[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 120 (Thursday, September 11, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9097-S9133]
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 PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the pending
business.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:.
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.
Nickles-Jeffords amendment No. 1081, to limit the use of
taxpayer funds for any future International Brotherhood of
Teamsters leadership election.
Craig-Jeffords amendment No. 1083 (to amendment No. 1081),
in the nature of a substitute.
Harkin-Bingaman-Kennedy amendment No. 1115, to authorize
the National Assessment Governing Board to develop policy for
voluntary national tests in reading and mathematics.
Domenici (for Gorton) modified amendment No. 1122, to
provide certain education funding directly to local
educational agencies.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is
recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it, the time between now
and 9:30 is evenly divided on the Nickles and Gregg amendments. Am I
correct?
[[Page S9098]]
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. How much time then on each side?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Fifteen minutes on each side.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Minnesota.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank Senator
Kennedy.
Amendment No. 1081, as amended
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, we had an extensive discussion on the
Nickles amendment last time. I just want to speak for a very brief
period of time about it this morning.
Pending before a Federal court in New York, scheduled to be
considered next Friday, is a motion by the election officer of the 1996
Teamsters election. A judge will make a decision then. And the problem
with this amendment, Mr. President, is that it essentially tells the
judge what to do.
I would like to say this morning that in many ways this reminds me of
yesterday. This is an overreach. I think we are getting a little bit
carried away with our power here.
My colleague from Oklahoma is a fine Senator. But he is not a judge.
It is Senator Nickles. It is not ``Judge Nickles.'' We don't really
have the right to tell a judge what kind of decision he should make
regarding the 1989 consent decree. That is for the judge to decide next
week.
Mr. President, it is true that we had an election, and it is true
that it was not satisfactory. And, indeed, the investment that we made
to make sure it was a clean and fair election lead to a report, and the
election officer essentially saying there has to be a rerun; that this
has to be done again. That is the way it is supposed to be. An election
which is not a fair election means that you have to have another
election. That is where we are heading.
Mr. President, my colleague from Oklahoma has said that the consent
decree was neutral as to whether there would be any more money spent on
the election--silent on that matter. If so, on the Kennedy amendment,
what my colleague from Massachusetts has talked about is right on the
mark; that we make a commitment that we will not do anything here that
will overturn, or essentially contradict, that consent decree.
The judge makes the decision in New York next week. What are we as a
U.S. Senate doing trying to tell that judge how he should decide? That
is an overreach. That is not our business. I think it raises
constitutional questions. But I also think it raises another set of
questions. I said this last time. I will repeat it in the last minute
or two that I have.
Whatever the intentions of my colleague--and I know they are good
intentions--the fact of the matter is that there is a whole lot of
people in the country who find the timing of the Nickles amendment to
be suspect. I mean it comes in a relatively short period of time after
a very successful justice struggle by UPS workers and by the Teamsters.
It just looks like payback time. That is, I am sure, not his intention.
But the point of it is the timing is off. It doesn't look good for
the U.S. Senate to be coming out on the floor of the Senate with an
amendment like this short on the heels of this great victory for
working people. And, in addition, it is an overreach. I mean we should
not be telling the judge what kind of decision a Federal district judge
in New York makes next week. I don't think it is constitutionally the
right thing to do. I think it is probably unconstitutional. I don't
think it is appropriate, and I hope that there will be a very strong
vote against the Nickles amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Massachusetts
is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. President, the fact of the matter is, whether it is the intention
or not the intention of those that propose this amendment, one can
reach no other conclusion that this amendment is on the floor of the
U.S. Senate because of the success of the Teamsters in the recent UPS
strike. For the first time in many years, the Nation focused on the
particular needs of part-time workers--their future, their security,
and their well-being.
During that UPS strike, one of the key points that was made--and
which I think resonated across the country--was that part-time workers
don't have part-time mortgages, don't have part-time bills when they
are feeding their children, don't have part-time bills when they are
trying to work for their families, and bring up their families, and
that in this Nation with our growing and expanding economy--and with
the strongest economy that we have had in many years--part-time workers
should not be excluded. That is the key issue. There are many of those
that fought that issue. But, nonetheless, as a result of collective
bargaining, part-time workers' needs were recognized. I think America
understood this issue much better. Pension issues were resolved to try
to ensure that we are not going to only have Social Security to rely on
when they retire but at least have some benefit in terms of their
pensions for men and women that work hard over a long period of time.
Those were the negotiations. Now there are many, and many in this
body, that do not like the outcome of that particular measure. They
have put this measure that is before us, which I think is really a
reflection of that success.
The fact is, Mr. President, if we accept this amendment of Senators
Nickles and Gregg, we will be directly interfering with a consent
decree that was agreed to by a Republican administration, agreed to by
a Republican Attorney General, Attorney General Thornburgh, and it was
heralded at that period of time as a great success by Republicans in
trying to clean up corruption in a particular union. The fact is that
when the Teamsters have a Teamster Union election, the Teamsters pay
for it. But under that consent decree, if there are going to be Federal
supervisors involved in this, and the Federal Government is going to be
involved in ensuring that the election is going to be fair, then the
Federal Government is going to be paying for this and participating.
We are not saying now and in the future when this matter is before
the courts what the future is going to be, or whether there is going to
be another election and who ought to pay for it. All we are saying is
let the consent decree that is in place now continue to be respected
and not be undermined by actions by the legislative body which is a
direct interference into the separation of powers and into the judicial
decision to have a consent decree by which the executive body agreed
to.
That is the issue, Mr. President, and there are many important
scholars that agree that, if we do have this kind of interference in a
consent decree, we are going to subject this body to a contempt action
because we will be interfering in a consent decree.
Mr. President, it seems to me that we ought to follow the regular
order. This overall agreement consent decree is before the Southern
District Court in New York. Briefs are being required by the middle of
this month. There will be a judgment to be made by the judge in that
decision. And we ought to respect that particular decision which has
been agreed on and it is now a matter of consent decree. We should not
interfere with a consent decree with a legislative intrusion. There are
no funds in this appropriations affecting that particular settlement.
And we have no business, as the Senator from Alaska has pointed out, a
Republican, to be adding these kinds of extraneous issues into an
appropriations bill. It makes no sense.
I withhold the remainder of my time.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, in listening to my colleagues, I heard,
``Well, the reason why this amendment is offered is because the
Teamsters strike against UPS was a phenomenal success.'' I have never
commented on that. But I don't know that I could consider success that
they have 15,000 fewer workers today after the strike than they had
before the strike.
I know that some people characterize it. But I will tell my
colleagues, you can question my integrity or not, that is not the
reason I am offering this amendment. I am offering this amendment
because I read that taxpayers
[[Page S9099]]
paid $22 million for it. I don't know who won that strike. With strikes
I think basically everybody loses. I think the company loses, and the
workers lose. And if you have 15,000 fewer jobs, that is a loss. And
certainly the company loses lots of money and lots of customers. So
that is a loss.
But that is not the purpose of my amendment. The purpose of my
amendment is that I didn't know that the taxpayers were paying for that
election.
I thought, why did we pay for that election? Well, there was a
consent decree order in 1989 that said we will have a couple of
elections to deal with, 1991 and 1996. And they agreed in the consent
decree to supervise all future Teamsters elections. It is in the
consent decree. They said, in 1991, the Teamsters will pay for it. They
said, in 1996, the taxpayers will pay for it. They were silent on any
subsequent elections.
I want to make sure that we do not pay for it. I do not think we
should have paid for the one in 1996. I did not know about it until
after the fact. So if anybody wants to question my motives, I almost
could put out--I am not questioning other people's motives. I have not
raised the fact the Teamsters put in so much money in these elections,
and so on. I have never said people are out here defending this because
they received support. I am not going to do it. I am not questioning
other people's motives.
I am a little sensitive to that statement because it was made last
week, and I did not respond to it earlier this week and now it is
repeated. That is infringing, or very close to infringing on Senate
rules.
We have a right to say how money is appropriated in this body. My
colleague from Minnesota said, well, maybe in this institution a
consent decree overrides the Constitution. I do not think so. In the
Constitution of the United States, article I, section 9 says, ``No
money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of
appropriations made by law.''
That is by Congress. Article I of the Constitution says, under
congressional powers, Congress has the right to appropriate money. We
have the right basically not to appropriate money, and that is what
this amendment says. This amendment says we do not want to spend
another $22 million. We can supervise the election. Frankly, we have to
supervise the election. The consent decree says we will supervise the
election.
What happened in the last election? According to the report that was
done by the election officer of the Teamsters' last election, ``The
violation of the rules described above were not merely''--this is a
quote from her report, and I will put it into the record. ``The
violations of the rules described above were not merely technical but
products of schemes to funnel union and outside money into the election
and thus change the outcome. These were egregious violations by high
level functionaries who believed that winning at all costs was more
important than abiding by the rules and the law. Members cannot have
confidence in their union or its leaders if they see that their choice
of officers has been manipulated by outsiders. The election officer has
searched for means of properly remedying the violations while at the
same time avoiding the burden on the union and its members inherent in
holding a new election. Unfortunately, no such path is apparent.''
Mr. President I will ask unanimous consent that at least these two
pages of the report of the election officer be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Election Officer for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters
In re: Jeraldine Cheatem; Robert H. Spearman; Jim Hoffa--No
dues increase--25 and out slate; Jerry Halberg; James P.
Hoffa.
decision correction
The first full paragraph on page 130 should read as
follows:
An order of the Election Officer, unless otherwise stayed,
takes immediate effect against a party found in violation of
the Rules. In Re: Lopez, 96--Elec. App.--73 (KC) (February
13, 1996). However, the fines levied in Part III(C) of the
decision are not final and are not to be paid until such
fines are ordered by the Court upon application of the
Election Officer.
Dated: August 21, 1997.
Barbara Zack Quindel,
Election Officer.
____
Election Officer for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters
In re: Jeraldine Cheatem; Robert H. Spearman; Jim Hoffa--No
dues increase--25 and out slate; Jerry Halberg; James P.
Hoffa.
summary of decision \1\
The Election Officer for the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters (``IBT'') was appointed by the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York to supervise and
conduct the rank-and-file election for International officers
to ensure a free, fair and informed process. Her duties arise
from the 1989 Consent Decree approved by the District Court
in a case brought by the government under federal
racketeering laws. The ballot count in the 1996 International
officer election concluded on February 27, 1997. This
decision follows the investigation of numerous post-election
protests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This summary has been prepared by the Office of the
Election Officer for the convenience of the parties and the
general reader. The summary is not part of the decision and
may not be cited before the Election Appeals Master, the
District Court, or any other tribunal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part I of the decision addresses several protests which
challenged the fairness and accuracy of the ballot count.
Following a detailed explanation of the receipt, processing,
and count of the ballots, those protests are denied.
Parts II and III of the decision address allegations that
non-IBT members made $221,000 in improper contributions to
Teamsters for a Corruption Free Union (``TCFU''), a
fundraising committee of the Ron Carey Campaign. The Election
Officer concludes that the contributions violated the
Election Rules' prohibition against employer and IBT
contributions.
