical students is a solution to the supposed
glut of physicians in our country. Madam President, it springs to my
mind that there is an argument that is being made by a lot of us today
who are not members of the legal profession that the same problem
exists in that the country has too many lawyers. I wonder if in the
next Balanced Budget Act agreement, we are going to pay hundreds of
millions of dollars to law schools, because we have an overabundance,
not to teach lawyers. I might say, Madam President, as a personal
preference I might lean toward that program more than the one that we
have just enacted in the Balanced Budget Act.
Let me also just point out here, the Berlin wall fell. Socialism,
that is communism, is a failure. It is only in Communist countries
where they pay people not to do things. This might have been a great
idea in North Korea, Cuba, or perhaps some other countries in the
world, but certainly not in the United States of America should we be
paying hundreds of millions of dollars so that we will not train
anybody, much less not train doctors. As I will point out later on in
my remarks, Madam President, there are 46 million Americans who do not
have access to medical care. Yet we are going to spend hundreds of
millions of dollars in order that teaching hospitals will not teach--
will not teach.
It is not the role of the Federal Government to determine if we have
an appropriate amount of physicians or any other professionals in this
country. This subsidy is a misguided attempt by the Federal Government
to restrict the career choices available to individual Americans. This
program places the Federal Government in control of a specific labor
segment in our country and allows the Government to directly restrict
the freedom of choice of our citizens who may want to become
physicians.
I have children. Most of the Members of this body have children. If
one of my children decides he or she wants to be a physician, should
that child be restricted from doing so if otherwise eligible to train
as a physician? In a democracy, the Government does not determine the
makeup of the labor force or regulate the supply of workers in a
specific field. That was done in the former Soviet Union. Demand, not
the Government, in a market-driven economy, drives the number of
practicing physicians. As the need for doctors increases or decreases,
medical schools and teaching hospitals must determine how many
applicants to accept and if there is a need for expanding or reduction.
Government rationing of medical training and ultimately rationing of
health care smacks of socialism not democracy.
Second, Federal subsidies don't work. They cost money and usually
don't achieve their stated goals. Every time we have ignored market-
based solutions to our Nation's health care problems and called for
Government intervention, we have had paradoxical results. In the
1960's, the Government predicted an undersupply of doctors and created
incentives for individuals to pursue a medical career. The result was a
perceived glut of medical doctors by the late 1970's.
Third, this new subsidy program totally ignores the needs of 46
million Americans residing in rural communities and inner-city
neighborhoods who are faced with a shortage of physicians and health
care professionals. While proponents of this initiative argue that our
country is producing more physicians than we need, many communities
have no resident physicians and have only limited access to trained
medical care.
I am seriously concerned about the disproportionate number of
physicians who elect to practice only in urban settings, leaving rural
and inner-city neighborhoods underserved and without access to critical
medical services.
A better use of taxpayer dollars might be to strengthen existing
programs already in place to increase access to health care providers
and services in underserved areas. This includes the National Health
Service Corps, Area Health Education Centers, Interdisciplinary
Training for Health Care in Rural Areas, Community Health Centers,
Migrant Health Centers, and the Health Professions Workforce
Development Program. Those are all good programs. I have seen the
community health centers in my own State serve people who otherwise
would not receive health care. I repeat, 46 million Americans are
underserved or not served at all in light of their medical needs.

[[Page S8902]]

Finally, this subsidy will be financed using the Medicare part A
trust fund. As we all know, without significant reform to the Medicare
system, this trust fund is expected to become insolvent. Using scarce
Medicare resources to finance another Government subsidy program is
unwise in the near term and unnecessary in the long term if market
forces are permitted to determine the need for doctors in this country.
There is also going to be an argument raised that this would somehow
upset the delicate agreement that was made in the Balanced Budget
Agreement Act; that somehow this was an ironclad commitment that we
would agree to every single aspect of the balanced budget agreement. I
want to state right here, what a lot of us did was hold our nose and
vote for it. A lot of people didn't vote for it, but a lot of us held
our nose because we didn't like a lot of things associated with it. And
to say that we should subsidize a program that is pure socialism in the
name of preserving the balanced budget agreement, I think, borders on
insanity. But yet, strangely enough, Madam President, you will see
Senators come to this floor and say that if we vote not to subsidize
through hundreds of millions of dollars teaching hospitals not to
teach, then somehow it will upset the balanced budget agreement. I find
that argument absurd, and we will hear it.
I understand that there was a request by others to speak against this
amendment. I also am not clear as to whether the votes will be held
this afternoon or later.
I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending McCain amendment so
that I may present another amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 1092

(Purpose: To ensure that payments to certain persons captured and
interned by North Vietnam are not considered income or resources in
determining eligibility for, or the amount of benefits under, a program
or State plan under title XVI or XIX of the Social Security Act)

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

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself, Mr.
Kerry, and Mr. Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 1092.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 49, after line 26, add the following:
Sec. . (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the payments described in subsection (b) shall not be
considered income or resources in determining eligibility
for, or the amount of benefits under, a program or State plan
under title XVI or XIX of the Social Security Act.
(b) The payments described in this subsection are payments
made by the Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 657 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997
(Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2584).
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is basically to correct a
technical problem that exists. It is to pay the Vietnamese commandos
that we authorized by legislation last year. They are a group of
Vietnamese soldiers who were recruited and trained by the United States
to promote our cause during the Vietnam war. Unfortunately, they were
captured soon after their deployment and imprisoned for 20 years for
fighting on our side.
Last year, we passed legislation authorizing payment to the commandos
for their sacrifice, $2,000 a year for the 20 years they were detained,
for a total of $40,000 each. However, this payment, if interpreted as 1
year's income will disqualify the commandos from Medicaid and other
benefits they currently receive, because it ostensibly raises their
income beyond the cutoff point for benefits.
This is a payment accrued to the commandos over the 20-year period
during which they were detained. As such, it represents not 1 year's
income but an annual payment of $2,000 over 20 years and should not,
therefore, disqualify them from Medicaid and SSI.
Mr. President, we have now placed the commandos in the awkward
position of being forced into accepting the funds we rightly owe them
or maintaining their eligibility for needed benefits. This amendment,
by myself and Senator Kerry, simply states the $40,000 payment to each
commando will not disqualify him from the various welfare benefits he
currently receives. This measure has no cost and merely ensures the
commandos don't lose the benefits they already receive.
We are in debt to these men for their wartime sacrifices, and we
cannot compensate them with one hand while we take away their benefits
with the other.
I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this measure to make sure
the commandos are not unjustly penalized for accepting the accumulated
payment our country rightly owes them. I hope this will be a routine
amendment. I yield the floor.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last year Congress enacted legislation that
I sponsored with Senator McCain to provide payment to some 450
Vietnamese commandos who were captured by North Vietnamese forces while
performing covert operations for the United States behind enemy lines
and subsequently incarcerated in North Vietnamese prisons for 20 years
or more. Under this legislation, each of the commandos would receive a
lump sum payment of $40,000--payment their families did not receive
during their years of incarceration because the Pentagon wrote them off
the employment rolls by declaring them dead.
Presently about 200 of the commandos reside in the United States.
Most are either U.S. citizens or resident aliens applying for
citizenship. Many of them receive Medicaid and related benefits. The
problem is that receipt of the long overdue lump sum payment will
disqualify them from Medicaid and other benefits they currently receive
because it raises their income above the cutoff point for benefits.
Let me give you an example. Last year, I met with a group of
commandos including Ly Pho, who lives in my home State of
Massachusetts. Ly and his colleagues wanted to express their thanks for
our efforts to provide them compensation. Shortly after the meeting,
which was widely reported in the press in Massachusetts, Ly was
notified by his social service case worker that his Medicaid assistance
would be terminated once he received the compensation.
Inadvertently, we have placed the commandos in an untenable position
which forces them to choose between the funds we rightly owe them for
their services and loyalty to our cause during the war and the benefits
they now receive. The amendment Senator McCain and I are offering today
is designed to eliminate this Hobson's choice by making it clear that
the payment each commando receives will not disqualify him from
receiving these benefits.
I believe that this amendment is necessary and fair. These men made
great sacrifices for the United States. They were incarcerated for
years and many of them were tortured during their incarceration. We are
in their debt. We cannot give them compensation with one hand and take
away the life sustaining health benefits that they need with another.
This is an important amendment with no additional financial burden to
the U.S. Government. I urge my colleagues to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I not lose the
floor in the process of yielding to my friend from Idaho. Prior to
doing that, I ask unanimous consent that I be listed as a cosponsor on
the last amendment offered by my friend from Arizona, and I will also
say that the statement he just made regarding the doctor issue is
something we need to talk about and discuss. I think it is a very
important amendment and needs to be discussed in some detail rather
than just let go through as it is now on the legislation before us.
Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield, it has been made clear that
there will be a significant amount of debate on this amendment.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, I am not opposed to it. It is just an
issue we should talk about.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the request of becoming a cosponsor,
without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S8903]]

Without objection, the request of the Senator from Nevada regarding
yielding to the Senator from Idaho is agreed to. The Senator from
Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada for
yielding. May I inquire of the Chair, has the last McCain amendment
been set aside?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not.
Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1093

(Purpose: To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to adjust the
maximum hour exemption for agricultural employees)

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

The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], for himself and Mr.
Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 1093.

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

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
Sec. . Section 13(b)(12) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213(b)(12)) is amended by inserting after
``water'' the following: ``, at least 90 percent of which is
ultimately delivered''.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself
and Senator Bingaman. I am offering an amendment to S. 1061 that would
make a very narrow change in the Fair Labor Standards Act. This is a
small amendment, but it is critically important to irrigators in Idaho
and across the West.
My amendment would solve a problem with the interpretation of a
provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act clarifying that the maximum
hour exemption for agricultural employees apply to water delivery
organizations that supply 90 percent or more of their water for
agricultural purposes.
My colleague, Congressman Mike Crapo, has introduced a like measure
in the House. This is an issue we struggled with for some time, Mr.
President. What we are simply saying is that nonprofit co-ops that
deliver water are exempt. We have always done it. We have done it for
other provisions under the fair labor standards. But if that irrigation
ditch happens to cross a pasture and cattle drink out of it and there
is some other measure or use other than irrigation that falls under
fair labor standards, we are saying OK, but a narrow window. Ninety
percent has to be for that purpose, the other 10 percent might
accidentally be used for those purposes and might not fall under the
qualifications. The intent of the amendment, I think, clarifies, and
certainly irrigators across the West working with other organizations
had hoped we could resolve this issue. It has been some time in the
making.
Representative Mike Crapo of Idaho and I previously have introduced a
similar provision as a bill--S. 259 in the Senate and H.R. 526 in the
other body. Our amendment would restore the flexibility that was always
intended by Congress.
Nonprofit organizations, such as independent water districts or
nonprofit corporations, which deliver water for agricultural purposes,
are exempt from the maximum-hour requirements of the FLSA. The
Department of Labor has interpreted this to mean that no amount of this
water, however minimal, can be used for other purposes. Therefore, if
even a small portion of the water delivered winds up being used for
road watering, lawn and garden irrigation, livestock consumption, or
construction, for example, delivery organizations are assessed severe
penalties.
Such uses may be closely related, but technically not interpreted as
being, ``agricultural purposes.''
The exemption for overtime pay requirements was placed in the FLSA to
protect the economies of rural areas. Irrigation has never been, and
cannot be, a 40-hour-per-week undertaking. During the summer, water
must be managed and delivered continually. Later in the year following
the harvest, the work load is light, consisting mainly of maintenance
duties.
This adjustment would be better for employers, workers, and farmers.
It would reflect more accurately the realities of agricultural water
delivery.
Winter compensation and time off traditionally have been the method
of compensating for longer summer hours. Without this exemption,
irrigators are forced to lay off their employees in the winter.
Therefore, this amendment would benefit employees, who would continue
to earn a year-round income. It also would keep costs level, which
would benefit suppliers and consumers.
I urge my colleagues to support this modest amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be set
aside, and I yield the floor to the Senator from Nevada.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.

