[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 117 (Monday, September 8, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8919-S8924]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want Senators to know that under the 
unanimous-consent agreement entered into last week, all amendments to 
this pending bill, Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations 
bill, have to be in by the close of business today, and business is 
about to be closed. So if Senators have amendments, I suggest they get 
them in in a hurry or forever

[[Page S8920]]

be precluded from offering them this year to this bill.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                           Amendment No. 1058

(Purpose: To exclude distilled spirits from certain hazardous materials 
                              regulation)

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1058.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1058.

  Mr. FORD. 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, insert the following:
       Sec.   . No funds made available under this Act may be used 
     to enforce section 304(a) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
     1990 (29 U.S.C. 655 note; Public Law 101-549) with respect to 
     distilled spirits (as defined in section 5002(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or section 117(a) of the 
     Federal Alcohol Administration Act (27 U.S.C. 211(a))).''.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, last week when I 
filed this amendment regarding the application of the process of safety 
management to distilleries, I started working with the Labor Department 
and particularly the OSHA division of the Department of Labor.
  When PSM regulations were developed as part of the 1990 Clean Air Act 
amendments, however, I don't believe these regulations were meant to 
apply to the distilled spirits industry. Clearly, OSHA disagrees with 
my position, but after discussing the issue with OSHA and Labor 
Department officials, I have decided to withdraw my amendment.
  I want to clearly thank Secretary of Labor Herman for her 
leadership--and she exercised it very well--in finding a way to resolve 
this issue. So, under the compromise we have reached today, the 
Secretary has agreed to make a review of the PSM's as it relates to 
distilleries, a key part of OSHA's revision of the PSM contract. During 
the review, OSHA has agreed not to cite the industry under this 
standard.
  I also want to commend the distilled spirits industry, whose 
exemplary record on safety helped make this compromise possible. It is 
my hope that OSHA and the industry will put this temporary suspension 
to good use by working together to determine the extent to which PSM 
should apply to this industry.
  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 1058) was withdrawn.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1121

   (Purpose: To exempt States that were overpaid mandatory funds for 
 fiscal year 1997 under the general entitlement formula for child care 
                  funding from any payment adjustment)

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, for 
himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
Ford, and Ms. Moseley-Braun, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford] for Mr. Kerrey, for 
     himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. 
     Lautenberg, Mr. Ford and Ms. Moseley-Braun, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1121.

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

       On page 40, line 24, strike the period and insert: Provided 
     further, That, notwithstanding section 418(a) of the Social 
     Security Act, for fiscal year 1997 only, the amount of 
     payment under section 418(a)(1) to which each State is 
     entitled shall equal the amount specified as mandatory funds 
     with respect to such State for such fiscal year in the table 
     transmitted by the Administration for Children and Families 
     to State Child Care and Development Block Grant Lead Agencies 
     on August 27, 1996, and the amount of State expenditures in 
     fiscal year 1994 or 1995 (whichever is greater) that equals 
     the non-Federal share for the programs described in section 
     418(a)(1)(A) shall be deemed to equal the amount specified as 
     maintenance of effort with respect to such State for fiscal 
     year 1997 in such table.''.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
  If I desire to introduce an amendment on behalf of Senator Gorton as 
the prime sponsor, and myself as one of the cosponsors, is that in 
order at this point? It is an amendment on the Labor-Health and Human 
Services appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is in order.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I do not need unanimous consent? Is that what the Chair 
said?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.