The TCFU contributions were used by the Carey Campaign to
fund approximately 40% of a direct mail get-out-the-vote
program. Given the small margins between the winning
candidates on the Carey slate and the losing candidates on
the Hoffa slate, the * * *
* * * in their attacks on the positions, records, and
integrity of the opposing candidates. One may question
whether such campaigns are the most effective in winning
votes or even building democratic institutions, but no one
can question that this campaign was as open and competitive
as any undertaken in an American labor union in recent
history.
Preserving the new open spirit within the IBT requires some
sacrifice. Certainly the hardship on the candidates and the
members of rerunning so massive an election is a factor to
weigh in this decision. A rerun election inevitably affects
the Union as an institution, as many of its leaders, at both
the local and national level, become diverted from the
central work of bargaining and enforcing contracts and
organizing new members. Many members of this Union want
nothing more than to return to the basic tasks of trade
unionism and have looked forward to a respite from the almost
ceaseless campaigning of the past two years. However, there
are even greater dangers if strong action is not taken when
employers secretly attempt to influence the election of IBT
officers. The violations of the Rules described above were
not merely technical, but products of schemes to funnel Union
and outside money into the election and thus change the
outcome. These were egregious violations by high level
campaign functionaries who believed winning at all costs was
more important than abiding by the Rules and the law. Members
cannot have confidence in their Union or its leaders if they
see that their choice of officers has been manipulated by
outsiders. They cannot have confidence in the Consent Decree
if Court officers do not take effective action to prevent and
remedy such misconduct.
The Election Officer has searched for a means of properly
remedying the violations while at the same time avoiding the
burden on the Union and its members inherent in holding a new
election. Unfortunately, no such path is apparent. The
election of International officers is the clearest expression
of the control of members over their union; it is also the
key to insuring that organized crime, employers, or any other
outsiders do not use the Union for their own purposes. To
avoid a rerun because of the disruption it brings could allow
this union to lose its most valuable resource: the support,
participation, and confidence of its membership. Such a
result cannot be allowed.
Because the violations of the Rules described above may
have affected the outcome of the election and further
threatened the integrity of the process, the Election Officer
hereby orders a rerun election for all International officer
positions except Central Region Vice * * *
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 9 minutes 30
seconds; the Senator from Massachusetts controls 6 minutes and 30
seconds.
Mr. NICKLES. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks the floor?
Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains again?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts controls 6
minutes and 30 seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY. And the other side?
[[Page S9100]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes and fifteen seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized for 4
minutes.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose the
Nickles amendment. This represents an unjustified intrusion by the
Congress into the decades-long effort by Federal prosecutors to rid the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters of corrupt influences.
That is what is involved here, it is the effort to drive corrupt
influences out of the Teamsters Union. Now, that effort has been
vigorously pursued by both Republican and Democratic Departments of
Justice. It culminated in litigation and ultimately a consent decree
between the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the United
States. This was a consent decree entered into by the Bush
administration and Attorney General Thornburgh, who hailed this as a
major achievement, which I concede it was. And now Congress, with this
amendment, is seeking to interfere in that law enforcement effort at a
vital moment.
In the 1989 consent decree, the Federal Government effectively
entered into a contract to pay for the supervision of the 1996
election. In fact, the consent decree is very clear in stating, ``The
union defendants consent to the election officer at Government expense
to supervise the 1996 elections.'' And the rerun election we are
talking about is the 1996 election, which has not been certified. It is
now back before the court.
Now, this amendment breaches that agreement. It in effect violates
the consent decree.
It is asserted that unions typically pay for their own elections.
That is quite true. But in those elections they do not have election
officers, and they do not have Federal supervision of the election.
What the consent decree said was that the union would pay for the 1991
election and that the 1996 election would be supervised under the
consent decree at Government expense.
Now, the Teamsters already pay $3 to $4 million annually for consent
decree activities related to the effort to prevent corruption. Between
1990 and 1995, they incurred costs in excess of $40 million in
complying with its obligations and responsibilities under the consent
decree.
The danger with this amendment is that if the Government goes back on
its undertaking to pay for the supervisory costs of the 1996 election,
you will take the Teamsters out from under the necessity of having an
election officer. You do not ordinarily get election officers to
supervise union elections.
My colleagues on the other side will say, well, what did we get out
of it? What we got out of it was the continued supervision of the union
elections into the 1996 election to help ensure that corrupt influences
would not creep back into the union and affect its legitimate
operations. The executive branch agreed to this consent decree.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SARBANES. It is embodied in a court order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SARBANES. And this amendment blatantly violates that court order.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. President, we reserve the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks the floor?
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I heard the comments of my colleague from
Maryland, but he is incorrect. The consent decree that was agreed to in
1989 stated that the Teamsters would pay for the election. I will just
read it. ``The union defendants further consent to U.S. Department of
Labor''--this is from the consent decree, page 16--``supervising any
IBT''--that is the Teamsters, International Brotherhood of Teamsters--
``elections or special elections to be conducted after 1991 for the
office of President, Secretary, Treasurer, Vice President and
Trustee.''
They have agreed to supervision. And the Federal Government
supervised the 1991 and 1996 elections. What was unique about the 1996
election, we paid for it as well. We conducted it. We paid $22 million.
I hope all my colleagues understand that. We paid $22 million, the
Federal taxpayers paid $22 million for the 1996 election. It was the
one that was determined to be corrupt. We did not do that in 1991.
What was the difference? I think people are a lot more willing to
cheat maybe if it is somebody else's money. And they did. There was
corruption with the taxpayers' money.
We will still have supervision. My amendment does not prohibit
supervision. It does not abrogate the consent decree. The consent
decree, frankly, was silent on who would pay for any subsequent
elections. I even called the former Attorney General and asked him. No,
we did not say anything about that. I read this section. It is not
there.
Now, some people would like to interpret it as, oh, the taxpayers
will pay for this forever. If there is corruption in the next election,
the taxpayers will pay for it. If there is corruption in the next
election, we are going to continue having taxpayers get stiffed. In
this case, the Teamsters got hurt. I am talking about members of the
Teamsters. Union members got hurt because they had a fraudulent
election. They have to have it again. And the taxpayers got hurt. I am
trying to say it wasn't the taxpayers' fault there was fraud last time.
We should not have taxpayers getting ripped off again.
What is the cost of this? Twenty-two million dollars. Every other
union in the country pays for their own election. Every other union in
the country. This is not a group that is not doing well. Senator
Kennedy and Senator Wellstone have been bragging how well they did in
the contract. I do not know what kind of improvements they got. I did
check; I think the average wage is about $27 an hour, wages and
benefits. That is pretty good. That is $50,000-some a year. In the last
election, the taxpayers paid $22 million; there are 1.4 million
Teamsters; a little less than 500,000 voted. That is a cost to the
taxpayers of about $45 a vote. That is pretty high. If the Teamsters
have to pay for this themselves, I calculate it is about $15 a member.
That is about a half-an-hour's pay. But they should have to pay for it.
When any other union has an election, when the Teamsters have an
election, they pay for it. The taxpayers should not have to pay for
this.
So, Mr. President, this amendment is consistent with the consent
decree. We are just trying to make it perfectly clear we are not going
to pay for the next one. And for anyone to say, well, wait a minute; we
don't have the right to do that, they are not reading the Constitution.
The consent decree does not say anything about a future election. Maybe
they would like to have the discretion, and if the Teamsters have a
good attorney they can convince some judge, well, maybe this will be a
continuation and therefore taxpayers should pay for it, but that is not
in the consent decree. And frankly that should not happen.
By passing this amendment--and I am optimistic that we will pass this
amendment--we say we are not going to pay for it again. We got ripped
off once. We paid $22 million for a fraudulent election. We, being the
taxpayers, paid $22 million for a fraudulent election last time. We
should not do it again. Frankly, we are not going to do it again.
Do we have the right to do this? Somebody said the consent decree
supersedes law. No way in the world. I will read a memo that came from
Deputy U.S. Attorney Jamie Gorelick. This is dealing with the
Antideficiency Act, but she said, ``You should be particularly mindful
of this restriction if you are contemplating entering into any consent
decree. Please ensure the terms of the consent decree do not obligate
the government to spend funds beyond your office litigation budgets or
beyond the current fiscal year.''
They know that. The CRS did some study on the 1989 consent decree,
and this was dated May 18, 1995. ``Legislation enacted by Congress
limiting or restricting funds for the 1996 election would be Federal
law and Government parties would be bound to take appropriate action in
reliance of that law.''
That would be if we had denied funding for the 1996 election. We
didn't do that. What this amendment will do is say we are going to deny
taxpayers' subsidy to the 1998 election. We can
[[Page S9101]]
still have supervision. As a matter of fact, there will be supervision.
There will be supervision on any subsequent election, but it will not
be paid for by the taxpayers. Let the Teamsters pay for it. They are
the ones who engaged in this corruption. And if anyone looks at the
report of the election observer, she talks about ``outside money into
this election and thus change the outcome.'' She said there ``were
egregious violations by high level campaign functionaries who believed
winning at all costs was more important than abiding by the rules and
the law.''
I do not want to repeat that. If we allowed the opponents of this
amendment to prevail, we could have the exact same thing happen again.
We could have another election. We could have more corruption, and they
would be coming back to say, oh, we want you to pay for it again.
There is no end to what they say would be the outflow of Government
dollars. I do not think it is needed. I do not think it is necessary.
We got ripped off once. We should not be ripped off again. And so I
urge my colleagues to adopt the Nickles-Jeffords-Gregg amendment.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Nickles
amendment to prohibit Federal funding to the Teamsters election an
amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. I believe this
amendment is a clear violation of the 1989 consent decree entered into
by the Department of Justice and the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters.
The consent decree required, among other things, that the 1996
Teamsters' election be subject to the supervision of a court-appointed
election officer, at Government expense. Due to problems uncovered
related to the campaign of the elected president, however, the court-
appointed election officer has refused to certify the 1996 election and
has asked a Federal court in New York to formally order a new election.
Inasmuch as any court ordered election is a continuation of the 1996
election, it seems clear that the rerun election must also be subject
to the terms of the consent decree--including the portion of the decree
which provides ``The union defendants consent to the election officer,
at Government expense, to supervise the 1996 elections.''