Amendment No. 1094

(Purpose: To provide for the conduct of a study concerning the health
and safety effects of perchlorate on human beings)

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on my behalf
and Senator Boxer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself and Mrs.
Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 1094.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 49, after line 26, add the following:
Sec. . (a) Study.--From amounts appropriated under this
title, the National Institutes of Health shall conduct a
study on the health effects of perchlorate on humans with
particular emphasis on the health risks to vulnerable
subpopulations including pregnant women, children, and the
elderly.
(b) Report.--Not later than 9 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the National
Institutes of Health shall prepare and submit to the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, a report
concerning the results of the study conducted under
subsection (a), including whether further health effects
research is necessary.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the amendment that I have offered on my
behalf and that of the Senator from California deals with a serious
problem. The city of Henderson, NV, where I went to high school, has
been in existence since the Second World War. Henderson, NV, was
developed as a result of the war effort during World War II. It is
Nevada's only industrial city.
At one time, that was the whole city. Everything in that town
supplied a job related to what we called the basic magnesium complex,
BMI. So for more than 50 years, Henderson has been supplying products
for our war effort--the Second World War, Korea, Vietnam, the cold war.
During the cold war, the biggest use of products out of the complex,
at least one part of the complex, was providing the fuel to send
spaceships into the air, a product called ammonium perchlorate.
We, it is said, take our water for granted, especially the water we
drink. Those of us in the western part of the United States are very
concerned about water, as we should be, because we have so little of
it. Just in the last 30 days, there are people in California and Nevada
who are concerned about the safety of the water. We have been told that
the water in Lake Mead is safe, and I am hopeful and confident that it
is. But as people in this body know, water is an enormous issue for
those of us from the West. The scarcity of water and its availability
requires us to be extremely careful in how we apportion and use this
most basic natural resource.
In the Las Vegas area, for example, Mr. President, the annual
rainfall is less than 4 inches a year. We get very, very little water
in the Las Vegas area. Henderson is a suburb of Las Vegas. Because of
this, we do everything we can to make sure that the water is protected.
This is no easy task. The problem that we address in this amendment
deals with something called ammonium perchlorate. It is an interstate
problem. It involves not only the State of Nevada, but also the States
of California and Arizona. Why? Because we share water out of the
Colorado River and the lakes that are up and down the Colorado River.

[[Page S8904]]

Over the August recess, it was reported that perchlorate was turning
up in certain samples they were doing of the water at Lake Mead,
southern Nevada's primary drinking water source. Perchlorate is also
being detected, at really low levels, in Los Angeles, in the water they
think they get from the Colorado River. It has been detected in
California in over 70 drinking water wells throughout that State.
As I mentioned, Mr. President, perchlorate is a common ingredient in
the manufacture of rocket fuel--especially rocket fuel--munitions, and
fireworks. Forms of perchlorate are ammonium perchlorate, which we
manufacture in southern Nevada, potassium perchlorate, sodium
perchlorate, and perchloric acid. Currently, the only treatment for
that is reverse osmosis and ion exchange.
Mr. President, perchlorate is not a compound that is regulated under
the Safe Drinking Water Act. Why? Because all the tests in previous
years showed that there was no reason to be concerned. There are some
scientists who say that it could be dangerous to pregnant women and to
children. We do not know. That is what this amendment is all about.
We want to make sure that in the State of California and the States
of Nevada and Arizona the water is safe. The only State that has set a
limit as to how much perchlorate is allowed to be in the water is
California. They set a limit. We want to make sure we comply with that
limit, as does everyone in Arizona and California.
In the 70 wells that they have tested in California where they found
perchlorate, about 18 of those wells exceeded the level that they had
set. But the question is, what does that really mean? That is the
purpose of this amendment. We have asked the National Institutes of
Health to run some studies during the next 9 months and report back to
us to determine whether or not perchlorate in drinking water is unsafe
for children and pregnant women. Perchlorate is not listed as a RCRA or
Superfund hazardous substance.
We are in relatively new ground at this time, Mr. President. As I
indicated, the primary health concern related to perchlorate is it can
interfere with the thyroid gland's ability to use iodine to produce
certain hormones. In a hormone-deficient condition, normal metabolism,
growth and development can be affected. We don't know that perchlorate
does that, but we need to find out.
In very high doses, perchlorate has been used as a medicine to treat
a thyroid disease called Graves' disease in which excessive amounts of
a thyroid hormone are produced. However, in thousands of parts per
billion, it can disrupt growth and bodily functions because of its
effect on the thyroid gland, some people think. As I have indicated,
those people who are particularly vulnerable to unsafe consumption
would include pregnant women, children, and sometimes the elderly.
The problem, however, is there is no hard science on the health and
safety risks that perchlorate may pose to human beings. We need to
better understand the potential health consequences of this compound on
human beings.
The amendment that I have offered on my behalf and that of the
Senator from California I believe should be accepted by this body. All
of us can appreciate the necessity of ensuring that the water that we
consume is safe. We have been assured by the head of the Southern
Nevada Water Authority, Pat Mulroy, that the water is safe. I am
confident and very, very hopeful that it is. But we need to make sure
that that is the case.
I support this research and am pushing for its inclusion in this
legislation. I also believe that because it has been detected in wells
in the West, we need to understand why it is there. In particular, we
need to understand the potential health risks. Nevada has a large
population with elderly, children, pregnant women, as does certainly
California and Arizona.

So we want this body to accept this. We think it is sound
legislation. We have been in contact with the National Institutes of
Health. They can do this. I ask my colleagues to support this
legislation.
Mr. REED addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President.
Prior to offering an amendment, I ask unanimous consent to yield the
floor to my colleague, the Senator from Louisiana, and have the
opportunity to reclaim the floor and present my amendment, if I may.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank my colleague for yielding, and ask unanimous
consent to lay aside the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1095

(Purpose: To increase the amounts made available to promote adoption
opportunities in order to eliminate barriers and to help find permanent
homes for children)

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment to the
Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill for myself and
Senator McCain. I have here a copy of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu], for herself and
Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 1095.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 44, line 2, strike ``$5,606,094,000'' and insert
``5,611,094,000''.
On page 85, line 19, strike ``$70,500,000'' and insert
``75,500,000''.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to
the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill. As the
Members of the Senate are aware, nearly one-half million children in
this country languish in foster care instead of permanent placement. We
have had little success in coping with the problem. While the numbers
of children in foster care multiply, children trickle into adoptive
homes. Last year only a little over 20,000 children were formally
adopted.
Mr. President, these numbers are unacceptable. Recent advances in
science and psychology have indicated that early childhood is the
critical stage for human development. The nurturing and attention that
infants need can only be provided by a loving family. Studies have
indicated that the holding, touching, and play that good parents take
for granted, actually affects a child's brain size and activity. Sadly,
the children most in need of this kind of human warmth, our abused and
neglected children, are ill-served by our Nation's adoption placement
system.
Equally distressing is the fact that these same problems in the
adoption system are reflected in our budget priorities. In the Labor,
Health and Human Services appropriations bill we propose to spend over
$4.3 billion on support to foster care. At the same time, we are
devoting only $13 million to encourage innovation in state adoption
systems. This is a little more than one-third of 1 percent of all the
money we are devoting to foster care.
Our spending priorities are another stark example of our spending
billions of dollars in a way that perpetuates a problem instead of
resolving it. We need to reprioritize how we address the thousands of
children in foster care. This amendment takes a modest step in the
right direction. By reallocating $5 million from the administrative
costs of the bill to help fund State initiatives in adoption, we can
begin the process of addressing the source of the problem rather than
its symptoms.
Presently, the Children's Bureau has 40 grants to States that were
either approved but unfunded, or underfunded due to shortfalls. Among
the States with unfunded grant applications are Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington,
and the District of Columbia. These grants would affect States large
and small and in every region of the country.
It is my hope that the programs that we fund by providing State grant
support may one day provide a national

[[Page S8905]]

model. Only through innovations like those funded by these grants can
we hope to resolve the foster care crisis. I hope you will join me in
supporting this amendment.
I thank my colleague again for the time.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be
temporarily set aside for its determination at the appropriate time for
a vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1094

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know my friend from Rhode Island has the
floor. I ask that he yield to me for purposes of requesting the yeas
and nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection for there being an order
at this time to the ordering of the yeas and nays?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient
second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President.
I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1096

(Purpose: To provide funding for grants to States for State student
incentives under subpart 4 of part A of title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965)

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for himself, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Levin, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Wyden, Mr.
Kohl, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Reid, Mr.
Feingold, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Kerrey, Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Smith
of Oregon, Mr. Harkin and Ms. Landrieu, proposes an amendment
numbered 1096.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 56, line 19, strike ``and 3'' and insert ``, 3 and
4''.
On page 56, line 22, before the period insert ``, provided
that, $35,000,000 shall be available for State Student
Incentive grants derived from unobligated balances''.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to offer an amendment
with my Republican colleague from Maine on the Labor and Human
Resources Committee, Senator Susan Collins, and we are joined by a host
of other colleagues--Senator Kennedy, Senator Chafee, Senator Smith of
Oregon, Senator Harkin, Senator Dodd, Senator Conrad, Senator Levin,
Senator Kohl, Senator Wyden, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Murray,
Senator Wellstone, Senator Bingaman, Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator
Feingold, Senator Dorgan, Senator Torricelli, Senator Kerrey, Senator
Johnson, and Senator Landrieu. I believe this indicates the widespread
depth of concern and support for maintenance of the State Student
Incentive Grant Program, or SSIG, as it is known.
This is a remarkable program, which requires State governments to
match Federal resources on a dollar-for-dollar basis and provides
direct higher education grant assistance to needy students. I had
originally intended to offer, along with my colleague Senator Collins,
an amendment which would have restored SSIG funding to last year's
level of $50 million, but out of deference to the subcommittee chairman
and also because of a lack of sufficient offset, the amendment today
adds back $35 million for SSIG with an offset of unobligated balances
from prior years.
In accepting this change, it is our intent to work with Chairman
Specter and Senator Harkin, as they have agreed, to ensure that funding
for SSIG, at no less than $35 million and hopefully even more, is
secured during conference deliberations with the other body.
Mr. President, I want to tell all of my colleagues why this amendment
and saving student aid funding is so vitally important.
SSIG is critical to higher education, critical to the dreams of more
than 700,000 students across the Nation and 13,000 students just in my
home State of Rhode Island alone.
We are all familiar with another higher education grant, the Pell
grant, and, as I think many in this Chamber, as well as students,
parents, and those involved in higher education know, the purchasing
power of the Pell grant has fallen drastically in comparison to
inflation and the skyrocketing cost of college education. Students have
searched for other sources of need-based higher education grants and
have come to rely upon SSIG, the State Student Incentive Grant.
With a relatively modest amount of Federal funding, this essential
program encourages States to provide need-based financial aid to
students in the form of grants and community service work study awards.
SSIG grants are targeted to the neediest undergraduate and graduate
students. The average family income for SSIG recipients in 1991-92 was
approximately $12,000, which is below the Federal poverty level for a
family of four. The average SSIG-supported grant was about $1,200 in
1995-96. This program reaches those families who are most desperately
in need of support to send their children to college.
Moreover, this program is extremely efficient. Every SSIG dollar goes
to the students. These funds are not used in any way to cover
administrative costs.
With an SSIG expenditure at the Federal level of $63 million in
fiscal year 1996, the program leveraged more than $784 million in State
matching funds and served more than 700,000 students across America. In
Rhode Island, an SSIG Federal expenditure of roughly $334,000 leveraged
over $8 million in Rhode Island expenditures, serving more than 13,000
students.
The history of this program is simple. Before its enactment 25 years
ago, only 26 States provided need-based assistance to students. Now,
all 50 States provide such assistance.
While SSIG has been successful in increasing State aid, it is not
true that it has outlived its usefulness. The statutory purpose of SSIG
is not simply to start up State programs. Instead, its purpose is to
encourage and assist States in making need-based grant and community
service work-study awards to students.
Indeed, if SSIG is eliminated, nine States, including Alabama,
Arizona, Georgia, and Mississippi, could lose their entire grant
program. In these States, SSIG funds represent 25 percent or more of
their entire student grant program. It is unlikely they would sustain
these programs without this Federal assistance and encouragement. In
addition, if SSIG were eliminated, 43 States have already said they
would reduce the number and amount of need-based grants, according to
the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs.
Thirteen States could face a 40-percent drop in funding for need-based
grants, according to PIRG's Higher Education Project.
Even with Federal funding, my home State of Rhode Island failed to
maintain funding for the State grant program in 1993 and lost Federal
SSIG funding. So Rhode Island, a State known for its commitment to
education, also faces serious harm to its need-based program.
How could SSIG have outlived its usefulness if States have already or
are threatening to shut down student grant programs and cut student
aid?
Even the Appropriations Committee has noted that there is wisdom in
maintaining funding for this program. In this Congress, the Senate will
work on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, which covers
most higher education grants and loan programs including Pell grants
and SSIG. During this reauthorization process, the Senate Labor and
Human Resources Committee, on which I serve, along with Senator
Collins, will comprehensively review all higher education aid programs.
Prior to the Labor Committee's work, I believe it would be
inappropriate and unfair for Congress to eliminate a successful program
like SSIG. It is a program that

[[Page S8906]]

deserves support, but also deserves review, which it will receive in
the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
It is also interesting to note that at a time when the majority party
in this Congress is calling for more Federal money to be returned to
the States, eliminating SSIG would end a successful program that gives
States substantial flexibility and resources to help them help their
citizens on to a better life.
In addition, it is important to note in the recent budget, we have
gone a long way in providing tax incentives to send young people to
college, tax credits and deductions from taxes, but the people that are
served by SSIG are those that cannot readily use the tax system to help
their children go to college. In this way, SSIG is vitally important
because it is a grant program directly to those low-income Americans
that need a chance to share in the same opportunity that we have, in
our wisdom, provided through the tax system to upper-income and middle-
income Americans.
Now, let me emphasize that SSIG is more important than ever as
college costs continue to grow faster than income and grant aid, and as
the grant-loan imbalance widens. In 1975, 80 percent of student aid
came in the form of grants and 20 percent in the form of loans. Now,
the opposite is true.
Let me also add that low-income students are finding it particularly
hard to afford higher education. Less than 50 percent of high school
graduates with family incomes under $22,000 go on to college, while
more than 80 percent of their higher income counterparts go on to
pursue education beyond high school. Frankly, if we do not reverse this
trend, if we do not let every segment of our society go on to higher
education, we will continue to develop a bifurcation of our society and
our economy as young people with a chance to go on to college gain
skills that make them employable and, indeed, enhances their incomes
and ability to seize all the opportunity in our society, while others
are left out. We cannot let that happen.