                           Amendment No. 1122

   (Purpose: To provide certain education funding directly to local 
                         educational agencies)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have an amendment with reference to 
the appropriations bill on the Departments of Labor-Health and Human 
Services, and Education. I want to make sure that everybody understands 
this is Senator Gorton's amendment. I am offering it on his behalf. I 
would just like to make a couple statements before I send the amendment 
to the desk to become part of the itinerary of the Senate.
  First, this amendment takes most of the education funds for 
kindergarten through 12th grade and creates a block grant to the local 
schools based on the number of school-aged children and the relative 
wealth of the States.
  My purpose in doing this is to make sure that every child in the 
United States will graduate from high school with basic skills in 
reading and writing, mathematics, and the kind of skills that everybody 
knows we should have by the time we complete 12th grade.
  I am firmly of the opinion that we have to try something new and 
different. Our schools need to do things differently. We keep adding to 
the inventory of programs, and we keep adding money to various 
programs.
  I join Senator Gorton in this amendment because I believe when the 
numbers are all figured out, the schools will find out that they will 
receive a very significant increase in money. This is not just an 
efficiency move, but it is to see if we can't give the States an 
opportunity to do things differently. Essentially, this is a way to 
help our schools, instead of having a one-shoe-fits-all approach.
  We need to attempt to give the schools an opportunity to improve the 
quality of education by using this money to move decisionmakers closer 
to the schools. Schools need to come up with a master plan for 
improving the basic skills that we require if we are going to be 
graduating children from our high schools who can make it in this 
economic environment.
  This amendment provides a mechanism of giving slightly more money to 
the poorer States which, in turn, would mean slightly less money to the 
more wealthy States. However, everybody would get more money because 
you would be eliminating all of the categorical bureaucracies that 
exist which are enormously expensive, both at the national level and to 
the school districts who have to administer them. Local school 
districts across America, and our superintendents and our principals 
would say, Let's see if we couldn't do better
  The amendment would not affect Title VIII of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act; Individuals with

[[Page S8921]]