I think it is important to recognize that this is not, or at least
should not, be a partisan issue. It was a Republican administration and
thus, a Republican-controlled Department of Justice, that obligated the
Federal Government to the financial obligations outlined in the 1989
consent decree--not a Democratic administration. Rather, the Democratic
administration, under President Clinton, is simply living up to the
obligations of the consent decree. If the Nickles amendment passes, the
Government would be prohibited from paying for the rerun election and
thus, could be held in contempt of court for failing to adhere to the
terms of the consent decree. Again, this rerun election is not a new
election; rather, it is necessary to complete the 1996 election, and
thus is subject to the 1989 consent decree.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose the Nickles amendment and to
support this very important consent decree to which the Government
obligated itself in 1989. Thank you Mr. President.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, what is the situation on time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma controls 2 minutes
45 seconds; the Senator from Massachusetts controls 2 minutes and 30
seconds.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the Senator
from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I have been listening very carefully to
my colleague from Oklahoma. I am beginning to wonder, what is happening
to this tremendous effort to drive corruption out of the Teamsters
union? The Senator quoted a memorandum from Deputy Attorney General
Jamie Gorelick, which is dated after the 1989 consent degree. I say to
my colleague from Oklahoma, you cited this memorandum of Deputy
Attorney General Gorelick which comes after the 1989 consent decree.
The consent decree was entered into by Attorney General Thornburgh and
the Bush Administration. So, now we are told that a later memorandum is
going to vitiate the earlier consent decree. How is that for undoing
the law?
The Senator is playing with fire. If this rerun is not the 1996
election, then the results of the 1996 election ought to hold and there
should not be a further election. This is not a new election. This is a
rerun of the 1996 election.
The Senator selectively quotes from the consent decree. The consent
decree is very clear. It says, ``The union defendants consent to the
election officer, at Government expense, to supervise the 1996 IBT
election.'' He omitted that part of the consent decree. My colleague
then quotes, ``The union defendants further consent to the Department
of Labor supervising IBT elections.'' That supervision, I say to my
colleague, by the Department of Labor, does not encompass an election
officer and it does not encompass the severe degree of supervision that
comes with an election officer. What is the objective here? Is the
objective to get the Teamsters out from under the consent decree so
they don't have to use an election officer in doing this rerun of the
election? If that is the objective, I strongly disagree with it. Having
an election officer serves a public interest.
Then we are told every other union pays for its own elections. We
have heard that time again and again, but they don't have an election
officer to supervise their elections.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. SARBANES. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Amendment No. 1070
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 30 minutes of debate equally
divided on amendment No. 1070.
Who seeks the floor? The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, we are debating, here, under this limited
time agreement, an issue that has received considerable discussion.
There is considerable controversy over the issue of national testing.
It has received enormous attention.
When the issue was first raised in the context of this appropriations
bill, Senator Gregg and I offered an amendment expressing our concern
that we were going forward, here, with an issue of considerable
controversy, without it being authorized and without hearings and
without discussion as to the implications of this. We felt it deserved
a full public discussion because there was great controversy over the
idea of national testing.
Unfortunately, the decision that was made on the part of the
administration was to go forward with this initiative without
congressional authorization. We attempted to address that issue with
our amendment. But last August, without congressional approval or
statutory authority, the Department of Education announced that it
would develop a national test to be implemented in the spring of 1999,
and went forward and awarded a $13 million contract to a consortium of
testing companies. Instead of turning the proposed test program over to
the National Assessment Governing Board, an entity with 10 years of
experience in this area, the administration intended to bypass this
procedure. Senator Dorgan spoke on the floor. We raised the issue.
Senator Dorgan responded by saying he agrees with us that we would be
far better off getting this out of the hands of the Department of
Education and into the hands of an independent assessment agency to
address some of this controversy about the Federal direction of how the
test is derived and how it is administered and so forth.
The President, in his radio address a week ago, stated that he would
concede to the argument that many were posing, that this would be
better if not designed and directed by the Federal Government. That,
then, opened the door to our trying to find a way to constitute an
outside independent agency to write the test and administer the test.
Many of us, even with that, expressed real concerns about the whole
concept of a national testing program versus allowing these decisions
to be made at State and local levels. But it was clear that the issue
was going forward. So, in response to that, what we attempted to do was
negotiate with the administration, with our Democrat colleagues and
others, to comply, essentially, with what Senator Dorgan was suggesting
we do and what the President was suggesting we do. The initial proposal
that the President had outlined maintained what we thought was
[[Page S9102]]
a link with the Harvard education administration, which simply fueled
the controversy.
So, over the last several days we have had considerable discussion
and negotiation with the administration on this, attempting to improve
this process and really to reserve further debate, on whether there
ought to be national testing or not be national testing, for the
conference committee and for this body. There is a division of opinion
on that, a division all along the ideological spectrum. Former
Secretary of Education Bill Bennett said national testing can be
beneficial if done the right way, if not manipulated to achieve a
certain result or to drive a curriculum, but as an assessment tool.
I quote from an article written by his former assistant, Chester
Finn, Jr., who says:
Properly done, standards-based national tests would provide
useful information to students and their parents and put
pressure on schools to improve.
Congress, which created the National Assessment Group, NAGB, could
easily design a program which would achieve the goals of national
testing, being a useful tool in improving public education.
The crucial questions [he says] about any test are who
decides what's on [the test] and who sets the standards by
which student performance is judged.
We have set out to do that. I am pleased to announce that late last
evening we were able to achieve agreement with the administration on
the conditions upon which this would go forward. Under the agreement,
and I will briefly explain it, no school or school district will be
forced to use the national test if they don't want to. It is strictly
voluntary.
We also have provided that no school not using the test will in any
way be denied the Federal funds that come to that school for various
purposes. So, receipt of Federal funds is not conditioned on their
using or not using the test.
Further, we have provided that no private or parochial school or
home-schooled individuals are forced to take a test without their
consent. That was a legitimate response to some questions raised by
home-schoolers and private and parochial schools. This is a key
provision. Currently, States are using a variety of testing instruments
to determine how their students are performing. Yet, according to many
experts, this patchwork of tests does not provide a common yardstick by
which parents and educators can compare results. And while it is true
that testing won't help children learn more, it is equally true that
testing can give us valuable information about how we are doing, and
will ultimately be useful in providing tools for parents to use in
holding schools accountable for their results.
Second, the changes that we have made allow the National Assessment
Governing Board the exclusive authority over all policies, directions,
and guidelines for establishing voluntary national tests for fourth-
grade English reading and eighth-grade mathematics. To assure NAGB's
independence, the amendment provides that NAGB shall have the sole
authority to award grants and contracts and otherwise operate
independently of the Department of Education. The compromise which we
reached gives NAGB 90 days to review and make substantial changes, if
needed, in the contract negotiated by the Department of Education.
Third, we have directed NAGB to ensure that the content and the
standards for the national test are the same as those for the National
Assessment of Educational Progress test, the NAEP tests. The President
has stated on numerous occasions his intention to have voluntary
national tests based on the well-respected, high standard of the NAEP
test, and this amendment accomplishes that.
Fourth, we have made numerous changes to the composition of the 25-
member board, NAGB, to ensure bipartisanship and a new focus on locally
elected officials rather than the so-called Washington experts. These
changes include the addition of a current or former Governor, bringing
the total number of Governors on the board to three; the addition of a
new category, allowing participation of two mayors; two additional
representatives of business or industry, bringing the total of that to
three; and the elimination of five curriculum or testing experts who
were employed by the board but should not have had voting privileges, a
potential conflict of interest there. We have also increased the length
of the terms on the board from 3 to 4 years in order to provide for
more continuity.
Fifth, the amendment returns to NAGB the authority it had prior to
1994 to nominate individuals to fill vacancies which occur on the
board. Under this process, the Secretary must select from candidates
nominated by NAGB. The amendment provides a 30-day transition, so that
current vacancies and newly created positions are filled by the
Secretary after consultation with the House and the Senate.
These changes are critical to ensuring that national testing is under
the supervision of an independent, bipartisan agency and not the
Federal Department of Education.
There is no doubt that standardized tests assess performance, but
they do not generate it. Yet I am increasingly convinced that giving
parents a better and possibly more accurate picture of their child's
academic performance will help them obtain the best education for their
child. These tests are simply another tool for parents to use in
holding local schools and local systems accountable for providing the
kind of opportunities for educational achievement that all children in
America deserve.
Mr. President, I have other Members who wish to speak on this. I
reserve my time at this particular point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me start by complimenting the
Senator from Indiana for the compromise that we have worked out here. I
am pleased to cosponsor that compromise amendment with him. I do think
the essential point to be made here is that through this amendment,
this compromise amendment, we transfer control of the development of
voluntary national tests over to this independent governing board that
is referring to as NAGB, the National Assessment Governing Board. This
is essentially the same approach that was suggested by Secretary Riley
and proposed by myself, Senator Dorgan, Senator Harkin, and offered in
the amendment 1115 which we offered last week. More important, the
amendment will allow the test development process to continue without
any undue delay.
Let me say a word about what NAGB is, because it would now be the
organization or the entity with this responsibility. The governing
board that now will oversee the development of these tests is the
National Assessment Governing Board. It was established in 1988 by the
Congress. It is bipartisan. It is independent. As Senator Coats
indicated, it contains Governors, legislators, superintendents--now it
will contain some mayors, business people, experts in education as
well; and the core responsibility of this group has been to oversee the
development and execution of NAEP, the National Assessment for
Educational Progress. This test that we are talking about here, which
will be available on an individual student basis, is to be an outgrowth
of that National Assessment of Educational Progress test, which is well
respected and has been for a long time.
Let me point to two charts here, and then I know Senator Kennedy
wishes to speak, Senator Wellstone and Senator Dorgan. I want to defer
to them.
Mr. President, how much time remains, and is the time controlled or
is it uncontrolled at this point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is equally divided. The Senator from New
Mexico has 11 minutes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield myself an additional 5 minutes, and then I will
divide the remaining 6 minutes among the three Senators I indicated
before.
Let me first point to this chart which I think makes the case for
these tests that the President is talking about and that many of us
have supported. At the present time, we have a hodgepodge of tests that
have been developed around the country that are given to students and
then the results of which are given to parents, and they are told that
this is an accurate description of how their child is doing in school.
The reality is that some parents and some students are led to believe
that
[[Page S9103]]
they are performing at acceptable levels and are led to believe that
the education they are receiving is an appropriate education. They
don't find out the reality until they apply to college or get in the
workplace and find they do not have the skills or the training they
need.
This chart shows a comparison between the standards that have been
adopted by many States and the standards set by this National
Assessment for Education Progress, or NAEP. You can see the dramatic
difference. For example, in the case of Wisconsin, 35 percent,
according to the National Assessment for Education Progress, which is
the standard we are trying to give people information on, 35 percent of
their students were performing at acceptable levels. According to the
standard used by the State of Wisconsin, 88 percent of the students
were performing at acceptable levels.
In the case of Louisiana, the disparity is even greater. The State of
Louisiana indicated that 88 percent of their students are doing fine.
When you look at what the National Assessment for Education Progress
given to students in Louisiana indicates, only 15 percent of their
students were doing fine. So there is a dramatic disparity there.
What we are trying to do is get good objective information to parents
throughout the country.
This is strictly voluntary. No State needs to use this test. No
school district needs to use this test. No individual student needs to
take this test. And if parents want to ignore the results of the
comparison, they can, but it needs to be available to those who want to
use it.