SSIG continues to make a difference for needy students in many
States. However, I again remind my colleagues that nine States would
likely end their grant programs without Federal encouragement and
funding. Moreover, 43 States have said they would cut grants if SSIG
were eliminated.
Mr. President, we should be helping all our citizens achieve the
American dream by ensuring access to higher education, especially for
hard-working families whose wages have not kept up with inflation.
Our amendment seeks to provide $35 million for SSIG. It is not a lot
of money in a bill that contains more than $269 billion in funding, but
it will make a huge difference to the students who rely upon it.
This amendment, I understand, is agreeable to the chairman and the
ranking member and they have committed to work with Senator Collins and
myself to fight for this funding in conference.
I have a letter from the American Council of Education in support of
the amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

American Council on Education, Office of the President,
August 29, 1997.
Dear Senator: The associations listed below, representing
the nation's 3,700 colleges and universities, strongly urge
you to support the amendment that will be offered by Senators
Jack Reed (D-RI) and Susan M. Collins (R-ME) during floor
consideration of the Fiscal Year 1998 Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education appropriations bill. This amendment
will restore funding for the State Student Incentive Grant
(SSIG) program, which serves as an effective inducement for
states to maintain need-based student financial assistance
programs.
In eliminating funding for the SSIG program, the Senate
Appropriations Committee expressed the view that the need
exists for an ongoing source of federal support that
encourages and leverages state contributions, along with its
hope that the imminent reauthorization will succeed in
modifying and strengthening SSIG. We believe this will be
accomplished, and we have submitted recommendations designed
to achieve this goal.
However, we believe that the current program is both
misunderstood and undervalued in terms of its unique role in
the array of existing student aid programs. Within the last
six years, for example, SSIG's maintenance of effort
requirement has prevented cuts or forced the restoration of
funding of state grants in Massachusetts, Arizona, Rhode
Island, Connecticut, and Oregon. Further, terminating the
program will have punitive consequences for the 680,000
students whose average award of over $1,200 offers them an
essential alternative to borrowing. SSIG cuts also will be
felt by graduate students, since SSIG is the only Title IV
grant program for which they are eligible.
Terminating SSIG also will further strain the already
frayed relationship that exists between the state and federal
governments, families, students, and institutions. While
students and their families have borrowed increasingly
greater amounts; while institutions have increased
institutional student aid from $1 billion in 1979 to more
than $10 billion in 1995; and while the federal government
has arrested and begun to reverse the decade-long decline in
the value of Pell Grants, states have cut spending on higher
education to pay for increased expenses in Medicaid and
corrections programs. Between 1985 and 1997, the share of
state budgets dedicated to higher education fell from 14
percent to 12 percent. Indeed, one analyst has now concluded
that if state support for higher education continues to
decline at the rate we have seen in the last two decades, it
could begin to hit zero in some states early in the next
century.
We believe that the SSIG program still plays an essential
role in leveraging a state/federal partnership in the
provision of need-based student aid. We oppose SSIG's
elimination, and we urge your support of the Reed/Collins
amendment to restore its funding.
Sincerely,
Stanley O. Ikenberry,
President.
On behalf of the following associations: American
Association of Community Colleges, American Association of
State Colleges and Universities, American Council on
Education, Association of American Universities, National
Association of Independent Colleges and Universities,
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges.

Mr. REED. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We cannot
afford to pass up this opportunity to aid students who in turn will
build a stronger and more prosperous America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend and
colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, in offering an amendment to
restore $35 million in funding for the State Student Incentive Grant
Program.
First, I want to thank and recognize the able leadership of the
Senator from Rhode Island in this area. I also want to say I very much
appreciate the work of the managers of this bill, Senators Specter and
Senator Harkin, in working with Senator Reed and myself to find an
offset that will allow us to achieve funding for this very important
program.
The SSIG program has successfully leveraged a relatively small
Federal contribution and investment in student aid to build a State-
Federal partnership supporting grants to the neediest college students.
Last year, a Federal appropriation of $63 million resulted in a match
of $784 million in State expenditures for need-based scholarship
grants. In the State of Maine alone, 12,000 students received
assistance under this important program. Nationally, grants averaging
$1,200 were awarded to about 700,000 students. The recipients, Mr.
President, come from families with average incomes of $12,000 a year.
As the Senator from Rhode Island has pointed out, that is below the
Federal poverty level for a family of four.
Mr. President, it would be a serious mistake to terminate this
program. Every single Federal dollar that it provides goes to students
with financial need. The States bear the administrative costs, so every
single Federal dollar goes for the grants for these needy students.
This program helps to close the widening gap between what students
receive in grant assistance and what they are forced to borrow to pay
for the ever-increasing costs of a college education.
Because of high tuition costs and increased borrowing, students are
graduating from college with higher and higher debt burdens. This
Congress has recognized the problem that this mountain of debt poses
for new graduates. It has attempted to ease that burden by making the
interests on student loans tax deductible, but then if we turn around
and eliminate the Federal contribution to the SSIG program we will, in
fact, be counteracting part of this benefit to the most deserving
students by increasing their loan burden.
Now, Mr. President, opponents to continuing the SSIG program argue

[[Page S8907]]

the purpose for the program no longer exists since each of the 50
States have established a grant program. However, this overlooks the
importance of SSIG as the Federal-State partnership and the important
role this program plays in maintaining the State commitment to these
grants. According to the National Association of State Student Grant
and Aid Programs, 43 States--43 States--would reduce their need-based
grants if the SSIG program were eliminated. Some would clearly
terminate their grant programs altogether without the SSIG
contribution. Clearly, in spite of the impressive efforts ahead by many
States to help their neediest students, this program continues to be a
critical catalyst for State action.
As college costs continue to grow faster than income and grant aid,
and as the grant-loan imbalance widens for students of modest means,
the need for SSIG is more important than ever before. This Congress has
just acknowledged the value of grants by voting for a modest increase
in the maximum amount of Pell grants. It would be inconsistent and
incredibly poor timing if at the time we are recognizing the need for
an increase in the grants under the Pell program, we turn around and
reduce assistance under the SSIG program.
Mr. President, I recently received a letter from Stephanie D'Amico of
Biddeford, ME, who speaks far more eloquently about the importance of
this program than I can. I ask unanimous consent her entire letter be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Hon. Senator Collins,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins, I am writing to ask for your support
of State Student Incentive Grants (SSIG). College is one of
the best investments we can make in America's future. It is
critical to a strong democracy and a healthy economy. To me
personally, it represents opportunity for the future.
Unfortunately, a college education is becoming harder and
harder to afford. The costs of college are rising, but
financial aid remains inadequate. The average full time
student must devote 24 hours each week to work rather than
studies. And this is just to make ends meet.
SSIG is one of the best federal programs helping to provide
access to education. The federal money put into SSIG is
matched by each state. So for every federal SSIG dollar, two
dollars are spent on students that need it. Seventy percent
of the students who receive SSIG funds come from families
with incomes of less than $20,000. Without this program, it
is likely that 18 states will lose their entire grant
program, putting a college education at risk for many
students.
Students and families need help with the costs of college.
With students now graduating with decades of debt, loans are
not the answer. Studies show that students with grants are
more likely to stay in school. SSIG is a good, working
program that should be fully funded.
Thank you for making education funding a priority. I look
forward to hearing from you. Please let me know what you are
doing to support increased funding for education.
Sincerely,
Stephanie D'Amico.

Ms. COLLINS. I quote just briefly from Stephanie D'Amico's letter.
She wrote:

College is one of the best investments we can make in
America's future. It is critical to a strong democracy and a
healthy economy. To me personally it represents opportunity
for the future. Unfortunately, a college education is
becoming harder and harder to afford. . . . SSIG is one of
the best Federal programs helping to provide access to
education. . . . Students and their families need help with
the costs of college. With students now graduating with
decades of debt, loans are not the answer. . . . SSIG is a
good, working program that helps students stay in school.

Mr. President, if America is truly to remain the land of opportunity,
we must ensure that our citizens like Stephanie D'Amico do not face
insurmountable obstacles to higher education. This program will help
Stephanie D'Amico and many like her to achieve the American dream. I
urge support of the Reed-Collins amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, which restores
$35 million to the State Student Incentive Grant [SSIG] Program.
SSIG is an effective Federal/State partnership program which
leverages State dollars for need-based student aid.
Ensuring that students have need-based grant aid available to them is
very important--especially when one considers the extraordinary debt
that many college students have taken on to pay for school. In 1995-96
SSIG benefited 688,000 students through the country and the median
family income of those students was $12,000. In Vermont, 4,260 students
received assistance through SSIG.
It is my hope that the Senate will vote in support of this important
program. As chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, I look
forward to a thoughtful review and strengthening of SSIG as part of the
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
So again, I thank my colleague from Rhode Island for offering this
amendment and thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter,
for his support.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the Reed amendment, I
want to explain why the Senate should restore $35 million to the State
Student Incentive Grant [SSIG] program.
First, SSIG funds go directly to the students, not to Federal
bureaucrats or administrators. One hundred percent of these funds go to
the students.
Second, SSIG grants go to those who need them most: the median family
income for SSIG recipients is $12,000--well below the Federal poverty
level for a family of four.
Third, because every Federal dollar directly leverages State
education dollars, each additional Federal dollar may make the
difference whether another student gets the chance to go to college. In
many States SSIG grants truly make or break a student's chance to go to
college.
Fourth, at a time when costs are limiting access to higher education,
we must do everything we can to give every student the opportunity to
go to college. I was an early supporter of tax credits to help middle-
class families pay the cost of higher education, and this program is
just as crucial for the most needy students.
This program is especially important for Oregon. In the 1995-97
period, the SSIG Program made the difference for 49,400 students in
Oregon, with an average grant of $1,060. SSIG helped account for 5-
percent of the funding for the Oregon Need Grant program. And there are
more than 16,700 students who did not receive the grant because of
underfunding.
The Oregon Need Grant program helps provide basic access for Oregon's
most needy student population. If we cut off SSIG for the l997-98
academic year, some 620 students could be forced to drop out of
college. In pure dollar amounts, the grant may not seem like much to
people in Washington, DC who are used to dealing in billions of
dollars. But it will enable thousands of students in Oregon to make the
decision to go to college.
It is the students, of course, who say it the best. One student who
works at the U of O admissions office on work study said ``My father
has been unemployed for about 4 years even though he has 20 years of
naval experience and a college degree. My mother works for the local
school system, but her income can't even provide for our family, let
alone my college education. Without the need grant that I receive, I
wouldn't be able to attend a 4 year university and work towards my
degree in psychiatry and business.'' Another student at the University
of Oregon said: ``The state need grant has literally been godsend. I
come from a single parent household and my mother was laid off from a
[major] corporation a few years ago and has only been able to get jobs
as a waitress since. If it were not for the state need grant, I would
not be able to attend the University of Oregon. I have lived in Eugene
all of my life and I've always wanted to attend the U of O. I am
majoring in journalism and hope to graduate this year. The grant made
it possible for my mother to send me to school and still put food on
the table for a family of four.''
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and
ask unanimous consent that my full statement be printed in the Record.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support the education amendment offered
by Senator Reed to appropriate $35 million to maintain the State
Supplemental Incentive Grant Program.

[[Page S8908]]

The SSIG Program is effective in encouraging States to allocate funds
for need-based student aid programs. Elimination of SSIG will cause a
significant loss of funds for many needy students and will discourage
States from providing this important type of student aid.
Continued funding for SSIG is supported by the American Council on
Education, the United States Student Association, US PIRG, the National
Association of Graduate-Professional Students, the National Association
of State Student Grant and Aid Programs, and the Education Trust.
SSIG is a Federal-State partnership in student aid. States must match
the Federal funds on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Eliminating the Federal
share will inevitably result in many States dropping their programs
entirely.
SSIG constitutes a significant percentage of need-based aid in
several States. It is also an incentive for State legislatures to
provide their own need-based student aid. In 13 States, Federal SSIG is
20 percent or more of the total need-based aid in the State. In Hawaii
and Mississippi, the elimination of SSIG funds would cut the State
need-based aid in half.
In Rhode Island, the State legislature provided need-based aid in
order to obtain the Federal SSIG funds. The Connecticut Legislature
increased need-based aid in order to meet the SSIG requirements.
Louisiana will end all need-based aid if Federal funds for SSIG are not
appropriated.
One of the fundamental goals of the Higher Education Act is to
provide greater access to higher education for all qualified students,
regardless of income. Expanding this access is still a major challenge.
In the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we will be
considering all aspects of the roles of the Federal Government, the
State governments, colleges, students, and their families in meeting
the costs of higher education.
SSIG is a program that works. It's a sensible Federal-State
partnership, and it may well be a model for other steps to leverage the
use of Federal funds. I urge my colleagues to support the Reed
amendment to appropriate adequate funds for SSIG, so that needy
students across the country will not lose this critical aspect of
college aid.
Mr. REED. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. REED. I understand this vote is scheduled for 5 o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at 5 p.m. today
the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to Senator Reed's
amendment numbered 1096.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. COVERDELL. I yield.
Mr. REED. Would the Senator also include in this request a
modification that precludes any second-degree amendments on my
amendment?
Mr. COVERDELL. That is my understanding, that both sides would agree,
and I ask unanimous consent the Senator's request be honored.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1097

(Purpose: To enhance food safety for children through preventive
research and medical treatment)

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending
amendment be set aside in order to offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell] proposes an
amendment numbered 1097.