Disabilities Education Act funds; Adult Education Act funds; Museum and 
Library Services Act funds; Departmental management expenses; 
Educational Research Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act 
funds; or funds to carry out the National Education Statistics Act; to 
carry out section 10501--funds for civic education--or 2102--Eisenhower 
Professional Grants--and Park K--National Writing project--of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act;
  By eliminating the Federal strings attached to the money, the Federal 
Government would be recognizing that one size does not fit all.
  The amendment would allow State and local governments to design 
programs that best meet the needs of the local schools.
  The reason for this amendment is simple.
  Our schools need to do things differently.
  Too many kids are merely getting social promotions to keep them in a 
class with their age group regardless of whether they have learned 
their lessons. It is a sad state when many of our graduates can't read 
the diplomas they receive at graduation.
  Too many schools don't teach the basics any more.
  In ``Teaching the New Basic Skills'' by economists Frank Levy of MIT 
and Richard Murnane of Harvard, the authors argue that employers hire 
college graduates because they have little confidence that high school 
graduates have mastered ninth grade level math; that is, the ability to 
manipulate fractions and decimals and to interpret line and bar graphs.
  They contend one of the reasons we are paying so much more for 
college graduates than we ever did before is because we are doing such 
a poor job at the high school level.
  The central educational task today is to do better teaching high 
school students. That can't be done from Washington. To keep up, calls 
for local decision making, not cumbersome programs developed in 
Washington.
  Robert W. Galvin and Edward W. Bales of Motorola have written, ``The 
major issue . . . is that the education system is undergoing 
incremental change in an environment of exponential change.''
  Americans spend a lot on education. Last year $550 billion a year in 
total private and public money was spent on education. This is more 
than what was spent on defense and second only to health care in 
tapping American's pocketbook. Yet as defense firms have restructured, 
and health care providers have turned themselves upside down moving to 
HMO's, education experts start another school year excusing failure and 
demanding more money.
  Effective reform involves parents, teachers, and local businesses.
  In New Mexico we need to train kids to work at Intel and other high 
tech firms. In Detroit, the schools need to prepare kids to work in 
auto plants. In recent studies it was found that only half of the kids 
had the basic reading and math skills to get a job in an auto plant.
  This amendment will give the control back to the local schools so 
that they can use their Federal education funds to meet the local job 
market and better educate our kids. Local school districts are proving 
it can be done and this amendment will help others following in those 
successful footsteps.
  I hope my colleagues will support Senator Gorton's amendment.
  I want everybody to understand that Senator Gorton did not include 
every single kindergarten through twelth grade programs in this new 
approach to give our schools an opportunity to do things differently. 
The amendment will not affect title VII of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act funds; the 
Adult Education Act funds; the Museum and Library Services Act funds; 
departmental management expenses; Educational Research Development, 
Dissemination, and Improvement Act funds; funds to carry out the 
National Education Statistics Act, to carry out section 10501; funds 
for civic education; 2102 Eisenhower professional grants; or the Park 
K, the national writing project, of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act.
  I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Gorton, 
     for himself and Mr. Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1122.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 85, after line 23, insert the following:
       Sec.    . (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Secretary of Education shall award the total amount of 
     funds described in subsection (b) directly to local 
     educational agencies in accordance with subsection (d) to 
     enable the local educational agencies to support programs or 
     activities for kindergarten through grade 12 students that 
     the local educational agencies deem appropriate.
       (b) The total amount of funds referred to in subsection (a) 
     are all funds that are appropriated for the Department of 
     Education, the Department of Labor, and the Department of 
     Health and Human Services under this Act to support programs 
     or activities for kindergarten through grade 12 students, 
     other than--
       (1) amounts appropriated under this Act--
       (A) to carry out title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965;
       (B) to carry out the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act;
       (C) to carry out the Adult Education Act;
       (D) to carry out the Museum and Library Services Act;
       (E) for departmental management expenses of the Department 
     of Education; or
       (F) to carry out the Educational Research, Development, 
     Dissemination, and Improvement Act;
       (G) to carry out the National Education Statistics Act of 
     1994;
       (H) to carry out section 10601 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965;
       (I) to carry out section 2102 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965; or
       (J) to carry out part K of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965; or
       (2) 50 percent of the amount appropriated under title III 
     under the headings ``Rehabilitation Services and Disability 
     Research'' and ``Vocational and Adult Education''.
       (c) Each local educational agency shall conduct a census to 
     determine the number of kindergarten through grade 12 
     students served by the local educational agency not later 
     than 21 days after the beginning of the school year. Each 
     local educational agency shall submit the number to the 
     Secretary.
       (d) The Secretary shall determine the amount awarded to 
     each local educational agency under this section as follows:
       (1) First, the Secretary, using the information provided 
     under subsection (c), shall determine a per child amount by 
     dividing the total amount of funds described in subsection 
     (b), by the total number of kindergarten through grade 12 
     students in all States.
       (e) Second, the Secretary, using the information provided 
     under subsection (c), shall determine the baseline amount for 
     each local educational agency by multiplying the per child 
     amount determined under paragraph (1) by the number of 
     kindergarten through grade 12 students that are served by the 
     local educational agency.
       (3) Lastly, the Secretary shall compute the amount awarded 
     to each local educational agency as follows:
       (A) Multiply the baseline amount determined under paragraph 
     (2) by a factor of 1.1 for local educational agencies serving 
     States that are in the least wealthy quintile of all States 
     as determined by the Secretary on the basis of the per capita 
     income of individuals in the States.
       (B) Multiply the baseline amount by a factor of 1.05 for 
     local educational agencies serving States that are in the 
     second least wealthy such quintile.
       (C) Multiply the baseline amount by a factor of 1.00 for 
     local educational agencies serving States that are in the 
     third least wealthy such quintile.
       (D) Multiply the baseline amount by a factor of .95 for 
     local educational agencies serving States that are in the 
     fourth least wealthy such quintile.
       (E) Multiply the baseline amount by a factor of .90 for 
     local educational agencies serving States that are in the 
     wealthiest such quintile.
       (e) If the total amount of funds made available to carry 
     out this section is insufficient to pay in full all amounts 
     awarded under subsection (d), then the Secretary shall 
     ratably reduce each such amount.
       (f) If the Secretary determines that a local educational 
     agency has knowingly submitted false information under 
     subsection (c) for the purpose of gaining additional funds 
     under this section, then the local educational agency shall 
     be fined an amount equal to twice the difference between the 
     amount the local educational agency received under subsection 
     (d), and the correct amount the local educational agency 
     would have received if the agency had submitted accurate 
     information under subsection (c).
       (g) In this section--
       (1) the term ``local educational agency'' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 14101 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965;
       (2) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     Education; and