This other chart I want to show is a listing of the States that have
already chosen to use this voluntary test once it is developed. There
are several States listed here: Alaska, Kentucky, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, and West Virginia. There are
many other States, including my own, which are thinking seriously about
it. They have not taken any formal action to commit themselves to use
this test, but they are looking at it and they are very interested.
There are 15 school districts in our major urban areas that have
indicated they wish to have the advantage of the benefit of taking this
test or using it in their schools.
All this amendment will do is to allow the development of the test,
allow us to go forward with the development of the test so that it will
be available to these States and to these school districts to the
extent that they choose to use it.
I believe this is a very good course to follow. I think this is the
right thing to do for our students, it is the right thing to do for the
parents of these students so that they can show with some accuracy
whether their children are getting the kind of education that they are
going to need in later life.
I very much support the effort the Senator from Indiana has made
here. I hope we can adopt this amendment with a large margin.
Mr. President, I defer to the Senator from Massachusetts for a couple
of minutes for him to make his statement.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I congratulate Senator
Coats, Senator Gregg, and our Republican friends for working with the
administration and working with concerned Members in fashioning this
compromise.
I think there are basically two fundamental approaches that we ought
to be doing for our children. One is we ought to have support systems
and, secondly, we ought to have accountability.
What we are trying to do with this testing program is empower
parents, empower parents so that they know how their children are
doing, and then to ensure that we are going to have support systems to
help those parents.
We are seeing an expansion, hopefully, of our literacy program. We
have an expansion of our basic skills program with the math and
science, with the title I programs. We have seen the support for our
technology program. Under Senator Jeffords, we are going to see an
expansion of teacher training. Under our Goals 2000 program, 90 percent
of the money goes locally to help the local schools meet these
standards.
So what we are trying to do is have the support systems for our
children, but on the other end we want to have accountability for
parents and for children so they know how they are doing. If children
do not know how to read, as 40 percent of them do not at the fourth
grade level, they are going to be in trouble in terms of continuing
their education, the problems of dropping out and all the other
challenges which they are going to face.
This is really an enormously important effort to try and address that
very considerable concern for every family in this country. We welcome
the strong bipartisan effort we are seeing reflected on the floor at
this time.
I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, can I inquire how much time is available on
each side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes to each side.
Mr. COATS. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Indiana. I rise
to indicate my opposition to a national individualized testing system
that could lead to a one-size-fits-none curriculum dictated from
Washington. Once you let Washington decide what kids should know, it
will effectively control what and how they are taught.
President Clinton's initiative for a federally funded testing system
already is headed down this slippery slope--work on the tests is
currently underway. Here is what we know about them:
First, there is the eighth grade math test. Instead of measuring
competence in basic computational skills directly, the test under
construction would allow students to use calculators at all times. Some
local parents, organizations, and States might decide they don't want
to be controlled by a curriculum that only has reference to
calculators. They might really want their young people to learn how to
do mathematics absent calculators.
Furthermore, the content being tested, which ignores algebra, would
not promote higher achievement or hold up to international competition.
Hundreds of mathematicians, teachers, school board members, parents
and others recently signed a letter to President Clinton protesting the
failed design of this math exam.
In testing reading, when you have a national uniform test, one size
fits none. The proposed fourth grade reading test is predicated on the
same philosophy of reading that drives what is known as whole language
instruction. Under this philosophy, it is not as important for children
to learn the difference between nouns and verbs as it is for students
to analyze an author's feelings about what is written.
If a national test imposes a whole language approach to reading and
rejects the phonics approach, what are we saying to parents about the
potential for local control if those parents don't have a capacity to
say we want our kids to learn reading by using phonics and we want a
test that reinforces that kind of learning? Parents at the local level
need to be able to decide if they want their fourth graders to learn
the basics of the English language, not merely get in touch with an
author's feelings.
I understand that the Nation needs to know where we are academically
as a nation. However, we already have a capacity to assess student
performance on a national level. Since 1969, the National Assessment of
Educational Progress has tested a representative sample of students in
4th, 8th, and 12th grades in reading, U.S. history, geography, math,
and science. NAEP has provided the Nation an understanding of overall
student performance while allowing decisions on appropriate tests for
individual students to be made at the local level. While NAEP allows a
measure of student performance by sampling, an individualized testing
system threatens local control substantially.
In my judgment, national uniform individualized testing will
ultimately direct curriculum, curriculum which will become nationalized
and uniform. This will take from the system the energy of the kind of
curriculum that can be developed to suit local needs and will involve
parents in education.
[[Page S9104]]
The real test before us today is whether or not the President is
willing to trust parents and teachers at the local level to determine
what their children should learn. The single most important factor in
educational achievement is parental involvement. It is more important
than computers, than blackboards, than teacher salaries, than the
nature of the school facility. Whether parents are actively engaged
means a lot.
If we nationalize our system of education for elementary and
secondary students, we will have made it far less likely that parents
will be actively involved. Parents can and should get good information
about the progress of their children. That is possible at the State and
local level. However, national, individualized tests would seriously
threaten parental involvement and control and lead to more Washington
intermeddling in our schools.
I just want to indicate that I think nationalizing the testing
process for our schools will drive us to a national curriculum and
drive us to national teacher certification. I believe States ought to
have the authority to certify teachers and develop a just curriculum,
particularly as it relates to trying new methods of teaching.
Many of America's schools are failing; they are failing to teach our
kids how to read, write, and count; they are failing to offer them the
skills to compete effectively in the information age; they are failing
to teach them what America is and what she represents in the long
history of the world.
Involved parents controlling and directing schools that teach basic
academic skills have been, and should always be, the foundation of our
educational system. These are the building blocks that made America's
schools the envy of the world. They are the standards upon which we
must base their return to greatness.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from
Vermont. Before I do, let me just say that I recognize the legitimate
concerns that the Senator from Missouri has raised, and that is why we
negotiated a totally voluntary process and exemption for any school,
any individual, any school district that does not want to participate
does not have to participate without any jeopardy of losing any funds.
So whether it is a home school, private school, parochial school,
individual school district, whatever, if they agree with the Senator
from Missouri--and I believe he raises some legitimate concerns--they
don't have to participate in this at all.
I now yield to the Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise only to commend those who have
brought about this very reasonable compromise. This could have been a
very divisive issue, but Senator Bingaman, especially Senator Coats and
Senator Gregg have worked very long and hard to make this into a
reasonable compromise which will be of assistance to us rather than
something that could have been detrimental. I yield the floor.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President.
I congratulate my colleagues. I am going to vote for this, but it is
a close call. I have some sympathy for the comments made by the Senator
from Missouri. I would like to, in the midst of people feeling good
about this work, sound a cautionary note. There are different ways of
measuring accountability rather than just standardized tests. If
teachers have to use the standardized tests, it will be educationally
deadening, and I worry about the worksheets becoming the primary way we
are teaching.
The second point I want to make, I say to my colleagues, is it is
true, we have to have standards in accountability, but if we don't do
anything to dramatically transform the concerns and circumstances of
these children's lives, we already know which children are going to do
well on these tests and which children are going to fail. If I had a
criticism to level, it would be more at my party and more at the
administration.
The fact of the matter is, we are investing not anything in
rebuilding crumbling schools. Where is the President and the
administration on this? The fact of the matter is, we are not even
reaching 1 million Head Start students. I was out here on the floor
yesterday talking about that. The White House did not even ask for
enough money to cover 1 million. Why can't we do more by way of Head
Start, early childhood development, reinvest and build schools as
opposed to having these dilapidated crumbling schools in this country?
What did we do when we cut food stamps, which is the major food
nutrition program for children, 20 percent by 2002?
In all due respect, these tests are a small move in the right
direction, but they are use just a technical fix and are just symbolic
and do not do much until we finally make a commitment to make sure
there is equal opportunity for every child in this country. We are a
long, long, long way away from that in the U.S. Senate or the U.S.
House of Representatives. I call on the President to show much more
leadership when we are talking about children and education.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have Senators
Dorgan and Harkin added as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from
North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from North Dakota
has 3 minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, while I agree with my colleague, the
Senator from Minnesota, on the entire discussion about deteriorating
schools and equal opportunity and a range of other things, this issue
is very simple. This issue is about national testing. It is not about a
national curriculum. It is not about investing in schools. It is
national testing.
The reason I support this is we can either decide as a country to
figure out what we are getting from this educational system and have
some kind of national testing to determine are we reaching achievement
levels in the fourth grade and eighth grade or we can have no such
approach.
The other body is passing legislation that would prohibit any
approach of this point. ``We don't want to evaluate what is
happening,'' they say. That is a very strange position.
It seems to me you ought to evaluate if children can read
sufficiently at the fourth-grade level because these are gateways to
the rest of their educational life. If you can't read sufficiently at
that level, you are not going to do well the rest of your educational
life. So we are talking about can children read in fourth grade. Do
they have a mastery of the mathematics principles in the eighth grade
they need? This is what this is about: national testing to evaluate in
these two areas.
It is voluntary. Any child may opt out. Any school may opt out. Any
State may opt out. It is purely voluntary, but it does say, as a
country, we aspire to reach achievement levels and aspire to give our
parents across this country the opportunity to understand what are we
getting for the education dollar we are spending, where are the
problems and how do we fix them. That is what you get with this kind of
national testing opportunity.
Again, it is not about national curriculum. It is not about a
national requirement. It is a voluntary approach to national testing to
determine whether our children can read sufficiently in the fourth
grade and perform the basic tests of mathematics in the eighth
grade. To the extent we do that as a country, we will aspire to better
understand our education system, better understand what we are getting
for our education dollar, and in that way I think will be able to
improve the system of education in this country.
I appreciate very much the cooperation of the Senator from Indiana,
the Senator from New Hampshire, and others, and especially the
leadership of the Senator from New Mexico. Doing this today I think is
a step forward for the American people and is in marked contrast to
what we are going to see come
[[Page S9105]]
from the other body. I hope when we go to conference we will accept the
Senate provision because it is moderate, thoughtful and the right thing
for this country and its children.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks by the Senator
from North Dakota. He raised the issue, and in a sense extended the
offer to make the adjustments necessary to make this truly an
independent effort and a constructive effort. His support in all of
this is much appreciated, along with the Senator from New Mexico.
Amendment No. 1070, As Modified
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Gregg and myself, I
send a modification to the desk. I ask for its modification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is modified.
Mr. COATS. Do I need to ask unanimous consent that the amendment be
modified?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has been modified.
The amendment (No. 1070), as modified, is as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the
following:
Sec. . (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Office of Educational Research and Improvement shall
submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate a
spending plan for activities funded under this title under
the heading ``Education Research, Statistics, and
Improvement'', prior to the obligation of the funds.
(b)(1) 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) (hereafter in this section referred to as the
``Board'') shall hereafter have exclusive authority over all
policies, direction, and guidelines for establishing and
implementing voluntary national tests for 4th grade English
reading and 8th grade mathematics: Provided, That the tests
shall be made available to a State, local educational agency,
or private or parochial school, upon the request of the
State, agency, or school, and the use of the tests shall not
be a condition for receiving any Federal funds: Provided
further, That within 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Board shall review the national test
development contract in effect on the date of enactment of
this Act, and modify the contract as the Board determines
necessary: Provided further, That if the contract cannot be
modified to the extent determined necessary by the Board, the
contract shall be terminated and the Board shall negotiate a
new contract, under the Board's exclusive control, for the
tests.
