[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.

  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 Head Start Act shall be $4,636,000,000, and such 
     amount shall

[[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.

                          ____________________