[[Page S8922]]

       (3) the term ``State'' means each of the several States of 
     the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth 
     of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, the United States Virgin Islands, 
     the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of 
     Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I want to thank profusely my friend from 
New Mexico, Senator Domenici, for his remarks and for introducing this 
amendment on my behalf. I was able to get here just in time to second 
his remarks.
  I believe this amendment is going to give us an opportunity to debate 
an issue of great importance to the people of the United States with 
respect to the education of their children.
  More and more, our local school boards, our teachers, and our local 
schools are being suffocated by a tide of papers, forms, and programs, 
each of which have a good purpose, at least in theory, but the net 
result of which is to make it difficult to set priorities in each of 
the many varied school districts in the United States as to what will 
best serve the students of those districts.
  I am firmly of the belief, and I know my friend from New Mexico 
shares this belief with me, that elected school board members in cities 
and towns through the State of New Mexico, through the State of 
Washington, through the State of Colorado and all across the country, 
are dedicated to providing the best possible education for those 
schoolchildren that they possibly can and that they are better able to 
make decisions about what is best for their students than our 
bureaucrats in the Department of Education in Washington, DC, or than 
are Members of Congress.
  It is almost unspeakably arrogant of us here in this body that we set 
detailed requirements for very specific education programs all across 
the United States with the great variety of people, attitudes, and 
challenges that we have.
  So this amendment is designed to consolidate, for this year at least, 
the great bulk of all of the dozens or more programs fitting in the 
narrow categories going to school districts of the United States; to 
set up a reasonably fair formula which benefits the poorer States 
slightly more than it does the wealthy States, but with the exception 
of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, Impact Aid, and a 
number of other very high profile programs; that each school district 
should be allowed to take the money that we appropriate in this bill 
for the education of our children from kindergarten through 12th grade, 
and each school district should set its own priorities for the spending 
of that money on that education, trusting they can do a better job than 
we can or than the bureaucrats can.
  Not the least of the benefits of an amendment of this sort, Mr. 
President, is the fact that we will not have to take 10 percent, 20 
percent, or 30 percent off the top for administering the program, for 
filling out the forms, for all of the activities which chew up money 
but are not reflected in education at all.
  Mr. President, I present this as a significant amendment to this 
bill. I hope for a significant debate on this issue here in this body. 
We all, when we are at home, laud local control of our schools, with 
elected school board members and hands-on education, but all too much 
of the time we take exactly the opposite view in the programs we 
actually create and vote for here.
  This amendment will be discussed at considerably greater length 
tomorrow by a wide variety of people. I cannot possibly express my 
delight at having my friend from New Mexico as a cosponsor of this 
amendment. I suspect, Mr. President, there will be a number of other 
cosponsors as we go through the debate on the amendment tomorrow.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GORTON. I am delighted to yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I reviewed this in an effort to make a statement of 
introduction today because you asked me to because you did not think 
you could be here. I am very pleased you are. I think we ought to talk 
about this exciting proposal from the standpoint of reality. The 
reality, to me, is that our schools need to do things differently, and 
we are not doing things any differently here with our programs except 
from time to time adding a little money here and there. For the most 
part, we are stuck.
  If there is a growing mediocrity--and I assume that is putting it 
mildly--we are probably part of it. We should not be talking just about 
saving money or about giving schools more money without strings, but 
about educating children better. I almost would call our approach 
giving the schools an opportunity to get the basics done again.
  I was part of the budget negotiations, and I am not changing that 
here because I realize a certain amount of money has to go to 
education, and I believe this bill honors that. That was one of the 
categories where the President received his preference. This 
amendment's approach to current education monies gives the schools the 
flexibility to try to do things differently. We are saying, let's look 
at our education situation because we are kind of stuck, and we want to 
get out of that rut.
  Is that how you see our bill?
  Mr. GORTON. Well, my friend, the Senator from New Mexico, whose views 
are so thoughtful and so carefully enunciated on a wide variety of 
subjects, is, I am afraid, more eloquent on my own amendment than I am 
myself.
  Yes, I say to my friend from New Mexico, that is exactly what this is 
about.
  Earlier this year, during the course of the debate over the budget, 
there was a request by the President that we increase the amount of 
money going to our common schools. That received wide support from both 
Republicans and Democrats in this body and in the House of 
Representatives.
  The Senator from New Mexico is entirely correct, there is nothing in 
this bill except more money. There is nothing in this bill about a 
different approach. There is nothing in this bill about getting more in 
the way of a 21st century education for our children. It is just more 
of the same stuff we have already been doing.
  I think I can say this amendment may, to a certain extent, be 
analogous to the welfare reform bill that we passed more than a year 
ago. What we decided then, I say to my friend from New Mexico, was that 
maybe we did not know everything there was to know about welfare here 
in Washington, DC. Maybe there was not just one welfare system, to be 
run out of Washington, DC, that was going to work. In fact, it worked 
so poorly that almost every condition it was designed to alleviate it 
made worse.
  What we did a year ago with welfare was to say we are not all that 
smart. Governors and legislators of 50 States, you try it. We will give 
you broad discretion in welfare programs. We suspect some of you will 
do really well, but regrettably some of you will do not so well, but we 
will learn more about what can get people back to work and out of a 
welfare mentality.
  Now, I think this amendment is a little bit like that, I say to my 
friend. What we are doing here is something we do not like doing very 
much in the Senate, admitting that somebody else may know a little bit 
more than we do about a subject. Here we are saying we think perhaps 
that wisdom lies right down in individual school districts with 
teachers in the classroom, with principals in the schools, with school 
board members who, almost without exception, are public-spirited 
citizens who have run for election for a job that does not pay, but 
that they know something maybe that we do not know, and if we give them 
more freedom to use these billions of dollars we come up with, we will 
get better education for our kids.
  That is, of course, the whole goal of the exercise.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, I want to make this last point and see if you 
concur. This is different from other efforts to encapsulate our Federal 
programs into some kind of block grant, and for the most part that was 
always to cut education. There is no effort to cut education here.
  The major increases that are in this bill that are in response to the 
budget agreement are all used in this fund--not a penny less--and it 
may be much bigger when it reaches the districts. That money will 
increase the level so nobody should think that Senators