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

On page 49, after line 26, add the following:
Sec. . (a) Transfer.--Using $5,000,000 of the amounts
appropriated under this title, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall carry out activities under subsection
(b) to address urgent health threats posed by E. coli:0157H7.
(b) Use of Funds.--From amounts transferred under
subsection (a) the Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall--
(1) provide $1,000,000 for the development of improved
medical treatments for patients infected with E. coli:0157H-
related disease (HUS);
(2) provide $1,000,000 to fund ongoing research to detect
or prevent colonization of E. coli:0157H7 in live cattle;
(3) provide, through the existing partnership between the
Federal Government, industry, and consumer groups, $1,000,000
for the National Consumer Education Campaign on Food Safety
as part of the activities to address safe food handling
practices;
(4) provide $1,000,000 for a study to determine the
feasibility of the use of electronic pasteurization on red
meats to eliminate pathogens and to carry out activities to
educate the public on the safety of that process; and
(5) provide $1,000,000 for a contract to be entered into
with the National Academy of Sciences to assess the
effectiveness of testing to ensure zero tolerance of E.
coli:0157H7 in raw ground beef products.

Amendment No. 1098 to Amendment No. 1097

(Purpose: To enhance food safety for children through preventive
research and medical treatment)

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell] proposes an
amendment No. 1098 to amendment numbered 1097.

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

Strike all after the first word and add the following:
(a) Transfer.--Using $5,000,000 of the amounts appropriated
under this title, the Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall carry out activities under subsection (b) to address
urgent health threats posed by E. coli:0157H7.
(b) Use of Funds.--From amounts transferred under
subsection (a) the Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall--
(1) provide $1,000,000 for the development of improved
medical treatments for patients infected with E. coli:0157H7-
related disease (HUS);
(2) provide $550,000 to fund ongoing research to detect or
prevent colonization of E. coli:0157H7 in live cattle:
(3) provide, through the existing partnership between the
Federal Government, industry, and consumer groups, $1,000,000
for the National Consumer Education Campaign on Food Safety
as part of the activities to address safe food handling
practices;
(4) provide $1,000,000 for a study to determine the
feasibility of the use of electronic pasteurization on red
meats to eliminate pathogens and to carry out activities to
educate the public on the safety of that process; and
(5) provide $1,000,000 for a contract to be entered into
with the National Academy of Sciences to assess the
effectiveness of testing to ensure zero tolerance of E.
coli:0157H7 in raw ground beef products.

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I am only going to speak to this
amendment briefly. Let me just say that, at the appropriate time, it
will be discovered that this is a rather broadly based amendment to
deal with food safety.
The amendment includes provisions for funding for research in the
development of improved medical treatment for patients infected with E.
coli and related diseases.
The amendment provides funding to help detect and prevent
colonization of E. coli in live cattle. Research would focus on
determining the pathogen relationship between cattle and E. coli.
The amendment will provide funding for the administration's food and
safety initiative and, more directly, for the important consumer
education component.
Mr. President, the amendment provides provisions to implement a much-
needed study on the feasibility of a irradiating raw meat to eliminate
E. coli and to develop a consumer education program on the process of
safety.
Mr. President, the amendment will require the Department of Health
and Human Services to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to
determine the effectiveness of USDA's zero-tolerance standard for E.
coli.
I am pleased today to be introducing an important amendment in my
capacity as Agriculture Subcommittee

[[Page S8909]]

chairman with jurisdiction over inspections. I am proposing what I
think is a commonsense, effective approach to confronting the deadly
pathogen E. coli:0157H7. As we are all aware in Congress, our Nation is
facing a difficult battle with this bacteria as we work to assure the
safety of our domestic food source. Scientists are confronting
traditional difficulties in fighting E. coli on the farm and
controlling the toxins it releases once in the body. Looking closely at
this issue over the past two weeks, it has become increasingly clear to
me that some of the best answers to E. coli and other food safety
problems can be found in advanced research, education, and study. The
committee report on the Labor-HHS appropriations bill repeatedly calls
for greater emphasis on food safety and development of priorities in
this field. Consequently, firewalls must be built to prevent, to the
greatest extent possible, the growth, transmission, and human health
destruction that can be caused by this rare but virulent bacteria. The
following amendment takes recommendations, which were issued in the
``Final Report of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Solving the E. coli
0157:H7 Problem'' in 1994. This task force was comprised of the experts
from the government, industry, academia, and consumer and producer
groups. These recommendations are all backed by good science and will
help strengthen existing standards and build new safeguards against
human exposure to and illness from E. coli 0157:H7. The following is a
summary of my amendment:

amendment summary

First, this provision provides funding for research on the
development of improved medical treatment for patients infected with E.
coli 0157:H7 related disease [HUS]. The most vulnerable members of
society susceptible to the chronic effects of E. coli 0157:H7 infection
are--children and the elderly. Funding should focus on helping these
individuals to recover fully.
Second, this provision provides funding to help detect and prevent
colonization of E. coli 0157:H7 in live cattle. Research should focus
on determining the host/pathogen relationship between cattle and the E.
coli microbe, and explore which factors contribute to its incidence in
cattle.
Third, this provision provides funding for the Administration's Food
Safety Initiative, more directly for the important consumer education
component. This national consumer education campaign on food safety
represents a partnership between government, industry, and consumer
groups. This is an important link in the food safety chain and critical
initiative endorsed last year by former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett
Koop, along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Department of
Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Department of Education.
Fourth, this provision implements a much-needed study on the
feasibility of irradiating raw red meat to eliminate the E. coli
0157:H7 pathogen and to develop a consumer education program on the
process' safety. Currently available for poultry products, irradiation
is a proven method of confronting this disease, and its feasibility on
red meat needs to be explored.
Fifth, requires the Department of Health and Human Services to
contract with the National Academy of Sciences to determine the
effectiveness of the USDA's zero tolerance standard for E. coli 0157:H7
in raw ground beef products and the effectiveness of its current
microbiological testing program. An updated report on this testing will
be helpful to the Congress, USDA, consumers, and the industry in their
search for tools to effectively identify and eradicate E. coli 0157:H7
in raw ground beef products.
I would request that this amendment be carefully examined by my
colleagues and by the administration. Upon their review, I hope that
the amendment will be agreed to in order to continue solidifying our
Nation's food as the safest in the world.
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.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, can you tell me the order of the day?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A vote will occur at 5 p.m. with respect to
amendment No. 1096. It is an amendment offered by Mr. Reed of Rhode
Island.

Amendment No. 1094

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Would it be
appropriate for the Senator to speak in favor of the Harry Reid
amendment at this time by unanimous consent?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, a new contaminant called perchlorate, with
potentially serious health risks, has recently been detected in
drinking water in California and Nevada. It is expected to also be
found in drinking water in other States.
Perchlorate is a chemical component of solid rocket fuel, munitions,
and fireworks. The potential source of the drinking water contamination
is solid fuel and munitions factories that produce and use large
amounts of ammonium perchlorate.
According to preliminary research, perchlorate causes the thyroid
gland to malfunction by interfering with the gland's ability to use
iodine and produce hormones. A malfunctioning thyroid affects the
metabolism and therefore interferes with growth and development of
humans.
New safe drinking water technology to measure perchlorate became
available in May 1997. Since then, groundwater wells in the most likely
areas in the country have begun to be tested.
Perchlorate has so far been detected in 69 drinking water wells in
California--out of the 232 tested so far--as well as in the Colorado
River and Lake Mead which is the source of water for over 10 million
people in California, Nevada, and Arizona.
It is expected to be present in drinking water wells in other States.
EPA has stated that the contamination is a very serious issue.
There is no Federal standard for perchlorate in drinking water.
California is the only State that has a temporary safety standard for
consuming water that contains perchlorate--18 parts per billion--but
this temporary standard is based on very preliminary health effects
data.
There is no research data on the possible carcinogenic effects of
perchlorate.
Twenty-four wells in California have been closed because perchlorate
levels exceed the California standard--with some wells registering a
perchlorate level of 280 parts per billion--including wells at the San
Gabriel Superfund site.
Mr. President, this amendment requires the National Institutes of
Health [NIH] to ``from amounts appropriated under this title'' conduct
a study on the health effects of perchlorate with particular emphasis
on the health risks to vulnerable subpopulations including children,
pregnant women, and the elderly.
It also requires that the NIH report back to the committee within 9
months--and annually thereafter--on the results of the study--including
a recommendation on whether further health effects research is
necessary.
This is an important first step.
First we need to understand more about what the potential health
effects of perchlorate are. Then we will take whatever measures are
appropriate to ensure that our drinking water remains safe for all,
especially for our most vulnerable people--children and our elderly.

other initiatives

First, the fiscal year 1998 EPA appropriations bill includes a $2
million earmark for treatment technology research at the Crafton-
Redlands plume in California (that is, research on how to filter out or
extract perchlorate. Perchlorate is a salt-based soluble so
contamination moves as quickly as the water moves.
Second, Senator Boxer is working to include the following report
language in the EPA appropriations bill:

The Committee directs the Environmental Protection Agency
to work with the Department of Defense, the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and other
relevant federal and state agencies to assess the state of
the science on (1) the health effects of perchlorate on
humans and the environment, and (2) the extent of perchlorate
contamination of our nation's drinking water supplies; and to
make recommendations on how this emerging problem might

[[Page S8910]]

be addressed. The EPA will submit a report on the interagency
findings to the Committee within six months.

I don't think we have a more serious charge of protecting the health
and safety of the American people.
I thank you very much.
I yield the floor.

Vote on Amendment No. 1096

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. President, 5 o'clock having arrived, the
question is on Amendment 1096 offered by Mr. Reed of Rhode Island. On
this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will
call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], the
Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth], the Senator from Oklahoma
[Mr. Inhofe], the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth], the Senator from
Alabama [Mr. Sessions], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Smith], are
necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Alabama [Mr. Sessions] would vote ``yea.''
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], the
Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], the Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kerry], the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], and the Senator
from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] would vote ``aye.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 4, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 221 Leg.]

YEAS--84

Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Baucus
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Levin
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--4

Ashcroft
Domenici
Helms
Nickles

NOT VOTING--12

Bennett
Biden
Faircloth
Hollings
Inhofe
Kennedy
Kerry
Leahy
Lieberman
Roth
Sessions
Smith (OR)
The amendment (No. 1096) was agreed to.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

explanation of absence

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to note for the Record that
Senator Bennett is on official business in Moscow, Russia until
September 10. Senator Bennett is meeting with members of President
Yeltsin's administration and Members of the Duma on the matters
relating to religious freedom in Russia.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendments be set aside and that it be in order to send a series of
amendments to the desk, that they be considered en bloc, and that
accompanying statements be printed at the appropriate point in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 1099 through 1111, en bloc

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, these amendments have been cleared on
both sides:
First, on behalf of Senator Chafee, an amendment to add $250 million
for both the Fiscal Payment Review Commission and Prospective Payment
Assessment Commission offset by a reduction in the Railroad Retirement
Board's dual benefit account.
Second, on behalf of Senator Coverdell, regarding directives to the
Secretary of Education concerning child safety and school crime.
Third, on behalf of Senator Daschle, regarding the authorization of a
comprehensive program for the prevention of fetal alcohol syndrome.
Fourth, on behalf of Senator Faircloth, to require the Secretary of
Education to certify the percentage of Federal funds appropriated to
the department that are provided for students and teachers.
Fifth, on behalf of Senator Feingold, to require the Secretary of
Education to conduct a study on student populations.
Sixth, on behalf of Senator Hollings, to increase the setaside within
the funds provided in the bill for the National Occupational
Information and Coordinating Committee, from $8 to $10 million.
Seventh, on behalf of Senator Inhofe, regarding a supplemental
security income demonstration project.
Eighth, on behalf of myself, increasing funding in the bill for
continuing disability reviews under the SSI program.
Ninth, on behalf of Senators Warner and Kennedy, providing $1.1
million to the Department of Education to begin preparations for this
Nation to celebrate the year 2000. These funds are offset by a
reduction in the Perkins Loan Cancellation Account.
Tenth, on behalf of Senator Harkin, to provide the Health Care
Finance Administration with authority to use fees they collect from
providers, physicians and suppliers for provider-requested audits to
offset the cost of such audits.
Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Nickles, I submit an amendment
for consideration relating to Social Security Administration regarding
employer contributions.
On behalf of myself, I send an amendment to the desk on the
administrative funds for the Department of Labor, the welfare-to-work
program.
And another amendment, requested by Senator Roth, for $900,000 for
the Commission on Medicare.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for himself
and others, proposes amendments numbered 1099 through 1111 en
bloc.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reporting be
waived. I have stated the specific amendments and the purpose for those
amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 1099

(Purpose: To provide additional funding for the Prospective Payment
Assessment Commission and the Physician Payment Review Commission)

On page 67, line 4, strike ``$3,258,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof: ``$3,508,000''.
On page 67, line 10, strike ``$3,257,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof: ``$3,507,000''.
On page 67, line 18, strike ``$206,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof: ``$205,500,000''.
On page 67, line 24, strike ``$206,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof: ``$205,500,000''.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 1100

(Purpose: To provide training and technical assistance regarding
incidents of elementary and secondary school violence, and to provide
for pilot student safety toll-free hotlines for elementary and
secondary school students)

On page 61, after line 25, insert the following:
Sec. . Of the funds made available under this title, the
Secretary of Education shall establish a program to provide
training and technical assistance to State educational
agencies and local educational agencies (as defined in
section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801) in developing, establishing, and
implementing procedures and programs designed to protect
victims of and witnesses to incidents of elementary school
and secondary school violence, including procedures and
programs designed to protect witnesses testifying in school
disciplinary proceedings.
Sec. . Of the funds made available under this title,
$450,000 shall be awarded by the Secretary of Education for
grants for the establishment, operation, and evaluation of
pilot student safety toll-free hotlines to provide elementary
school and secondary school students with confidential
assistance regarding school crime, violence, drug dealing,
and

[[Page S8911]]

threats to the personal safety of the students.