(2) In exercising the Board's responsibilities under
paragraph (1) regarding the national tests, and
notwithstanding any action undertaken by the Department of
Education or a person contracting with or providing services
for the Department regarding the planning, or the development
of specifications, for the tests, the Board shall--
(A) ensure that the content and standards for the tests are
the same as the content and standards for the National
Assessment;
(B) exercise exclusive authority over any expert panel or
advisory committee that will be or is established with
respect to the tests;
(C) ensure that the tests are linked to the National
Assessment to the maximum degree possible;
(D) develop test objectives, test specifications, and test
methodology;
(E) develop policies for test administration, including
guidelines for inclusion of, and accommodations for, students
with disabilities and students with limited English
proficiency;
(F) develop policies for reporting test results, including
the use of standards or performance levels, and for test use;
(G) have final authority over the appropriateness of all
test items;
(H) ensure that all items selected for use on the tests are
free from racial, cultural, or gender bias; and
(I) take such actions and make such policies as the Board
determines necessary.
(c) No State or local educational agency may require any
private or parochial school student, or home-schooled
individual, to take any test developed under this Act without
the written consent of the student or individual.
(d) Section 412 of the National Education Statistics Act of
1994 (20 U.S.C. 9011) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1)--
(A) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
``(A) three Governors, or former Governors, of whom not
more than 1 shall be a member of the same political party as
the President;'';
(B) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
``(B) two State legislators, of whom not more than 1 shall
be a member of the same political party as the President;'';
(C) in subparagraph (H), by striking ``one representative''
and inserting ``three representatives'';
(D) by amending subparagraph (I) to read as follows:
``(I) two mayors, of whom not more than 1 shall be a member
of the same political party as the President;'';
(E) by striking subparagraph (J); and
(F) by redesignating subparagraphs (K), (L), and (M) as
subparagraphs (J), (K), and (L), respectively;
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and may not exceed a
period of 3'' and inserting ``and shall be for periods of
4''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``consecutive'' after
``two'';
(3) by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:
``(d) Vacancies.--As vacancies on the Board occur, new
members of the Board shall be appointed by the Secretary from
among individuals who are nominated by the Board after
consultation with representatives of the individuals
described in subsection (b)(1). For each vacancy, the Board
shall nominate at least 3 individuals who are qualified by
experience or training to fill the particular Board
vacancy.''; and
(4) in subsection (e) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Independence.--In the exercise of its functions,
powers, and duties, the Board shall be independent of the
Secretary and the other offices and officers of the
Department. The Secretary shall by written delegation of
authority, authorize the Board to award grants and contracts,
and otherwise operate, to the maximum extent practicable,
independent of the Department.''.
(e) Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Education, in consultation with
the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives, and the Majority Leader and Minority Leader
of the Senate, shall appoint individuals to fill vacancies on
the National Assessment Governing Board caused by the
expiration of the terms of members of the Board, or the
creation of new membership positions on the Board pursuant to
amendments made by this Act.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, at this point,
now that the modification is pending at the desk, that myself, Senator
Dorgan and Senator Harkin be added as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1122, As Further Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Before the Senate now is the amendment by the
Senator from Washington, amendment No. 1122. The time limit is 2
minutes to be equally divided.
Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mr. GORTON. Have the yeas and nays been ordered on this amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been.
Mr. GORTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Helms
and Senator Coats be added as cosponsors to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the issue involved in this amendment is
extremely simple. If you believe that the regulation of our public
schools is best conducted through hundreds of pages of detailed
regulations, imposed by the Department of Education in Washington, DC,
on all school districts alike, you will vote against this amendment.
If you believe that teachers, parents, principals, and elected school
board members in the thousands of school districts across the country
can best determine how money coming from the Federal Government ought
to be spent to advance their children's education, you will vote for
the amendment.
No State will lose money under the terms of this amendment. Every
State will gain money under the terms of this amendment, because the
administrative costs, amounting to more than a billion dollars, will no
longer be withheld by the Department of Education in Washington, DC,
but will be transferred to the local school districts.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. This amendment goes under the presumption that the Federal
Government controls these programs. The fact that the author of the
amendment has already taken three-quarters of the money out of his
amendment and continues to give it to the States recognizes that.
[[Page S9106]]
The additional funds that would go for these programs will no longer
go to these programs, but will go directly to local governments--Goals
2000; school-to-work; technology; reading, school improvement programs
like ``Reading is Fundamental''; arts education; magnet schools;
women's equity, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Drug-free schools will just go to local governments. Indian
education, bilingual education, vocational rehabilitation--50 percent
going to rehab will instead go to local governments to do with as they
want. Vocational education, they will do the same. Yes, it goes to
education, but there is no maintenance of effort here, therefore, the
local governments may well decide to replace their present educational
money.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Gorton amendment
which would give the States more flexibility and resources to create
quality education reform plans that address the specific needs of their
particular students.
As reported recently by the Heritage Foundation, the Federal
Government annually spends $100 billion in direct and indirect
education costs, of which only $13.1 billion makes it to local school
districts. If the majority of these funds went to the States and local
school districts, I believe the concerns of parents about the quality
of their children's education would be more effectively addressed than
by the faceless bureaucracy in the Department of Education.
Polls taken in Arizona and across America consistently demonstrate
that Americans consider the quality of education to be their most
serious concern. Further, a survey reported in the Washington Post in
September 1996 shows that Americans consider the decay of the public
schools to be the country's most pressing problem. A surprising 62
percent of those surveyed felt that ``the American educational system
will get worse instead of better.'' In my view, nothing is more
important to the future of our country than whether our children are
academically well-prepared.
We fail the fundamental tests of parenthood and good citizenship if
we let our children down by failing to impart to them the skills and
values they need to govern themselves and this country, and to compete
in the global marketplace of the 21st century. Yet, poll after poll
shows that Arizonans and Americans alike are concerned about the
dumbing down of the politically correct education their children are
receiving, the safety of the schools they attend, the general lack of
discipline meted out in those schools, and parents' inability to choose
to send their children to the school that best fits their kid's
individual needs.
The State of Arizona has taken some important steps to address these
concerns and to come up with solutions. For instance, Arizona, using a
creative legislative approach, recently enacted a law creating an
income-tax credit available for donations to private schools. The
private schools will pool the tax credit money in a scholarship fund to
be used to finance full or partial scholarships for any students on a
first-come, first-served basis.
The Gorton Amendment, by giving states even more control over their
education resources, would allow States more latitude to implement
creative education reform plans specifically tailored to their
particular needs.
What the Gorton Amendment would do, with some exceptions, would
bundle all funds from the Federal Government which go to support K-12
education and send those funds directly to school districts.
Why do we need the Gorton Amendment? There are too many Federal
education programs. So many in fact, no one seems to be able to agree
on exactly how many there are. One count discovered 760 education
programs totaling several billion dollars. With such a large number of
programs funded by the Federal Government, it's no wonder there is such
a concern about undue Federal influence over the operation of local
schools, or whether they are being administered in an efficient way.
The people best equipped to make decisions regarding the education of
our children are the parents, teachers, principles, school board
members and administrators of our local schools. It's not that Members
of Congress don't have an interest in the education of children. It's
just that we don't have the best information upon which to base
decisions.
Congress is simply not close enough to the problems school districts
face to be able to dictate through Federal mandates how they should
address their concerns. This is not to say the Congress does not have a
responsibility assisting in the education of America's children.
However, we also must see to it that those who are closest to our
students have the resources they need.
Also, we must ensure that they are not hamstrung by the rules and
regulations set by a group of individuals who have never set foot in
their school.
In sum, Mr. President, the Gorton amendment would empower States,
school districts, and parents to take a more active role in the
education of their children.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about the passage of
the Gorton amendment today. This amendment, which gives approximately
$12 billion directly to local school districts in the form of a block
grant, threatens to undermine some of the most valuable educational
programs in existence.
I am a strong supporter of creative school reform, and I believe in
getting rid of programs that do not work. But this amendment is an
attack on programs that do work. I have worked with these programs
firsthand, and I know they work. Through my extensive involvement in
Nebraska with early-childhood programs such as Head Start and school-
to-work programs such as Careers 2000, I have seen effective programs
in action.
Many of us in Congress have worked hard over the years to help build
and sustain programs such as vocational education, education
technology, Goals 2000, adult literacy, and safe and drug-free schools.
As a result, millions of students have benefited from the opportunity
to improve their achievement levels and enhance their skills
portfolios. With the concerted effort of teachers, school
administrators, parents, State governments, and Congress, we have been
able to ensure that these opportunities remain available to all
students, regardless of their particular school district. Under the
Gorton amendment, only the lucky would benefit. For example, under this
provision, money that once would have been designated for technological
training in an inner-city high school could be used instead to build a
new basketball court if local administrators saw fit. As we move toward
the 21st century, the demand for technological skills in the
marketplace is increasing rapidly. Therefore, it is crucial that all
students have the skills necessary to compete for jobs once they leave
school.
In bypassing the State entirely and giving funds directly to local
school districts, the Gorton amendment is analagous to amputating the
whole head in order to cure a headache. In doing so, it harms the very
people it claims to help, America's children. Federal taxpayers deserve
to know that a sufficient portion of their tax dollars is being used to
support effective educational programs. State governments are equipped
to make sure this happens.
Mr. President, I voted for passage of this bill today because, for
the most part, it represents a good bipartisan effort to ensure the
well-being of American citizens. But because I believe strongly that we
must continue the work of education reform in an effective and
measurable way, I will strongly oppose the bill if it comes back from
conference with this provision intact. I will not stand by and watch
American children suffer the consequences of poor legislation.
I move to table the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are the yeas and nays requested?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to lay on the
table the amendment No. 1122, as further modified. The yeas and nays
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
[[Page S9107]]
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 232 Leg.]
YEAS--49
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Snowe
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--51
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1122), as further
modified, was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1122), as further modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1081, As Amended
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The business before the Senate is now
amendment No. 1081 by the Senator from Oklahoma. There are 2 minutes in
regard to the time limit to this amendment, equally divided. The Senate
will be in order.
The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
remaining votes in this series of three votes be limited to 10 minutes
each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the amendment that I have before the
Senate, cosponsored by myself, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Craig
basically would say that the taxpayers would not have to pay for a
subsequent Teamsters election. The last one cost $22 million, and only
500,000 people voted.
My amendment does not prohibit supervision. There can still be
supervision. My amendment says that if the President certifies to
Congress that the Teamsters don't have the money for the election,
taxpayers could pay for it, but the Teamsters would have to pay it
back, and pay it back with interest.