[[Page S8923]]

Gorton and Domenici are for reducing the expenditure.

  If we save administrative money, we want to spend it on the kids, and 
it ought to be a rather substantial amount of money.
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator from New Mexico is, of course, entirely 
correct. The total amount of the appropriation in this bill for 
education is not reduced by a single dollar.
  On the other hand, the total amount of money that gets to the 
classroom will be considerably greater because so much less will get 
lost in the gears of administration at two, three, or four different 
levels between here and the classroom.
  We hope that we will be able to get much more for the same amount of 
money fundamentally because we will actually be spending more on direct 
educational expenditures.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.


                           Amendment No. 1076

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, while I have the floor I ask unanimous 
consent to set the pending amendment aside and call up amendment No. 
1076.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1076.


                    Amendment No. 1076, As Modified

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify 
amendment No. 1076, which I have sent to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 1076), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 49, after line 26, add the following:
       Sec.   . (a)(1) Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396d) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b), in the sentence added by section 
     4911(a)(1) of the Balanced Budget Act, by striking ``or 
     subsection (u)(3)'' and inserting ``, subsection (u)(3), or 
     subsection (u)(4) for the State for a fiscal year, and that 
     do not exceed the amount of the State's allotment under 
     section 2104 (not taking into account reductions under 
     section 2104(d)(2)) for the fiscal year reduced by the amount 
     of any payments made under section 2105 to the State from 
     such allotment for such fiscal year,''; and
       (B) in subsection (u), as added by section 4911(a)(2) of 
     the Balanced Budget Act of 1997--
       (A) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2)(A) For purposes of subsection (b), the expenditures 
     described in this paragraph are expenditures for medical 
     assistance for optional targeted low-income children 
     described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `optional 
     targeted low-income child' means a targeted low-income child 
     as defined in section 2110(b)(1) (determined without regard 
     to subparagraph (C)) who would not qualify for medical 
     assistance under the State plan under this title based on 
     such plan (including under a waiver authorized by the 
     Secretary or under section 1902(4)(2)) as in effect on April 
     15, 1997 (but taking into account the expansion of age of 
     eligibility effected through the operation of section 
     1902(l)(2)(D)).''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4)(A) For purposes of subsection (b), the expenditures 
     described in this subparagraph are expenditures for medical 
     assistance for certain waivered low-income children described 
     in subparagraph (B), but only to the extent such expenditures 
     for a State for a fiscal year exceed the level of such 
     expenditures for such children under this title for fiscal 
     year 1997.
       ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `certain 
     waivered low-income children' means, in the case of any State 
     that has under a waiver authorized by the Secretary or under 
     section 1902(r)(2), established a medicaid applicable income 
     level (as defined in section 2110(b)(1)(4)) for children 
     under 19 years of age residing in the State that is at or 
     above 200 percent of the poverty line, a child whose family 
     income exceeds the minimum income level required to be 
     established for the age of such child under section 
     1902(l)(2) in order for the child to be eligible for medical 
     assistance under this title, but does not exceed 200 percent 
     of the poverty line.''.
       (2) Section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XIV) of the Social Security 
     Act, as added by section 4911(b)(3) of the Balanced Budget 
     Act of 1997, is amended by striking ``1905(u)(2)(C)'' and 
     inserting ``1905(u)(2)(B)''.
       (b) The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect 
     as if included in the enactment of section 4911 of the 
     Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, just a few weeks ago, Congress and the 
President agreed to provide $48 billion over the next 10 years as an 
incentive to States to provide health care coverage to uninsured, low-
income children. To receive this money, States must expand eligibility 
levels to children living in families with incomes up to 200 percent of 
the Federal poverty level.
  Three years ago, Washington State decided to do what Congress and the 
President have now required other States to do. In 1994, my State 
expanded children's health care coverage to children through age 18 who 
live in families up to 200 percent of the Federal poverty level.
  Under the budget agreement, Washington State, like every other State 
will receive an allotment, a portion of the money the Federal 
Government makes available for children's health care each year. The 
budget agreement provides an ``enhanced Federal match'' to States to 
encourage them to raise eligibility levels. That incentive is available 
to States which cover kids at the current mandatory levels of 100 
percent to 133 percent of poverty depending on the age group, if they 
expand up to the new 200-percent-of-poverty threshold. However, for the 
few States which already meet this requirement, these States must 
expand their eligibility levels an additional 50 percentage points 
before being able to tap into the money available under the Children's 
Health Initiative.
  Unfortunately, the budget provisions essentially penalize Washington 
because of the State's progressive policies on children's health care. 
First, Washington and a few States which have done these broad 
expansions, will essentially pay more than every other State to cover 
this population of kids. Second, the budget agreement actually provides 
more incentive to cover kids in families with higher discretionary 
income than it does for children living in poorer families. In 
Washington 100,000 kids under 200 percent of poverty are still 
uninsured in spite of the success of enrolling kids over the last 3 
years, while somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000 kids between 200 and 
250 percent of poverty are uninsured. Clearly the need is at lower 
income levels, I expect this holds true for most other States. Yet my 
State receives more Federal money to cover kids in this higher income 
bracket. Finally, the budget agreement provides no incentive to the 
State legislature to further expand coverage to kids. After all, 
Washington already did what Congress is now asking other States to do 
and instead of being recognized for doing a good job of covering kids, 
my State is penalized. If I were a State legislator I would argue that 
we should simply wait for the Feds to mandate further coverage for 
children, then we would receive the same contribution from the Federal 
Government as other States.
  For example, Washington currently receives a 50-percent Federal match 
for kids covered under Medicaid. Another State which also gets a 50-
percent Federal match but has not already expanded eligibility levels 
for kids, will receive an enhanced match as an incentive to cover this 
new population. In a nonexpansion State for a child living in a family 
with an income of 150 percent the State would receive an increased 
Federal match level. However, under the budget agreement in a State 
like Washington, for that same child the State would only be reimbursed 
at the current rate. Even if the child is currently uninsured. 
Proportionately more money will come out of Washington State revenues 
to cover kids below 200 percent of the poverty than in other States 
which have not expanded coverage to kids at this level. Thus taxpayers 
in my State will pay more to cover the same population of kids than 
taxpayers in other States that did not choose to expand eligibility to 
kids before Congress did it for them.
  The spirit of the legislation is to provide health insurance coverage 
for uninsured, low-income children first. In Washington we have 100,000 
kids that are uninsured below the 200 percent FPL threshold and only 
10,000 to 30,000 between 200 percent and 250 percent FPL. For States 
with high eligibility thresholds, the Child Health Initiative provides 
more incentive--a higher Federal match rate--to cover kids at higher 
income levels than it does for kids living in families with lower 
incomes. With an enhanced match for new kids below 200 percent of FPL 
brought into the State health program, the State can target a bigger 
pool of low-income, uninsured kids, more expediently producing the 
results intended by the legislation.