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, there is a grave condition in our
elementary and secondary schools across the land. Today, 40 percent of
our children do not feel safe in school. It's hard to believe, Mr.
President, that:
At least 2.7 million violent crimes take place annually either at or
near school.
Every hour, on school campuses, more than 2,000 students and about 40
teachers are physically attacked.
One in every nine students said they cut classes or stayed away from
school last year to avoid being beaten or shot.
One in every eight students carries a weapon to school for
protection, with 100,000 children taking a gun to school each day.
Last year, a 12-year-old student at a Los Angeles middle school was
raped on campus, during school hours, by another student. The victim
was forced to attend alone a school disciplinary hearing for the
accused which the offender attended with his parents and his lawyer.
The State education code afforded protection for the accused but not
for the victims or witnesses.
Recently, four teenage boys gang raped a 14-year-old girl at a public
high school in Queens. The girl reluctantly reported the crime the next
day to a school counselor. When she didn't provide enough detail the
assistant principal merely referred her back to the counselor. Almost 1
month later the crime was finally reported to law enforcement and the
four were arrested.
A 15-year-old boy killed himself in a GA classroom after being
assaulted and bullied almost daily at school because he was overweight.
Mr. President, we cannot allow our children to continue to be
terrorized at school. We cannot ignore these kids who are victimized or
who witness their friends being abused. The amendment I am offering
today begins to address this problem for those children already facing
violence. It will: Require the Secretary of Education to establish a
program to provide training and technical assistance to State and local
education agencies in developing and implementing procedures to protect
victims/witnesses of school crime, including protections associated
with school disciplinary hearing, and require the Secretary of
Education to utilize $500,000 of the funds appropriated under this bill
to award grants for pilot school safety hotlines to provide K-12
students with confidential assistance regarding violence, crime, drugs,
and threats to personal safety.
Mr. President, on behalf of the 52 million children who attend our
schools this year, I urge adoption of this amendment.

AMENDMENT NO. 1101

(Purpose: To provide a comprehensive program for the prevention of
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ____. COMPREHENSIVE FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME PREVENTION.

(a) Findings.--This section may be cited as the
``Comprehensive Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Prevention Act''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is the leading known cause of
mental retardation, and it is 100 percent preventable;
(2) each year, up to 12,000 infants are born in the United
States with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, suffering irreversible
physical and mental damage;
(3) thousands more infants are born each year with Fetal
Alcohol Effects, which are lesser, though still serious,
alcohol-related birth defects;
(4) children of women who use alcohol while pregnant have a
significantly higher infant mortality rate (13.3 per 1000)
than children of those women who do not use alcohol (8.6 per
1000);
(5) Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effects are
national problems which can impact any child, family, or
community, but their threat to American Indians and Alaska
Natives is especially alarming;
(6) in some American Indian communities, where alcohol
dependency rates reach 50 percent and above, the chances of a
newborn suffering Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or Fetal Alcohol
Effects are up to 30 times greater than national averages;
(7) in addition to the immeasurable toll on children and
their families, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol
Effects pose extraordinary financial costs to the Nation,
including the costs of health care, education, foster care,
job training, and general support services for affected
individuals;
(8) the total cost to the economy of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome
was approximately $2,700,000,000 in 1995, and over a
lifetime, health care costs for one Fetal Alcohol Syndrome
child are estimated to be at least $1,400,000;
(9) researchers have determined that the possibility of
giving birth to a baby with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or Fetal
Alcohol Effects increases in proportion to the amount and
frequency of alcohol consumed by a pregnant woman, and that
stopping alcohol consumption at any point in the pregnancy
reduces the emotional, physical, and mental consequences of
alcohol exposure to the baby; and
(10) though approximately 1 out of every 5 pregnant women
drink alcohol during their pregnancy, we know of no safe dose
of alcohol during pregnancy, or of any safe time to drink
during pregnancy, thus, it is in the best interest of the
Nation for the Federal Government to take an active role in
encouraging all women to abstain from alcohol consumption
during pregnancy.
(c) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to
establish, within the Department of Health and Human
Services, a comprehensive program to help prevent Fetal
Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effects nationwide. Such
program shall--
(1) coordinate, support, and conduct basic and applied
epidemiologic research concerning Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and
Fetal Alcohol Effects;
(2) coordinate, support, and conduct national, State, and
community-based public awareness, prevention, and education
programs on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effects;
and
(3) foster coordination among all Federal agencies that
conduct or support Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol
Effects research, programs, and surveillance and otherwise
meet the general needs of populations actually or potentially
impacted by Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effects.
(d) Establishment of Program.--Title III of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:

``PART O--FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME PREVENTION PROGRAM

``SEC. 399G. ESTABLISHMENT OF FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME
PREVENTION PROGRAM.

``(a) Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Prevention Program.--The
Secretary shall establish a comprehensive Fetal Alcohol
Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effects prevention program that
shall include--
``(1) an education and public awareness program to--
``(A) support, conduct, and evaluate the effectiveness of--
``(i) training programs concerning the prevention,
diagnosis, and treatment of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal
Alcohol Effects;
``(ii) prevention and education programs, including school
health education and school-based clinic programs for school-
age children, concerning Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal
Alcohol Effects; and
``(iii) public and community awareness programs concerning
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effects;
``(B) provide technical and consultative assistance to
States, Indian tribal governments, local governments,
scientific and academic institutions, and nonprofit
organizations concerning the programs referred to in
subparagraph (A); and
``(C) award grants to, and enter into cooperative
agreements and contracts with, States, Indian tribal
governments, local governments, scientific and academic
institutions, and nonprofit organizations for the purpose
of--
``(i) evaluating the effectiveness, with particular
emphasis on the cultural competency and age-appropriateness,
of programs referred to in subparagraph (A);
``(ii) providing training in the prevention, diagnosis, and
treatment of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol
Effects;
``(iii) educating school-age children, including pregnant
and high-risk youth, concerning Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and
Fetal Alcohol Effects, with priority given to programs that
are part of a sequential, comprehensive school health
education program; and
``(iv) increasing public and community awareness concerning
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effects through
culturally competent projects, programs, and campaigns, and
improving the understanding of the general public and
targeted groups concerning the most effective intervention
methods to prevent fetal exposure to alcohol;
``(2) an applied epidemiologic research and prevention
program to--
``(A) support and conduct research on the causes,
mechanisms, diagnostic methods, treatment, and prevention of
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effects;
``(B) provide technical and consultative assistance and
training to States, Tribal governments, local governments,
scientific and academic institutions, and nonprofit
organizations engaged in the conduct of--
``(i) Fetal Alcohol Syndrome prevention and early
intervention programs; and
``(ii) research relating to the causes, mechanisms,
diagnosis methods, treatment, and prevention of Fetal Alcohol
Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effects; and
``(C) award grants to, and enter into cooperative
agreements and contracts with, States, Indian tribal
governments, local governments, scientific and academic
institutions, and nonprofit organizations for the purpose
of--

[[Page S8912]]

``(i) conducting innovative demonstration and evaluation
projects designed to determine effective strategies,
including community-based prevention programs and
multicultural education campaigns, for preventing and
intervening in fetal exposure to alcohol;
``(ii) improving and coordinating the surveillance and
ongoing assessment methods implemented by such entities and
the Federal Government with respect to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome
and Fetal Alcohol Effects;
``(iii) developing and evaluating effective age-appropriate
and culturally competent prevention programs for children,
adolescents, and adults identified as being at-risk of
becoming chemically dependent on alcohol and associated with
or developing Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol
Effects; and
``(iv) facilitating coordination and collaboration among
Federal, State, local government, Indian tribal, and
community-based Fetal Alcohol Syndrome prevention programs;
``(3) a basic research program to support and conduct basic
research on services and effective prevention treatments and
interventions for pregnant alcohol-dependent women and
individuals with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol
Effects;
``(4) a procedure for disseminating the Fetal Alcohol
Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effects diagnostic criteria
developed pursuant to section 705 of the ADAMHA
Reorganization Act (42 U.S.C. 485n note) to health care
providers, educators, social workers, child welfare workers,
and other individuals; and
``(5) the establishment, in accordance with subsection (b),
of an inter-agency task force on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and
Fetal Alcohol Effects to foster coordination among all
Federal agencies that conduct or support Fetal Alcohol
Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effects research, programs, and
surveillance, and otherwise meet the general needs of
populations actually or potentially impacted by Fetal Alcohol
Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effects.
``(b) Inter-agency Task Force.--
``(1) Membership.--The Task Force established pursuant to
paragraph (5) of subsection (a) shall--
``(A) be chaired by the Secretary or a designee of the
Secretary; and
``(B) include representatives from all relevant agencies
within the Department of Health and Human Services, including
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National
Institutes of Health, the Health Resources and Services
Administration, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration, and any other relevant agencies of
the Department of Health and Human Services.
``(2) Functions.--The Task Force shall--
``(A) coordinate all relevant programs and research
concerning Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effects,
including programs that--
``(i) target individuals, families, and populations
identified as being at risk of acquiring Fetal Alcohol
Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effects; and
``(ii) provide health, education, treatment, and social
services to infants, children, and adults with Fetal Alcohol
Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effects;
``(B) coordinate its efforts with existing Department of
Health and Human Services task forces on substance abuse
prevention and maternal and child health; and
``(C) report on a biennial basis to the Secretary and
relevant committees of Congress on the current and planned
activities of the participating agencies, including a
proposal for a Federal Interagency Task Force to include
representatives from all relevant agencies and offices within
the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department
of Agriculture, the Department of Education, the Department
of Defense, the Department of the Interior, the Department of
Justice, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Federal Trade Commission,
and any other relevant Federal agency.
``(c) Scientific Research and Training.--The Director of
the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, with
the cooperation of members of the interagency task force
established under subsection (b), shall establish a
collaborative program to provide for the conduct and support
of research, training, and dissemination of information to
researchers, clinicians, health professionals and the public,
with respect to the cause, prevention, diagnosis, and
treatment of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and the related condition
know as Fetal Alcohol Effects.

``SEC. 399H. ELIGIBILITY.

``To be eligible to receive a grant, or enter into a
cooperative agreement or contract under this part, an entity
shall--
``(1) be a State, Indian tribal government, local
government, scientific or academic institution, or nonprofit
organization; and
``(2) prepare and submit to the Secretary an application at
such time, in such manner, and containing such information as
the Secretary may prescribe, including a description of the
activities that the entity intends to carry out using amounts
received under this part.

``SEC. 399I. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
part, such sums as are necessary for each of the fiscal years
1998 through 2002.''.
____

amendment no. 1102

(Purpose: To require that the Secretary of Education certify the use of
funds appropriated to the Department of Education for students and
teachers)

On page 61, after line 25, add the following:
Sec. . The Secretary of Education shall annually provide
to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources and the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee
on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives a
certification that not less than 95 percent of the amount
appropriated for a fiscal year for the activities of the
Department of Education is being used directly for teachers
and students. If the Secretary determines that less than 95
percent of such amount appropriated for a fiscal year is
being used directly for teachers and students, the Secretary
shall certify the percentage of such amount that is being
directly used for teachers and students.

Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, my amendment will directly help
students and teachers in this country. It is an amendment that simply
requires accountability of our spending at the Department of Education.
This amendment will require the Secretary of Education to certify that
95 percent of the amount we appropriate in this bill goes directly to
students and teachers. If the Secretary cannot certify that 95 percent
of our spending directly benefits students and teachers, then the
Secretary must certify what percentage is being spent.
Mr. President, the Department of Education will spend $31 billion in
1998. The Department is receiving an increase of nearly $3 billion in
funding for 1998. No one is a stronger supporter of education than I
am, but education has, and hopefully will be, a local issue. So I would
hope that the role of a Federal Department of Education is to provide
additional funds for students and teachers, not bureaucrats.
I think we need to fire bureaucrats, and feed teachers!
The Department will spend $400 million on management alone. My
concern is the Department is rife with wasteful programs. For example,
there is $4 million for the John F. Kennedy Center for Performing Arts.
There is money for education of prisoners in Hawaii and money to study
waste disposal in Hawaii. There is $15 million for education of
juveniles in prison. More than $64 million will be spent on just
research. These are just a few examples.
Most people think the Department is spending money on teachers and
students alone. But we know this is not true. This amendment will for
the first time require the Department of Education to tell the American
people just how much is being spent by the Federal Government on
teachers and students, not bureaucrats and wasteful programs.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment spoken
of by my colleague, Senator Faircloth. The Faircloth-Craig amendment
would require that the Secretary of Education certify each year the
percentage of Federal moneys used directly for teachers and students.
The point of the amendment is not the 95 percent figure--it is to
draw attention to the vast amount of Federal waste inherent in the
Department of Education. Much of what we spend on education each year
is lost by Federal managers and bureaucrats.
Increased spending has done little to advance classroom instruction.
Federal spending on education has increased 41 percent since 1989. Yet,
per-pupil spending at the school level has increased only 34 percent.
The rest has been siphoned off to support the enormous Federal
bureaucracy.
This year's appropriations bill includes a significant increase in
education--we don't know yet how much of it will ever see the inside of
a classroom.
Mr. President, teachers in Idaho, and around the country, want to
know where their money has gone. I believe we must, in a time of fiscal
restraint, examine where each Federal dollar is spent and cut waste
wherever it is found.
The Faircloth-Craig amendment is a sound first step in the right
direction.

amendment no. 1103

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Education to conduct a study
regarding the costs of the anticipated increase in enrollments of
secondary school students during the period 1998 through 2008, and the
creation of smaller class sizes for students enrolled in grades 1
through 3)

On page 61, after line 25, insert the following:

[[Page S8913]]

Sec. . (a) The Secretary of Education shall conduct a
study that examines--
(1) the economic, educational, and societal costs of--
(A) the increase in enrollments of secondary school
students during the period 1998 through 2008;
(B) the creation of smaller class sizes for students
enrolled in grades 1 through 3; and
(C) the increase in enrollments described in subparagraph
(A) in relation to the creation of smaller class sizes
described in subparagraph (B); and
(2) the costs to States and local school districts for
taking no action with respect to such increase in enrollments
and smaller class sizes.
(b) The Secretary of Education shall report to Congress
within 9 months of the date of enactment of this Act
regarding the results of the study conducted under subsection
(a). Such report shall include recommendations regarding what
local school districts, States and the Federal Government can
do to address the issue of the increase in enrollments of
secondary school students and the need for smaller class
sizes in grades 1 through 3.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished
managers of this bill for including language in the managers' amendment
at my request. The amendment I intended to offer, which has been
included in the managers' amendment, directs the Department of
Education to conduct a study of the economic costs of addressing our
Nation's burgeoning elementary and secondary student enrollment,
projected to grow by over 2 million young people in the next decade,
and the expected impact that this growth will have on student
achievement. It directs the Department to estimate the costs to local
school districts, States, and the Federal Government of the upcoming
surge in enrollment, and to outline policy options for addressing this
issue and make recommendations to resolve it. In estimating the costs
and impact on students of increasing enrollment and making policy
recommendations to address this problem, the study will also consider
the costs and benefits of reducing class sizes in the earliest grades.
Mr. President, parents are increasingly interested in enrolling their
young children in schools that place an emphasis on small class size
and individualized attention from teachers. Cities and States across
the country are developing programs to help schools meet this goal.
California's statewide initiative to reduce all classes in grades K-3
to no more than 20 students is the most ambitious, but by no means the
only example.
In my own State of Wisconsin, the Student Achievement Guarantee in
Education, or SAGE, Program was developed several years ago to study
the benefits of small class size in schools with high poverty rates.
With student-teacher ratios of 15:1, the program is extremely popular
with students, parents, teachers, and school administrators. Although
is has only been implemented in a relatively small number of Wisconsin
communities thus far, the reason for the program's widespread appeal is
obvious--with fewer students in the classroom, teachers have more time
and energy to devote to meeting children's particular needs and helping
to spark their interest in learning in creative ways. This may seem
like common sense, and it is--but now, we have science to back up what
parents and teachers have known for years.
Research indicates that children who are placed in small classes--
classes of 15 to 20 students--in the earliest years of elementary
school achieve better academically than their peers in larger classes.
These benefits are retained in later years of school, even if students
are not kept in small classes for later grades. The leading scientific
studies of the impact of small class size, Tennessee's STAR study and
its follow-up, the Lasting Benefits Study, found that small class sizes
in grades K-3 produce substantial improvements in learning which are
sustained in later years, even if students are placed in larger classes
for later grades.
Unfortunately, at the very time that States and localities are
starting to apply the lessons learned in the Tennessee studies, many of
our Nation's schools are on the brink of an explosion in student
enrollment. According to a report released last month by Education
Secretary Richard Riley, entitled ``A Back to School Special Report on
the Baby Boom Echo: Here Come the Teenagers,'' there will be more
elementary and secondary students in America this school year than
there ever have been before. These increases will occur primarily among
secondary school students; public high school enrollment is projected
to increase by 13% in the next 10 years, while elementary school
enrollment will increase only slightly. Total public and private school
enrollment in the 1997-98 school year will rise to a record level of
52.2 million students, and it won't stop there. By the year 2007, total
enrollment is expected to peak at 54.3 million students.

Mr. President, this is a problem that isn't going away. Unlike our
past experience with the baby boom, when there was a sharp rise in
student enrollment which eventually declined, the U.S. Bureau of the
Census projects that the number of births will remain stable or even
increase slightly in the next few decades. States and local school
districts are going to have to develop strategies for accommodating and
educating very large numbers of students. This is likely to be costly,
and will require creative solutions and the balancing of priorities.
To some degree, this is a regional problem. Wisconsin, for example,
along with many States in the Midwest, will actually experience small
decreases in student population in the next decade. However, this will
certainly not be the case in every community in my State, or in any of
the States which are projected to experience decreases in student
enrollment. Across the Nation, school districts are going to need to
adapt to their larger student bodies, at the same time that many of
them, rightly, will be investing in the creation of smaller classes for
their early elementary students.
Mr. President, smaller class sizes are the wave of the future.
Parents want them, students benefit from them, and schools are
recognizing the need. I thank my colleagues, the Senators from
Pennsylvania and Iowa, once again for accepting my amendment, which
will lay out options for schools to consider as they plan for a future
with smaller classes and larger enrollment.

amendment no. 1104

(Purpose: To increase funding for the National Occupational Information
Coordinating Committee, offset by reducing other national activities)

On page 3, line 3 strike ``$8,000,000'' and insert in lieu
thereof: ``$10,000,000''.
____

amendment no. 1105

(Purpose: To provide a disability return to work demonstration
initiative)

On page 70, line 1, strike ``$16,160,300,000'' and insert
in lieu thereof: ``$16,162,525,000''.
On page 70, before the period on line 4, insert the
following: ``:Provided further, That not less than $2,225,000
shall be available for conducting a disability return to work
demonstration initiative, which focuses on providing persons
who have lost limbs with an integrated program of prosthetic
and rehabilitative care and job placement assistance''.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, my amendment would provide $2,225,000 to
establish a demonstration project to assist persons with disabilities
due to the loss of a limb to return to work.
According to a 1996 GAO report on SSA disability programs,
``[r]eturn-to-work strategies and practices may hold the potential for
improving federal disability programs by helping people with
disabilities return to productive activity in the workplace and at the
same time reduce program costs.''
The GAO report goes on to note that the three most important
strategies to mainstream individuals back into the work force are:
intervene as soon as possible; identify and provide necessary return-
to-work assistance; and structure benefits to encourage people to
return to work.
Using these GAO suggestions as a guide, I have attempted to address
the medical, rehabilitative, and job training needs of individuals who
have lost their limbs.
Experience has shown that for people who have lost limbs, access to
appropriate medical rehabilitation can mean the difference between
prolonged dependence and a successful return to the work place. Due to
advancement in modern rehabilitation medicine, persons who experience
limb loss can now routinely expect to attain high levels of
independence and functionality.
Over the last several years, I have worked with Limbs for Life
Foundation which provides financial help to amputees nationwide. As a
result of my association with them, I have observed

[[Page S8914]]

that a significant percentage of people who lose limbs do not return to
the work force and subsequently become dependent on Social Security's
Supplemental Security Income [SSI] and Disability Insurance [DI]
programs. A leading cause for this dependence has been the inability to
gain access to appropriate rehabilitation care.
According to the Social Security Administration, less than half of 1
percent of Social Security beneficiaries return to work. Yet, they also
estimate that as many as 3 out of 10 persons on disability may be good
candidates for return to work but the system does not encourage it.
I believe this partial due to the Social Security Administration's
process for determining disability which does not generally assess the
individuals functional capacity to work, but rather presumes that
certain medical conditions are in themselves sufficient to preclude
work. However, the link between medical condition and work incapacity
is weak. While there are certainly some medical impairments which
prevent individuals from working, others factors such as vocational,
psychological, economic, environmental, and motivational are often more
important determinants of work capacity.
My proposed demonstration program will result in a better rate of
return to work because it will provide people with the tools needed to
successfully overcome many of the impediments which have traditionally
held them back from main streaming into the work place.
Specifically, by providing appropriate prosthetic and rehabilitation
services, followed by an intensive regimen of occupational therapy the
demonstration program will prepare amputees to meet the physical
demands of the work place. Practical assistance such as job training
and job placement are also critical for successful main streaming and
would be a part of the program.
Not only will we be helping people who want to work, but will more
effectively spend our limited disability money. The Social Security
Administration's estimates that lifetime cash benefits are reduced by
$60,000 when an individual receiving Disability Insurance returns to
work; $30,000 when an individual receiving Supplemental Security Income
returns to work.
The Limbs for Life Foundation has estimated that they could provide
services for 775 individuals with the proposed $2,225,000 demonstration
program. Under their proposal, this money would be combined with the
Foundation's own funds and services and result in a net savings of $9
million.
Mr. President, I believe this is a sound investment and I urge my
colleagues to support my amendment.

amendment no. 1106

(Purpose: Provide for additional Security Administration continuing
disability reviews as authorized by cap adjustment legislation)

On page 71, line 23, strike ``$245,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof: $290,000,000.
On page 71, line 25, after ``Public Law 104-121'' insert:
``, section 10203 of Public Law 105-33,''.
____

amendment no. 1107

(Purpose: Millennium 2000 Project)

On page 60, line 7, strike ``$338,964,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$340,064,000: Provided, That $1,000,000 shall
be used for the Millennium 2000 project''.
On page 56, line 21, strike ``$8,557,741,000'' and insert
in lieu thereof ``$8,556,641,000''.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to thank the managers of this
legislation for including language offered by myself and Senator
Kennedy that will provide the Department of Education with $1.1 million
to begin planning efforts for the Nation's celebration of the
millennium. These funds were requested by the Department of Education
and will be offset within the Department.
The Clinton administration recently established the White House
Millennium Program to coordinate the Nation's efforts to celebrate the
millennium. Having served as Administrator of the American Revolution
Bicentennial Administration, I know the importance of advance planning
and preparation for national events. While not comparable in historic
significance to our bicentennial, the millennium is, nevertheless, an
event many Americans will wish to recognize and to participate in. To
the extent there is national governmental participation, it should be
to focus on dignity and quality. These funds will be critical to that
effort.
It is my hope that the White House Millennium Program will work
closely with an organization I have been affiliated with for a number
of years--the Millennium Society. This respected international
organization has been in existence since 1979 and is devoted to
organizing a global celebration of the millennium. Most importantly,
the Millennium Society has focused much of its efforts on establishing
and administering the Millennium Society Scholarship Program.
I would like to particularly recognize Cate Magennis Wyatt, a founder
of the Millennium Society, who was instrumental in building the
organization. Her dedication and hard work have focused international
attention on this issue in a positive manner.
Over the past several years, along with much support from Senators
Dodd and Stevens and others, I have worked closely with the firm of
Alcalde & Fay and, in recent months, Tommy Boggs, a volunteer
counselor. All of us have worked with one goal in mind--ensure that the
millennium is celebrated in a proper and dignified manner. Providing
adequate planning funds will help us achieve that goal.

amendment no. 1108

(Purpose: Provide authority to use fees collected for provider
requested audits to cover the cost of such audits)

On page 39, line 17, after the word ``expended'' insert:
``, and together with administrative fees collected relative
to Medicare overpayment recovery activities, which shall
remain available until expended''.
____

amendment no. 1109

(Purpose: To require that estimates of certain employer contributions
be included in an individual's social security account statement)

On page 49, after line 26, add the following:
Sec. . Subparagraphs (B) and (C) of section 1143(a)(2) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1230b-13(a)(2)(B), (C))
are each amended by striking ``employee'' and inserting
``employer, employee,''.
____

amendment no. 1110

(Purpose: Reduce unemployment insurance service administrative expenses
to offset costs of administering a welfare-to-work jobs initiative)

On page 9, line 11, strike ``$3,292,476,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof: ``$3,286,276,000''.
On page 10, line 18, strike ``$216,333,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof: ``$210,133,000''.
On page 12, line 11, strike ``$84,308,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof: ``$90,508,000''.
____

amendment no. 1111

(Purpose: Provide start-up funding for the National Bi-partisan
Commission on the Future of Medicare)

On page 39, line 21, after the word ``appropriation''
insert: ``: Provided further, That $900,000 shall be for
carrying out section 4021 of Public Law 105-33''.
On page 39, line 22, strike ``$55,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof: ``$54,100,000''.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, these amendments are offered but not to
be accepted.
I have set forth the purpose of the amendments in my introductory
statement.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, following the lead of our distinguished
chairman, my colleague from Pennsylvania, we have a number of
amendments. Some of them have been cleared on both sides.