I might mention, in 1991, there was an election that the taxpayers
didn't pay for, supervised by the Government, and it was fair, it
worked. In 1996, the election was supervised and paid for by the
taxpayers, and there was corruption. It was a mistake and we should not
repeat that mistake. This would protect taxpayers and, in my opinion,
the Teamsters as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield a minute to the Senator from
Maryland.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this is an incredibly mischievous
amendment. The Teamsters are operating under a court order. This would
violate the consent decree. The reason the Government pays for the
election is so they can have an election officer supervise the election
in order to ensure that we drive corruption out of the Teamsters Union.
This consent decree was entered into by Attorney General Thornburgh
in the Bush administration and heralded at the time as a great and
significant accomplishment.
The Nickles amendment violates the consent decree and it carries with
it the very severe risk of resulting in an unsupervised election. Now,
it is asserted that other unions pay for their own elections. That is
quite true, but they don't have an election officer to supervise the
election. The agreement in the consent decree provided for this
payment.
I urge a vote against the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Oklahoma.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The Chair reminds Senators that
this is a 10-minute vote.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 42, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 233 Leg.]
YEAS--58
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Feinstein
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--42
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
The amendment (No. 1081), as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1070, As Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The business before the Senate is now
amendment No. 1070, the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire.
There is a 2-minute time limit on this amendment to be equally divided.
The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
The Presiding Officer observes that there appears to a natural
garrulousness in the well of the Senate. The Presiding Officer would
urge a reversal of the garrulousness into the Cloakroom where Senators
can certainly enjoy their conversations in private and other Senators
will be able to hear the Senator from New Hampshire.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment, which we are now
considering, is one which has been discussed already. It is something
that has been worked out by the various parties involved. And certainly
Senator Coats from Indiana has been the lead in trying to design this
settlement of the matter.
It essentially resolves the matter by making sure that the testing
will be done by a totally independent organization, and it will in no
way be influenced monetarily--by the monetary involvement of the
Federal Government--by the Department of Education, or those forces in
the Department of Education who are pushing for a national curriculum.
It is, therefore, a totally voluntary effort, and something which I
believe deserves our support as an attempt to try to move forward on
this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me commend the Senator from New
Hampshire and the Senator from Indiana for working in bringing this
compromise together. I support it. I think it is important to give
effective information. It is purely voluntary. It is a step forward. I
urge very much that the Senate adopt this with a large margin so that
we can stick to this position in conference.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
[[Page S9108]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from New Hampshire. On this question, the yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 13, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 234 Leg.]
YEAS--87
Abraham
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--13
Allard
Ashcroft
Brownback
Gramm
Grams
Hagel
Helms
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Nickles
Sessions
Shelby
Thompson
The amendment (No. 1070), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
CHANGE OF VOTE
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as always, we are sometimes called on to be
two places at one time with two or three committee meetings going on. I
was recorded--and it was my fault. It was not the clerk's fault. It was
my fault because I thought it was a tabling motion when it was not. In
any case, on rollcall vote No. 234, I voted ``yea,'' and it was my
intent to vote ``nay.''
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my
vote, which will in no way change the outcome of the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
Amendment No. 1115, Withdrawn
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No.
1115 to S. 1061 be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 1115) was withdrawn.
amendment no. 1122
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today the Senate has passed the Gorton
amendment to the Fiscal Year 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education Appropriations Act. This amendment seeks to block-grant
certain Federal education funds and send them directly to school
districts across the country. I appreciate my colleague Senator
Gorton's intent to pass as much responsibility as possible for making
educational and funding decisions to those levels closest to the
classroom. This is also a goal of mine.
However, with all due respect to my colleague, this is one issue
where we fundamentally disagree. His amendment, like many ideas, sounds
good in theory because it oversimplifies the practical reality in our
schools and communities.
As a former school board member, I agree with my Republican
colleagues that our local elected school officials and educators are
fully capable of deciding what their local needs and priorities are,
and directing funds to those areas.
But those local school board members and superintendents and
principals and educators will tell you that the Federal Government does
indeed have a role in education in this country--in setting priorities
and assuring equity.
Despite the occasional difficulties of writing a grant or filling out
a form, Federal programs such as School-to-Work, or Safe and Drug-Free
Schools, or STAR schools or other Federal technology programs, have
made very real differences in the lives of students in schools across
this Nation.
They will tell you that equity protection efforts, such as providing
funds for magnet schools, funds for Indian education, or funds for
bilingual or migrant education, should continue to be uniquely within
the purview of the Federal Government. This is because despite the best
intentions, we all know that some school districts in this country have
not always been able to do best by all the students all of the time.
Equity funds must continue to go to the students and school districts
which need them, and must not be watered down and spread across all
school districts, regardless of need, as it appears the Gorton
amendment would require.
My problem with the Gorton amendment is that it may cost
significantly more to educate one student than another, but this
amendment will send them both the same Federal allocation--and ignore
the intent of the Federal education program set up to recognize the
specific needs associated with the higher cost.
Every child deserves an effective, relevant education. Not all
children have the same opportunity to get it. This amendment will
assure that we increase the disparities between the haves and have-nots
in our Nation's schools.
Federal education funds leverage State and local money, as they do in
my State, in the area of technology funding. Federal programs include
caps on administrative expenditures, and maintenance of effort
requirements--so we do not allow States to supplant or misuse funds.
Federal education efforts safeguard equity concerns important to the
Nation, and set important national goals priorities.
The Gorton amendment is bad policy. It uses a meat-ax approach to
educational reform when what is needed is the precision of a scalpel
and a careful ear listening to what local people are really saying. No
one likes bureaucracy. Everyone believes our schools can be improved.
But educators and tax-payers across the country will grumble more
loudly about the potential ill-effects of the Gorton amendment than
they ever have over redtape.
Local control is the goal; the Gorton amendment is fundamentally the
wrong way to go about reaching it.
FUNDING FOR THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Mr. SARBANES. I would like to commend the committee and subcommittee
for their hard work on the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill. I am
particularly pleased that the committee has seen fit to honor the
administration's request for funding of the efforts of the Bureau of
Labor Statistics [BLS] with respect to its review of the Consumer Price
Index.
However, I am concerned about the level of funding provided in the
Labor-HHS bill for the remainder of the BLS budget, which is $6.8
million below the administration's request.
BLS has suffered substantial funding reductions in past years, and
consequently has had to eliminate or reduce the scope of several
important programs--programs which produced valuable information on the
Nation's labor markets and economy as a whole. It would not serve the
national interest for BLS to have to undertake similar reductions as a
result of the funding level in this appropriations bill.
For example, high school guidance counselors around the country who
help young graduates find work in growing sectors of the economy rely
on Occupational Outlook Handbook, Occupational Outlook Quarterly, and
other special reports produced by the BLS Employment Projections
Program. The proposed cuts in this bill, however, may make the
continued publication of these important materials less likely in the
future.
Similarly, to excel in the increasingly competitive global economy
American businesses and trade officials need reliable international
comparison statistics on employment, labor costs,
[[Page S9109]]
and productivity. The proposed level of funding in this legislation
jeopardizes our ability to receive such information.
Finally, another consequence of the committee's proposed BLS funding
level could be a delay in the implementation of the new industrial
classification system--the so-called NAICS--that BLS has been working
on. Updating the current system, which dates back to the 1930's, to
reflect an economy approaching the 21st century is critical to the
ability of our business leaders and policymakers to understand the
challenges our economy will be facing in the upcoming years.
I understand that the House funds all BLS activities at a level
consistent with the administration's request. Would the Senator from
Pennsylvania, as ranking member of the Labor-HHS Appropriations
Subcommittee, be willing to accept the House funding levels in
conference?
Mr. SPECTER. The concerns of the Senator from Maryland are well
founded. I will look closely at fully funding BLS programs as we move
to conference with the House.
Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania, and appreciate
his attention to this important matter.
aids programs
Mr. HATCH. Would the distinguished chairman yield for a question?
Mr. SPECTER. I would be pleased to yield to my colleague.
Mr. HATCH. Many of us have been reading the excellent series in the
Washington Post this week about the changing face of the AIDS virus.
The article on Monday, if I am correct, highlighted the dramatic gains
that have been made with new AIDS therapies, particularly the so-called
triple drug therapy or cocktails which seem to have so much promise, at
least in the short term. We are all keeping our fingers crossed.
Could you tell me how the bill addresses this issue?
Mr. SPECTER. Funding for the Ryan White AIDS programs was a priority
for the committee this year, and I worked very hard to make sure that
we provided an adequate level for the Health Resources and Services
Administration service programs, as well as, I might add, for research
at the National Institutes of Health.
I am pleased to assure you that S. 1061 contains $1.077 billion for
the Ryan White AIDS programs, which is $41 million above the
administration's request, and over $80 million higher than the current
year's level. That includes $469.9 million for HIV health care and
support services, of which $217 million is dedicated to AIDS
medications under the State AIDS drug assistance program [ADAP]. That
$217 million figure for ADAP compares to $167 million in fiscal year
1997, so it is a substantial increase in an atmosphere of budget
constraints.
Mr. HATCH. As the original author of the Ryan White CARE Act with
Senator Kennedy in 1990, I am extremely pleased to hear of the
committee's action to provide such a high level of support for the CARE
Act. There is no doubt we have come a long way in the past 7 years. A
good deal of that progress has been made because you, Senator Specter,
have had the foresight and the courage to provide the funding HHS needs
to operate the program. And I hope all of our colleagues recognize that
fact.
But, despite our best efforts at both research and services, AIDS is
still a serious problem in the United States. The most promising
development we have had in years are the protease inhibitors and the
combination therapies which are giving thousands of people literally a
new lease on life. In fact, as you have noted, we are now seeing lower
mortality rates for individuals for the first time in the history of
the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
Let me ask you one final question. Are you satisfied that the
committee's recommendation for the ADAP program will be sufficient?
Mr. SPECTER. I am not sure we will ever have enough money in the
Labor-HHS bill. It is a constant struggle. I have to say that one thing
which alarmed the committee is the high cost of these new AIDS
medications. Pharmaceutical research, as you well know, is extremely
time intensive and costly, and this is especially true for AIDS drugs.
The committee was very concerned about the lack of timely national
data available to estimate the demands for AIDS medications funded by
the ADAP program, and also, I might add, about the wide variation in
State Medicaid policies on individual eligibility, benefits, and drug
availability. We have asked the Secretary to develop benchmarks to
measure progress in this area and to increase data collection and
information sharing, and so we hope to have a better guideline in the
future.
Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator for this information. It is clear that
we are all going to have to work harder--both the government and the
private sector--in making AIDS medications available to those who need
them. It is one of the modern paradoxes that the new AIDS drugs can
defer an HIV infected individual's progression to disability. Yet, it
may only be that the individual can get financial assistance when
disabled, a situation we would clearly like to prevent.
I am aware of a Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
study which indicated that, as of December 1, there were 122 medicines
in testing for AIDS. The cost, which the Senator alluded to, is
astounding. One company spent more than $1 billion over a 10-year
period to develop a protease inhibitor. American technological gains
are nothing short than miraculous, but we all have to recognize they
are expensive as well.