[[Page S8924]]

  My amendment stays within the spirit of the Child Health Initiative, 
it focuses Federal money on providing health care coverage to new, 
uninsured children at low income levels first. It does not take money 
from any other State, but merely allows Washington to draw on its own 
allotment. Staff discussions with CBO and CRS confirm that the 
amendment does not change the amount other States will receive. CRS is 
in the process of developing an official memo to that effect. A 
progressive think tank, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities also 
states that the amendment would not alter State allocations. The 
amendment allows States which have already expanded eligibility levels 
to 200 percent to receive an ``enhanced Federal match'' if it provides 
health care coverage to uninsured kids between the current mandatory 
levels and the new level of 200 percent set in the budget agreement. 
Additionally, my State would be required to maintain its current 
effort. Washington must spend the same amount on children's health care 
that it does in fiscal year 1997, in subsequent years before it can 
receive any money provided for under the Child Health Initiative.
  The proposal does not take money from other States nor does it 
provide additional Federal subsidies for children the State is now 
covering, it simply allows Washington and the other few expansion 
States to continue to do the good work they have already started.


                       SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDING

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
thank Senator Specter for his leadership and support in my recent 
efforts to provide full funding for the Individuals With Disabilities 
Education Act [IDEA].
  For the past 2 years, one of my top priorities has been to ensure 
that the Federal Government lives up to its promise to provide 40 
percent of the funding for the costs of complying with Federal special 
education mandates. The current level of 8 percent or 9 percent is 
unacceptable. In addition, I believe that it is important to secure 
increased funding for IDEA to ease the burden on local schools and 
communities. For these reasons, I am grateful to Senator Specter for 
helping us move closer to full funding to help these communities.
  As a result of our combined efforts, in the fiscal year 1998 Labor-
HHS appropriations bill, State grants for part B of IDEA are allocated 
$3.94 billion, which is a $834 million or 27 percent increase over last 
year's funding level. As chairman of another appropriations 
subcommittee, I know how difficult, if not virtually impossible, it is 
to provide such a significant increase to a large account. Thus, I 
truly appreciate Senator Specter's efforts and leadership on this 
issue. I'm sure that the Nation's special education students and the 
local communities that educate them are equally as grateful to Senator 
Specter for his support.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________