Amendment No. 1112

(Purpose: To increase funds for education infrastructure)

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment
numbered 1112.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. 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:

On page 56, line 22, before the period, insert the
following: ``: Provided further, That $60,000,000 shall be
for education infrastructure authorized under Title XII of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to be derived from
unobligated balances''.

Mr. HARKIN. This amendment has been cleared on both sides.

[[Page S8915]]

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I accept the representation of my
colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1112) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1113

(Purpose: To expand efforts to combat Medicare waste, fraud, and abuse)

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President I have another amendment to send to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment
numbered 1113.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. 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:

On page 39, at the end of line 25 before the period, insert
the following: ``: Provided further, That no less than
$50,000,000 appropriated under this heading in fiscal year
1997 shall be obligated in fiscal year 1997 to increase
Medicare provider audits and implement the Department's
corrective action plan to the Chief Financial Officer's audit
of the Health Care Financing Administration's oversight of
Medicare''.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, for many years, I have worked to identify
and eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse in the Medicare Program. Senator
Specter and I have held hearing after hearing and released report after
report through our subcommittee. And along the way, we have had some
successes. We've stopped a number of scams and ripoffs and we've forced
Medicare to reduce excessive prices for a number of devices. These
actions have saved Medicare and taxpayers over $1 billion. However, the
problem continues to grow. Much more needs to be done.
Several years ago, the General Accounting Office testified before our
Appropriations Subcommittee that, based on their analysis, Medicare was
losing up to 10 percent of its expenditures, or $16 billion to fraud,
waste, and abuse. However, on July 17, HHS Inspector General June Gibbs
Brown released a major new report that indicated that the problem was
even worse. It was the first national audit of a statistically
significant sample of Medicare claims for payment errors. This chief
financial officer [CFO] audit found that up to 14 percent of Medicare
payments in 1996 were made inappropriately. That's up to $24 billion in
1 year alone.
And this was not a flimsy study. It was detailed and in-depth; 5,300
claims of all types--physician and hospital services, home health care,
lab tests--were thoroughly audited. Patient medical records were
reviewed and providers and beneficiaries were interviewed. Fully one
third of all the claims were found to contain mispayments--all or a
portion of the claims should not have been paid.
Some 46 percent of the mispayments were for claims that had either
inadequate or no documentation to justify their need; 36 percent of the
payment errors involved services that upon review were found not
medically necessary. For example, Medicare was charged for x rays on
both knees for one patient, when the patient only had problems with one
knee. And 8 percent of the payment errors were due to improper billing
codes used by health care providers. For example, a physician billed
for one office procedure when upon review of the medical records it was
found another less expensive procedure was actually performed.
This report is a devastating indictment of the administration of
Medicare. And if it goes unaddressed, Medicare will lose as much money
over the next 5 years to fraud, waste, and abuse as was cut by
the balanced budget act we just passed. That is simply unacceptable.

Making sure that doesn't happen should be at the top of the priority
list for the Department of Health and Human Services and this
administration. I am afraid, however, that this may not be the case.
The Department has drafted a corrective action plan that, if fully
implemented, would take some important steps to addressing the problems
identified in the CFO audit. My understanding is that it calls for a
10-percent increase in medical reviews, a 20-percent increase in
prepayment review of hospital claims, a 20-percent increase in post-
payment review of physician claims, and increases in provider
education, expanded audits of home health agencies and nursing, and
other improvements.
These are important improvements, but they are woefully inadequate.
We need to at least double the number of audits Medicare is conducting.
Right now, only about 3 percent of claims are reviewed and only 3 of
every 1,000 providers receive a comprehensive audit in any year. That
needs to change. And this amendment would help Medicare meet this need.
I send an amendment to the desk for myself and Senator Graham of
Florida, who has been tireless in the fight against Medicare fraud, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
This amendment would direct the Department of Health and Human
Services to obligate no less than an addition $50 million this fiscal
year to increase Medicare audits and to comply with its correction
action plan developed in response to the CFO audit.
Mr. President, there is about $53 million in the Medicare contractor
account for fiscal year 1997 that will likely go unspent. This is due
to problems the Department has encountered in the administration of its
Medicare transaction system [MTS] initiative. Rather than seeing this
money lapse or be rushed inefficiently into a last minute contract, our
amendment would assure that this money is well spent to address a
pressing problem. It would be easy for the Department to implement
because it would simply obligate it to existing contractors to expand
the number of audits and reviews that they undertake--it will simply,
in effect, increase a current work order.
Mr. President, it would be unconscionable for the Department to let
these funds lapse when they know how inadequate their current efforts
and resources are to combat Medicare fraud, waste, and abuse. This is
not time for bureaucratic business as usual. We need to take bold
action to begin to turn the tide against these losses. Our amendment is
a simple, commonsense step that would have a significant impact.
If properly implemented, it would more than double the percentage of
problem providers receiving comprehensive audits. This would save
Medicare and taxpayers many times over its costs.
I understand the amendment has been cleared on both sides. I urge its
adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1113) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1114

(Purpose: To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize
appropriations for refugee and entrant assistance for fiscal years 1998
and 1999)

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I offer an amendment on behalf of Senator
Graham, who is proposing this on behalf of Senators Kennedy and
Abraham. I also lend my support to the measure. I understand it also
has been accepted by both sides. This has to do with immigration.
Mr. SPECTER. That amendment has been cleared on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] for Mr. Graham, for
himself, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Abraham, proposes amendment
numbered 1114.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. 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:

On page 49, after line 26, insert the following:
Sec. . That Section 414(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1524(a)) is amended by striking
``fiscal year 1995, fiscal year 1996, and fiscal year 1997''
and inserting ``each of fiscal years 1998, and 1999''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect October 1, 1997.

Mr. HARKIN. The United States has for years been a leader in refugee
protection. Since 1975, over 2 million refugees have resettled in the
United States. The Refugee Act is the core of U.S. refugee policy. This
act sets out the criteria for persons to be designated as refugees. In
addition, the

[[Page S8916]]

Refugee Act allows the Department of Health and Human Services to run
several important programs to assist refugees in adjusting to their new
life in the United States. These programs include the Refugee
Assistance Program, which provides assistance to refugees to help them
become self-sufficient in the shortest time possible, social services
programs which provide funding to States to support English language
classes and employment training for refugees. Refugees receiving cash
and medical assistance under this program are required to be enrolled
in employment services and accept employment offers.
Furthermore, the Refugee Act allows HHS to provide overseas medical
screening of refugees before they enter the United States. Also, it
provides targeted assistance to States and counties with high refugee
populations. For instance, in 1996, Polk County IA received $160,500 in
targeted assistance. HHS also provides a matching grant to voluntary
agencies which take responsibility for resetting refugees and ensuring
they become self-sufficient. In Iowa, the Refugee Act allowed HHS to
provide a targeted assistance award of almost $50,000 to the State and
Lutheran Social Services for a program which helps former political
prisoners achieve economic independence.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to be working with
Senators Kennedy, Abraham, and Harkin in their efforts to reauthorize
the Refugee Act of 1980.
Through the Office of the U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs, we
are better able to develop a comprehensive national strategy to help
our State and local governments assimilate the individuals that have
fled persecution, injustice, and war.
The Federal Government has welcomed these individuals to our shores.
Our local governments welcome them to their communities--and through
the programs of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, we make sure that
they acquire the skills needed to adjust to our society and become
self-sufficient, productive members of society, as soon as possible.
More than 17,000 refugees and entrants arrived in Florida in fiscal
year 1996. In fiscal year 1995, this number was higher than 36,000.
Between 1992 and 1996, more than 70,000 refugees and entrants settled
in Dade County. Without the programs of the Office of Refugee
Resettlement, this influx would be a tremendous financial burden on
State and local governments.
The arrival of refugees and entrants is a Federal decision; these
costs should not be shifted to State and local taxpayers.
By reauthorizing the Refugee Act of 1980, we can continue to offer
protection from those fleeing persecution--and make sure that we are
addressing the needs of these vulnerable members of our society in a
humane, just, comprehensive, and cost-effective manner.
Senator Kennedy is to be commended on his leadership on this issue. I
am proud to work with him and our Senate colleagues to ensure the
passage of this measure.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Senator Graham has introduced, on behalf
of Senator Abraham and me, a 2-year extension of the Refugee Act. That
act is the core of U.S. refugee policy. It sets the criteria under
which persons can be designated as refugees and provides funds for
refugee resettlement. Last year, the United States admitted more than
75,000 refugees under the Refugee Act's criteria.
In addition to determining who qualifies as a refugee, the Refugee
Act allows the Department of Health and Human Services, through the
Office of Refugee Resettlement [ORR], to provide services to refugees
resettled in the United States. For example, ORR provides job training
and employment assistance to new refugees to help them become
economically self-sufficient. ORR helps States provide English language
classes, preventive health services, and cash assistance to new
refugees to help them get on their feet in the United States. Refugees
often arrive here terrified and with few possessions. Most have fled
persecution in their home countries and left virtually all their
possessions behind. These programs make a refugee's assimilation into
the United States a little easier.
In addition to providing assistance directly to refugees, the Refugee
Act makes funds available to the Public Health Service to provide
overseas medical screening for U.S.-bound refugees for the protection
of public health against contagious diseases. ORR also provides
targeted assistance to States and counties with large refugee
populations and has matching grant programs for voluntary agencies to
assist States in refugee resettlement. For example, the Boston Tech
Center in Massachusetts received $250,000 in discretionary targeted
assistance to give refugees short-term skills training and teach basic
English and math. The International Rescue Committee in Boston received
funds under the Refugee Act to provide a youth program for newly
arrived Somali children.
The Refugee Act is the heart of our refugee law and policy. If it is
not re-authorized, the United States will send a signal worldwide that
refugees are no longer welcome here. We cannot let that happen. The act
deserves to be extended and I urge the Senate to approve this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1114) was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 1087, 1088, 1089

Mr. HARKIN. Now, Mr. President, I have three amendments on behalf of
Mr. Wellstone which I am resubmitting for him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for Mr. Wellstone,
proposes amendments numbered 1087, 1088, 1089.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I further ask, in accordance with the
procedures set forth by the chairman, they be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1115

(Purpose: To authorize the National Assessment Governing Board to
develop policy for voluntary national tests in reading and mathematics)

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment for myself and Mr.
Bingaman and Mr. Kennedy regarding school testing. This has not been
agreed to either.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself, Mr.
Bingaman, and Mr. Kennedy, proposes amendment 1115.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. 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 appropriate place insert the following:
Sec. . (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the National Assessment Governing Board established under
section 412 of the National Education Statistics Act of 1994
(20 U.S.C. 9011), using funds appropriated under section
413(c) of that Act (20 U.S.C. 9012(c)), shall formulate
policy guidelines for voluntary national tests of reading or
mathematics for which the Secretary of Education uses funds
appropriated to the Department of Education.
(b) In carrying out subsection (a), the National Assessment
Governing Board shall--
(1) develop test objectives and specifications; test
methodology; guidelines for test administration, including
guidelines for inclusion of, and accommodations for, students
with disabilities and students with limited English
proficiency; guidelines for reporting test results, including
the use of performance levels; and guidelines for test use;
(2) have final authority over the appropriateness of
cognitive items; and
(3) ensure that all items selected for use on the test are
free from racial, cultural, or gender bias.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to express my strong
support for the amendment being offered by Senator Harkin.
As I have said on the floor a number of times today and in the past,
we must not delay the time when every parent and teacher really knows
how each child is doing academically.
For that reason, I am proud to cosponsor the amendment, which
transfers oversight over the new tests to the independent and
bipartisan National Assessment Governing Board.
This is an approach that I, having long worked with this Board
through

[[Page S8917]]

my participation on the National Education Goals Panel, believe will
ensure that the new tests are fair, and independent of political
influence.
Mr. HARKIN. Again, in accordance with the procedure, I ask the
amendment be temporarily set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be set
aside.