I am heartened by the Senator's remarks about funding for the State
ADAP programs. I am fully supportive of your efforts and I thank you
for your substantial interest in this area.
rural health transition grants
Mr. BURNS. I would like to clarify the intent of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, and the
full Appropriations Committee, with respect to the Rural Health
Transition Grant Program. This program provides small, 3-year grants to
assist financially troubled small rural hospitals as they attempt to
adjust to changes brought on by new medical technology, changing
practice patterns, and replacement of cost-based reimbursement with
prospective, or fixed, payments. Last year Congress discontinued
funding for rural health transition grants, but several facilities
around the country were already in their grant cycle, having received
their first or second year grants. These small hospitals were promised
3-year grants, and had relied on those grants, when the funds were cut
off.
Is it the intention of the Appropriations Committee to urge the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide, from the funds
appropriated for program management, continuation grants to those rural
hospitals which have received first or second year grants?
Mr. SPECTER. I respond to the Senator from Montana that it is the
intention of the committee to urge the Secretary to provide, from the
program management account, continuation grants to those rural
hospitals which have received first or second year grants. The
committee believes that an undue hardship could be brought upon these
hospitals if their 3-year grants are not completed as promised. I thank
the Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. I thank the subcommittee chairman for his clarification.
amendment No. 1098
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I share the interest of my colleague from
Georgia in enhancing food safety not only for children but for all
consumers. I note that several provisions in my colleague's amendment
appear to be related to the types of research efforts that are
undertaken by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Based on those ongoing efforts, I suggest that the Secretary of
Health and Human Services should consult and coordinate with the
Secretary of Agriculture in carrying out the provisions of this
amendment. I ask my colleague from Georgia if this is his expectation
as well.
Mr. COVERDELL. Yes; I agree that the Department of Agriculture has
spearheaded efforts in this area, and that the Department of Health and
Human Services should consult and coordinate with the Department of
Agriculture so that these funds are utilized in the most effective and
efficient manner.
Mr. KERREY. I thank my colleague from Georgia for both his interest
in ensuring and improving the safety of
[[Page S9110]]
our food and for agreeing that the two Departments should work together
in implementing the provisions of his amendment.
STUDY ON IODINE-131 RELATED THYROID CANCER
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the Senate's
attention the recent National Cancer Institute recommendation that
followup studies be conducted regarding American's exposure to
radioactive iodine-131. During the 1950's and 1960's the Nevada test
site conducted a number of atomic tests. The radioactive fallout from
such tests was significant. I believe that a number of Utahns were
exposed to this radioactive fallout.
The University of Utah has conducted several studies to assess the
impact of this fallout. In doing so the University of Utah collaborated
with the Public Health Service, the National Cancer Institute, and the
Department of Energy. Although these studies concluded that there is an
increase in the incidence of thyroid cancers among the examined group
and that further research was needed. Many of those exposed are just
now coming to the age where thyroid cancer is manifested. As a result,
I believe it is important that Congress fund the next phase of this
study.
I would like to ask Chairman Specter if he would work with me to find
the necessary resources to fund the next phase of this study. I am well
aware of the limited resources available to this subcommittee. I also
understand that there are many competing needs and important programs
and projects. However, I am hopeful that we can work together to find
the necessary resources to fund this study.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Utah that I am
aware of his concerns with regard to atomic tests performed at the
Nevada test site and the fallout of radioactive iodine-133. I also
understand that the University of Utah has done some outstanding
research in this area. I would like to ask Senator Bennett what
resources would be required to complete this phase of the study?
Mr. BENNETT. I am told that this would be a 5-year study that would
require about $1.9 million per year.
Mr. SPECTER. Senator Bennett is correct that resources are limited.
However, I would be pleased to work with Senator Bennett to try to find
the resources necessary to fund this important study.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank my friend Senator Specter for his
willingness to work with me on this important and I look forward to
working with him on this matter.
FUNDING FOR RURAL DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION PROGRAMS FOR DISTRESSED YOUTH
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, during a recent visit to rural South
Dakota, I had the profoundly moving experience of meeting with a heroic
individual who is working to keep deeply distressed kids off alcohol
and drugs. Durein Chase works to build opportunities for distressed
children by providing them with drug-abuse prevention counseling in a
safe, drug-free recreation center. My hope for these children and
excitement about the Crow Creek Four Winds Youth Center Program were
cut short when I learned that Federal funding for this program was
abruptly terminated because Congress ended its authorization in fiscal
year 1996. The Homeless and Runaway Youth Drug Abuse Prevention
Program, known as DAPP, had previously supported as many as 184 local
programs around the country at an annual cost of $15 million. When DAPP
lost its appropriation, the program was incorporated into a new
comprehensive program for homeless youth. Unfortunately, the new
initiative does not help those programs, like the one on Crow Creek
Reservation, that do not run residential facilities. Simply put, the
children of Crow Creek have slipped through the cracks. Dureine's
heroic effort to help particularly vulnerable kids avoid drugs will
disappear without our support. Fortunately, the Appropriations
Committee has included in its fiscal year 1998 bill $10 million for
SAMHSA, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
to support youth drug prevention programs. It is my understanding that
the Crow Creek Four Winds Youth Center and facilities like it are
eligible for a portion of the $10 million provided to the Department of
Health and Human Services and it is my hope that the Department will
seriously consider funding the Crow Creek Youth Center in fiscal year
1998. With adequate funding, the Crow Creek Youth Center will be able
to provide help for isolated and distressed youth who come from areas
distinguished by historically high rates of teen suicide.
Mr. SPECTER. I join my colleague from South Dakota in recognizing the
importance of drug prevention efforts in rural America. It is my
understanding that the Crow Creek Youth Center would be eligible for
these funds and I encourage the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to give serious consideration to funding such efforts out of the money
appropriated under this bill.
Mr. HARKIN. It is our intention to support programs which provide
such essential drug abuse prevention services to youth. It strikes me
that the Crow Creek Youth Center meets that criteria, and I join with
my colleagues in encouraging the Secretary to identify funding for the
South Dakota program and similar programs in rural and isolated areas
plagued by high rates of alcohol and drug abuse.
FLUORIDATING COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLIES
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I note with pleasure that both the Senate
and House reports accompanying the Labor/HHS appropriations bills
reflect strong support for community water fluoridation in preventing
tooth decay among children. These reports clearly state that we can
both save money and improve children's health through fluoridation.
Tooth decay remains the single most common disease of childhood and is
highest in low-income children. Millions of Medicaid dollars currently
used to repair these children's teeth could be saved through
fluoridation. After 50 years, water fluoridation remains the hallmark
public health preventive intervention. In my own State of South Dakota,
water supplies for communities as small as 500 persons are fluoridated.
It is my hope to extend similar benefit to children throughout the
country.
Both the House and Senate reports direct the Department of Health and
Human Services to support implementation plans for additional community
water fluoridation. The House provides $1,000,000 for this effort while
the Senate directs the Department to fund this effort at a level no
less than last year. Unfortunately, last year the Department allocated
only $200,000 for this purpose, which did not meet the need.
It is my hope that the conferees will be able to provide sufficient
resources in the conference report to address this serious problem. The
House level of $1,000,000 for community water fluoridation strikes me
as a reasonable amount to accomplish this important purpose. Anything
the Senate conferees could do to work with the House conferees to
achieve this level in the final conference report would be enormously
appreciated by beneficiaries of this program throughout the Nation.
Mr. SPECTER. The benefits of fluoridated water to our Nation's
children are well known and appreciated. I will work with my colleagues
on the House and Senate conference to provide the resources to
implement this program more broadly.
Mr. HARKIN. The National Institutes of Health reports that more than
half of 6 to 8 year olds already suffer tooth decay. There are few
things that the Federal Government can do directly to decrease this
disease in children. Fluoridation is one of them. I, too, will work
with my colleagues to provide the necessary funding in the conference
report.
funding for breast cancer research
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I note the committee is recommending a
significant increase in funding for the National Institutes of Health
as a whole, and for the National Cancer Institute in particular. I
applaud the committee for its dedication to tapping the full potential
of medical research. Such research represents hope for millions of
Americans with cancer and other devastating illnesses, and in that
sense it is far more valuable than any dollar figure we may attach to
it.
I understand that in its report, the committee stated that breast
cancer research is among its top priorities, and asserted that the
National Cancer Institute should strengthen its budgetary commitment to
breast cancer. In light of these statements, I believe it is the
committee's expectation that the substantial increase in NCI funding
[[Page S9111]]
should be reflected in additional funding for breast cancer research.
It is reasonable that NCI would increase its funding commitment to
breast cancer research in order to respond to the committee's concern
that more research is needed to better understand the underlying
mechanisms of breast cancer and to improve the ability to detect,
diagnose and treat this pervasive, life-threatening disease.
Mr. SPECTER. I agree with your interpretation of the committee's
report. Our intent was to convey the need to redouble our efforts to
successfully prevent, detect and treat breast cancer. Sufficient
funding to push the boundaries of breast cancer research is essential
if we are truly committed to these goals. Increased funding for the
National Cancer Institute should indeed be reflected in a larger
financial commitment to breast cancer research.
Mr. HARKIN. I, too, fully concur with Senator Daschle's assessment.
NCI must not forsake this important opportunity to expand its breast
cancer research agenda. I anticipate that NIH and NCI will give this
critical avenue of research every consideration as they make their
fiscal year 1998 funding decisions.
fulfilling the promise of the breast and cervical cancer mortality
prevention act (p.l. 101-345)
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am grateful that this bill provides an
increase in funding for the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention's
National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. The
program was implemented in accordance with the Breast and Cervical
Cancer Mortality Prevention Act of 1990 to reduce morbidity and
mortality from two cancers that will claim the lives of an estimated
500,000 women during the 1990's. It is structured as a State and
Federal partnership to provide screening and diagnostic help and assure
followup care for low-income uninsured women.
Under the 1990 act, Federal funding is restricted to screening and
diagnostic services. To ensure that women diagnosed with cancer receive
treatment, States are expected to arrange access to treatment through
whatever means they have at their disposal. The CDC's National Breast
and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program is now active in all 50
States, and as of January 1997, the program has screened more than 1.5
million American women. Unfortunately, too many women are not being
provided the screening, disgnostic help, and treatment they need to
save their lives.
At the current level of funding, the program can provide screening to
only 15 percent of the eligible low-income population, meaning that
roughly 10 million low-income uninsured American women are not provided
access to critical screening services. Moreover, as in many other
States, the program in my home State of South Dakota faces another
critical resource constraint: Insufficient resources to provide
diagnostic services for women who have been screened by the program and
require additional diagnostic treatment. It is tragic to think that
some women are told they may have breast or cervical cancer, and then
informed that their diagnosis cannot be confirmed. Additional funding
for this program is critically needed to complete the task of
diagnosing women as early as possible so that they can receive
potentially life-saving treatment, and to fulfill the promise of the
1990 bill for all eligible women, not just a small fraction of them.