Amendment No. 1116

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding Federal Pell
Grants and a child literacy initiative)

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have another amendment I send to the
desk on behalf of Senator Daschle and Senator Kennedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for Mr. Daschle, for
himself and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 1116.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. 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:

On page 61, after line 25, insert the following:
Sec. . (a) The Senate finds that--
(1) Federal Pell Grants are a crucial source of college aid
for low- and middle-income students;
(2) in addition to the increase in the maximum Federal Pell
Grant from $2,700 to $3,000, which will increase aid to more
than 3,600,000 low- and middle-income students, our Nation
should provide an additional $700,000,000 to help more than
250,000 independent and dependent students obtain crucial aid
in order to help the students obtain the education, training,
or retraining the students need to obtain good jobs;
(3) our Nation needs to help children learn to read well in
fiscal year 1998, as 40 percent of the Nation's young
children cannot read at the basic level; and
(4) the Bipartisan Budget Agreement includes a total
funding level for fiscal year 1998 of $7,600,000,000 for
Federal Pell Grants, and of $260,000,000 for a child literacy
initiative.
(b) It is the sense of the Senate that the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, should--
(1) provide $700,000,000 to fund the change in the needs
analysis for Federal Pell Grants for independent and for
dependent students;
(2) add $260,000,000 in fiscal year 1998 for a child
literacy initiative; and
(3) pay for the increase in the Federal Pell Grant funding
and the child literacy initiative from funds that are
available for fiscal year 1998 and not yet appropriated.

Mr. HARKIN. Again, I also ask it be temporarily set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1094

(Purpose: To provide for the conduct of a study concerning the health
and safety effects of perchlorate on human beings)

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I request we call up the Reid amendment,
No. 1094.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for Mr. Reid, for
himself and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 1094.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask to vitiate the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1094, As Modified

(Purpose: To provide for the conduct of a study concerning the health
and safety effects of perchlorate on human beings)

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send a modification to the amendment to
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for Mr. Reid, for
himself and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 1094,
as modified.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. 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:

On page 49, after line 26, add the following:
Sec. . (a) Study.--From amounts appropriated under this
title, the Secretary should conduct a study on the health
effects of perchlorate on humans with particular emphasis on
the health risks to vulnerable subpopulations including
pregnant women, children, and the elderly.
(b) Report.--Not later than 9 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the National
Institutes of Health should prepare and submit to the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, a report
concerning the results of the study conducted under
subsection (a), including whether further health effects
research is necessary.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand that amendment has been
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1094) as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. Yes, as modified it was agreed to. That was the
modification I sent to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct and that is the Chair's
understanding.
Mr. HARKIN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

Amendment No. 1078

(Purpose: To repeal the tobacco industry settlement credit contained in
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 as amended)

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I think it is in order that I ask for the
regular order on amendment No. 1078.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself and Ms.
Collins, proposes an amendment numbered 1078.

Mr. FORD. Mr. 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 appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. . Repeal of Tobacco Industry Settlement Credit.--
Subsection (k) of section 9302 of the Balanced Budget Act of
1997, as added by section 1604(f)(3) of the Taxpayer Relief
Act of 1997, is repealed.

Amendment No. 1117 to amendment No. 1078

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I send an amendment in the second degree.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford] for himself, Mr.
Faircloth, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Helms, Mr. Robb, and Mr.
Hollings, proposes an amendment numbered 1117 to amendment
No. 1078.

Mr. FORD. Mr. 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 matter proposed to be inserted, add the
following new section:

``SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON COMPENSATION FOR TOBACCO
GROWERS AS PART OF LEGISLATION ON THE NATIONAL
TOBACCO SETTLEMENT.

``(a) Findings.--
``(1) On June 20, 1997, representatives of tobacco
manufacturers, public health organizations, and Attorneys
General from a majority of the States announced that an
agreement had been reached on a national tobacco settlement;
``(2) The national tobacco settlement was intended to
provide a comprehensive framework for dealing with several
issues relevant to the tobacco industry, including youth
smoking prevention, legal liabilities, and the sales and
marketing practices of the industry;
``(3) Implementation of the national tobacco settlement
requires the enactment of federal legislation by the Congress
and the President;
``(4) There are more than 125,000 farms in the United
States which derive a substantial portion of their income
from the cultivation and sale of tobacco;
``(5) Representatives of tobacco growers were completely
excluded from the negotiations on the national tobacco
settlement, and were poorly informed, or not informed at all,
of any details of the settlement negotiations by any
participants in those negotiations;
``(6) The national tobacco settlement includes compensation
for several adversely affected groups, including NASCAR,
rodeo, and other event sponsors, but includes absolutely no
compensation whatsoever or other provisions relating to the
impact of the settlement on tobacco growers;
``(7) No other group has their livelihoods affected by the
national tobacco settlement as adversely as tobacco growers;
``(8) The local economies of tobacco growing communities
will be adversely affected by implementation of the national
tobacco settlement;
``(9) The national tobacco settlement contemplates $368.5
billion in payments from tobacco manufacturers over the next
25 years, and not all of this amount has been specifically
earmarked by the agreement; and

[[Page S8918]]

``(10) The federal tobacco program was designed to operate
at no net cost to the federal taxpayer, the national tobacco
settlement does not contemplate any changes to the operation
of this program, and even many critics of the national
tobacco settlement, including representatives from the public
health community, have expressed support for the continued
operation of a federal tobacco program which operates at no
net cost to taxpayers.
``(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate
that--
``(1) Tobacco growers should be fairly compensated as part
of any federal legislation for the adverse impact which will
follow from the enactment of the national tobacco settlement;
``(2) Tobacco growing communities should be provided
sufficient resources to adequately adjust to the impact on
their local economies which will result from the enactment of
the national tobacco settlement;
``(3) Any compensation provided to tobacco growers and
tobacco growing communities as part of federal legislation to
implement the national tobacco settlement should be included
within the $368.5 billion in payments which are to be
provided over the next 25 years; and
``(4) No provisions should be included in any federal
legislation to implement the national tobacco settlement
which would restrict or adversely affect the continued
administration of a viable federal tobacco program which
operates at no net cost to the taxpayer.''

Mr. FORD. It will be perfectly all right to have this set aside, Mr.
President. What I wish to do is have a sense of the Senate in the
second degree to the amendment of the Senator from Illinois [Mr.
Durbin], as it relates to the tobacco tax. What my amendment does is
outlines the parameters on which, I hope, if any agreement is reached
as it relates to attorneys general and the Congress and the tobacco
manufacturers, that my farmers will be taken care of. This is basically
a sense of the Senate that they do that.
I ask unanimous consent now the amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Washington.

Amendments Nos. 1118 and 1119

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and I send two amendments to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send two
amendments to the desk, one on behalf of myself and Senator Wellstone
regarding family violence option under the temporary assistance to
needy families program and another regarding funding for the National
Institute for Literacy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes
amendments numbered 1118 and 1119.

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

amendment no. 1118

(Purpose: To clarify the family violence option under the temporary
assistance to needy families program)

On page 49, after line 26, add the following:

SEC. . PROTECTING VICTIMS OF FAMILY VIOLENCE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the intent of Congress in amending part A of title IV
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) in section
103(a) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193; 110 Stat
2112) was to allow States to take into account the effects of
the epidemic of domestic violence in establishing their
welfare programs, by giving States the flexibility to grant
individual, temporary waivers for good cause to victims of
domestic violence who meet the criteria set forth in section
402(a)(7)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
602(a)(7)(B));
(2) the allowance of waivers under such sections was not
intended to be limited by other, separate, and independent
provisions of part A of title IV of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
(3) under section 402(a)(7)(A)(iii) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
602(a)(7)(A)(iii)), requirements under the temporary
assistance for needy families program under part A of title
IV of such Act may, for good cause, be waived for so long as
necessary; and
(4) good cause waivers granted pursuant to section
402(a)(7)(A)(iii) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(7)(A)(iii))
are intended to be temporary and directed only at particular
program requirements when needed on an individual case-by-
case basis, and are intended to facilitate the ability of
victims of domestic violence to move forward and meet program
requirements when safe and feasible without interference by
domestic violence.
(b) Clarification of Waiver Provisions.--
(1) In general.--Section 402(a)(7) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(7)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(C) No numerical limits.--In implementing this paragraph,
a State shall not be subject to any numerical limitation in
the granting of good cause waivers under subparagraph
(A)(iii).
``(D) Waivered individuals not included for purposes of
certain other provisions of this part.--Any individual to
whom a good cause waiver of compliance with this Act has been
granted in accordance with subparagraph (A)(iii) shall not be
included for purposes of determining a State's compliance
with the participation rate requirements set forth in section
407, for purposes of applying the limitation described in
section 408(a)(7)(C)(ii), or for purposes of determining
whether to impose a penalty under paragraph (3), (5), or (9)
of section 409(a).''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
takes effect as if it had been included in the enactment of
section 103(a) of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193;
110 Stat. 2112).
(c) Federal Parent Locator Service.--
(1) In general.--Section 453 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 653), as amended by section 5534 of the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 (Public law 105-33; 111 Stat. 627), is
amended--
(A) in subsection (b)(2)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting
``or that the health, safety, or liberty or a parent or child
would by unreasonably put at risk by the disclosure of such
information,'' before ``provided that'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, that the health,
safety, or liberty or a parent or child would by unreasonably
put at risk by the disclosure of such information,'' before
``and that information;'' and
(iii) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``be harmful to
the parent or the child'' and inserting ``place the health,
safety, or liberty of a parent or child unreasonably at
risk''; and
(B) in subsection (c)(2), by inserting ``, or to serve as
the initiating court in an action to seek and order,'' before
``against a noncustodial''.
(2) State plan.--Section 545(26) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 654), as amended by section 5552 of the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33; 111 Stat. 635), is
amended--
(A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``result in physical
or emotional harm to the party or the child'' and inserting
``place the health, safety, or liberty of a parent or child
unreasonable at risk'';
(B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``of domestic violence
or child abuse against a party or the child and that the
disclosure of such information could be harmful to the party
or the child'' and inserting ``that the health, safety, or
liberty of a parent or child would be unreasonably put at
risk by the disclosure of such information''; and
(C) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``of domestic
violence'' and all that follows through the semicolon and
inserting ``that the health, safety, or liberty of a parent
or child would be unreasonably put at risk by the disclosure
of such information pursuant to section 453(b)(2), the court
shall determine whether disclosure to any other person or
persons of information received from the Secretary could
place the health, safety, or liberty of a parent or child
unreasonably at risk (if the court determines that disclosure
to any other person could be harmful, the court and its
agents shall not make any such disclosure);''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect 1 day after the effective date described in
section 5557(a) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public
Law 105-33).
____

amendment no. 1119

(Purpose: To provide funding for the National Institute for Literacy)

On page 55, line 26, strike ``$1,486,698,000'' and insert
``$1,487,698,000''.
On page 56, line 3, strike ``$4,491,000'' and insert
``$5,491,000''.
On page 56, line 1, strike ``$1,483,598,000'' and insert
``$1,484,598,000''.
On page 56, line 5, after Sec. 384(c) insert the following:
``which shall be derived from unobligated . . .''

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be set
aside for consideration at a later point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on the sense-of-
the-Senate amendment that I just sent to the desk, that the cosponsors
be Senator Hollings, Senator Robb, Senator Helms, Senator McConnell and
Senator Faircloth.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1120

(Purpose: To award a grant to a State educational agency to help pay
the expenses associated with exchanging State school trust lands within
the boundaries of a national monument for Federal lands outside the
boundaries of the monument)

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment I send to the desk on
behalf of Senator Bennett.

[[Page S8919]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for Mr. Bennett,
proposes an amendment numbered 1120.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. 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:

On page 53, line 16, after ``Act'' insert ``: Provided
further, That--
``(1) of the amount appropriated under this heading and
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of
Education may award $1,000,000 to a State educational agency
(as defined in section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801)) to pay for
appraisals, resource studies, and other expenses associated
with the exchange of State school trust lands within the
boundaries of a national monument for Federal lands outside
the boundaries of the monument; and
``(2) the State educational agency is eligible to receive a
grant under paragraph (1) only if the agency serves a State
that--
``(A) has a national monument declared within the State
under the authority of the Act entitled ``An Act for the
preservation of American antiquities'', approved June 8, 1906
(16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) (commonly known as the Antiquities
Act of 1906) that incorporates more than 100,000 acres of
State school trust lands within the boundaries of the
national monument; and
``(B) ranks in the lowest 25 percent of all States when
comparing the average per pupil expenditure (as defined in
section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801)) in the State to the average per
pupil expenditure for each State in the United States.''.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask the amendment be temporarily set
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, as in morning
business, I be allowed no more than 7 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________