In addition to our inability to provide screening and diagnostic
services to all low-income women, we have not yet been able to
establish a program to ensure the necessary treatment for those who are
diagnosed with cervical or breast cancer. When you consider that the
fundamental goal of the 1990 act is to prevent mortality, it becomes
clear that we need to take greater steps to secure treatment for
affected women. Since passage of the 1990 act, CDC and the States have
been working diligently to ensure that all women diagnosed with breast
or cervical cancer receive appropriate treatment. However, the
resources that are available to fulfill this task--often an uneven
patchwork of free clinics, charity care from hospitals, and pro bono
services donated physicians--makes the job extremely difficult.
To meet this challenge, it is essential that we determine accurately
the extent to which women diagnosed with cancer under the CDC Program
lack access to the care they need and how we can overcome the remaining
barriers to providing all women with care they need. I understand that
the CDC is conducting a comprehensive study of State-level efforts to
provide appropriate treatment. Based on the results of that study,
which should be available within the next few months, Congress and the
administration have a responsibility to determine whether additional
measures are necessary to help States ensure proper treatment for women
who are diagnosed with cancer through the CDC screening program. It is
my hope that when the results of the CDC study become available, the
administration will evaluate them and make recommendations to Congress
on ways the Federal Government can better help States ensure that women
diagnosed with cervical or breast cancer obtain the treatment they
need.
Additionally, it is my hope that the Department of Health and Human
Services will utilize whatever unexpended or discretonary funds that
are available in fiscal year 1998 to expand the number of women who are
provided screening or diagnostic assistance for cervical or breast
cancer.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I couldn't agree more. Providing crucial
early detection and diagnostic screening services to uninsured women is
a high priority for me. It is essential that women who are diagnosed
with breast cancer through our efforts are not abandoned without hope
of appropriate treatment. I know that our committee, with the
chairman's support, will work hard to support CDC's National Breast and
Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program and strongly encourage the
administration to develop recommendations to Congress to ensure broader
access to followup treatment.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I very much agree. I recognize the
importance of providing early detection and diagnostic screening
services to as many uninsured women as possible, and agree that the
Department of Health and Human Services should consider providing the
screening and diagnostic program with any unexpended or otherwise
available funds under this bill in fiscal year 1998. Also, Congress and
the administration should take a close look at the current program and
be willing to consider further efforts to provide followup treatment
for all women diagnosed with cancer through the screening program.
RESEARCH AIMED AT DETECTING, PREVENTING, AND TREATING OSTEOPOROSIS
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is estimated that up to 50 percent of
the women alive today will experience at least one serious
osteoporosis-related fracture during the remainder of their lives.
Approximately 25 percent of men alive today will also experience a
serious fracture related to osteoporosis. It is clear that osteoporosis
is becoming a greater and more expensive public health problem with
each passing year. Medicare and other publicly funded health care
programs are spending an estimated $28 billion per year to treat
osteoporosis-related conditions.
Osteoporosis is both preventable and treatable. There are a number of
FDA-approved therapies that have been demonstrated to be effective in
preventing the disease in those at risk, as well as treatments that can
arrest or retard the progress of the disease in individuals who already
have it. Good nutrition, including sufficient calcium, has also been
shown to help protect against the illness. If programs can be put into
place soon that will help detect and combat this illness, we can make a
tremendous difference in the quality of life of seniors, and
effectively reduce the spiraling cost of osteoporosis-related health
problems.
I understand that in its report, the committee has encouraged the
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
[NIAMS] and the Agency for Health Care Policy Research [AHCPR] to use
competitive grants and other mechanisms to plan and carry out
definitive studies, including epidemiological studies, that will enable
us to better understand the nature and scope of osteoporosis and design
more effective prevention and treatment programs. I commend the
committee for its action, and would like to reinforce the urgency of
moving forward with the planning
[[Page S9112]]
and execution of such studies and the importance of using competitive
grants as appropriate to tap the skills and expertise of the Nation's
academic and research communities. I would also like to emphasize the
importance of including, as part of this effort, an analysis of
policies and programs that should be pursued to prevent osteoporosis in
the future. It is critical that we have an accurate sense of the
dimensions of this widespread health problem and take every possible
step to lessen its destructive impact.
I hope the committee's well-articulate views, which clearly recognize
the value of a comprehensive assessment of osteoporosis, and
acknowledge the important contribution NIAMS and AHCPR can make to that
effort, are incorporated into the conference report.
Mr. SPECTER. I agree that osteoporosis should be the focus of
aggressive detection, prevention and treatment activities. We owe it to
our own and future generations to tackle the root cause of so much
injury and debilitation in later life, and to reduce the growing
financial burden it imposes on individuals and the public alike. I
agree that NIAMS and AHCPR should pursue, within the funds provided,
strategies to detect, prevent, and treat osteoporosis in both women and
men, and I look forward to working with the conferees to include such
language in the conference report.
Mr. HARKIN. I also recognize the value of a comprehensive research
strategy aimed at detecting, preventing and treating osteoporosis, and
I encourage NIAMS and AHCPR to give this research every consideration
as they make their fiscal year 1998 funding decisions.
aging research and alzheimer's disease
Mr. GRASSLEY. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Specter, for his
leadership in crafting what is arguably one of the most difficult and
perhaps the most complex appropriations bills Congress must deal with
each year.
I share his concerns that while there are so many worthwhile programs
covered by this legislation, we are unfortunately constrained by
limited resources.
As chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I am especially
concerned about one item in the bill--the recommended appropriation for
the National Institute on Aging.
As baby boomers shoulder their way into the 21st century, nearly 35
million Americans will be age 65 or older, compared to just 3.1 million
at the start of this century. This tremendous growth is due in large
part to better living standards as well as this Nation's commitment to
medical research. As a result of past research investments we now have
new and more effective treatments for arthritis, high blood pressure,
stroke, and other diseases.
But as you know, many critical challenges remain--not the least of
which is the scourge of Alzheimer's disease.
Alzheimer's disease and related disorders present one of the greatest
threats to the health and economic security of the generation that will
enter retirement in the 21st century. It has already stricken 4 million
Americans. And if left unchecked, 14 million will fall victim to
Alzheimer's by the middle of the next century. It will defeat all of
our best efforts in Congress and as a nation to control health care
costs and assure the quality of health care in general.
I know that the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee shares my
concern. As in my State of Iowa, his home State has a high proportion
of elderly.
I note that this legislation recommends $520.7 million for the
National Institute on Aging. While that represents an increase over
this year's funding and the House level, the rate of increase is below
the average increase to NIH as a whole.
I would like to ask the distinguished chairman that he keep in mind
the importance of adequate funding of the National Institute on Aging.
The challenges, and the opportunities, surrounding our aging population
have never been greater.
Mr. SPECTER. I would like to thank Senator Grassley, the
distinguished chairman of the Aging Committee for his leadership on
this important issue. The Senator can be certain that I understand the
importance of maintaining adequate funding for the National Institute
on Aging. I will certainly keep this in mind as the appropriations
process continues.
early head start program
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the pending legislation increases funding
for Head Start by $324 million and directs that 10 percent of the
fiscal year 1998 increase be dedicated for further expansion of the
Early Head Start Program which serves children from 0-3 years of age.
The appropriations bill does not amend the underlying Head Start
statute, therefore, there is no change to the 5 percent set-aside for
the Early Head Start Program as prescribed by that law for fiscal year
1998.
I would ask the chairman if he could clarify the intent of the
legislation with respect to the Early Head Start Program. It is my
understanding that the 10 percent from the fiscal year 1998 increase is
in addition to the 5 percent set-aside already provided by law.
Mr. SPECTER. The Senator is correct. The pending legislation does not
change the 5 percent set-aside for the Early Head Start Program
provided by current law for fiscal year 1998 and the 10 percent
provided by the bill is additional funding to expand programs for
children from 0-3 years of age.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the chairman for clarifying this point.
music education
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in the past the Senate has supported,
through the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, music training as an
educational tool. I support the continuation of support for this type
of program.
I urge the Department of Education, through its fund for the
improvement of education, to give favorable consideration to a proposal
that will stimulate students' interest in and attention to music by
airing the work of young and gifted student performers and which will
also involve the public through supplemental educational tools. A young
performance series, which affords 6-18-year-old musicians the
opportunity to publicly demonstrate their talents would be especially
suited to carry out such a demonstration.
If we are to encourage innovation and talent, we must foster that
talent by recognizing the developing skills of our Nation's youth.
Public broadcasts of a quality young performance program will encourage
youth involvement in classical and other serious music.
Mr. SPECTER. I note the Senator's support for music programs for
young people with interest and agree that we should encourage education
and learning through the use of the arts. I would also encourage the
Department of Education to consider this proposal.
student/parent mock elections
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, every Member of Congress understands the
importance of elections. The votes cast on election day determine the
leadership and direction of communities across the country, and of the
Nation as a whole. We know that informed voters are the essence of our
democracy.
The National Student-Parent Mock Election helps young students learn
about the importance of the election process. It also offers parents
and teachers across the country an opportunity to help students learn
about democracy, make decisions about key issues, and understand the
meaning of the citizen responsibility on which democracy thrives.
On October 30, 1996, millions of students and parents across the
country cast their votes for President, Vice President, Senators,
Representatives, Governors, and local officials as part of the National
Student-Parent Mock Election. Every State called in its votes on who
would win the elections and its recommendations on key national issues
to the National Mock Election Headquarters, while over 20 million
viewers watched on television.
The National Student-Parent Mock Election is an on-going project that
received $125,000 in Federal funding in fiscal year 1997.
I understand that it is the intention of the chairman and ranking
member of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee to fund
the National Student-Parent Mock Election at $225,000 for the fiscal
year 1998 so that it can continue to educate students on key issues and
the principles of democracy.
[[Page S9113]]
Mr. SPECTER. That is true. It was our intention to include in report
language that the National Student-Parent Mock Election be funded at
$225,000 this fiscal year. I, too, believe that this is an important
and worthy program.
Mr. HARKIN. I also agree that it was our intention to fund the
program at $225,000 this fiscal year, and I comment the National
Student-Parent Mock Election program of its continued success.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for the clarification. The lessons
that students and their parents learn in the mock elections will
benefit American politics for years to come. If the next generation of
Americans is well prepared for the challenges of democracy, our
liberties will be in good hands.
funding for the centers for disease control and its suicide prevention
initiatives
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I would like to direct the attention of
my colleagues to the work of the Centers for Disease Control [CDC]
located in Atlanta, GA. As you all are aware, the CDC is dedicated to
the public health--providing valuable resources for disease research
and prevention from cancer and infectious disease research to diabetes
control to suicide prevention.
Mr. SPECTER. Yes, I think our colleagues will all agree that the CDC
performs valuable public health services. There is widespread support
for the CDC and its missions, and I believe it is a worthwhile use of
Federal funds.
Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his remarks.
Let me add that a number of my constituents have contacted me regarding
CDC funding, particularly in regard to the National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control's research on suicide prevention.
While both the House and Senate bills provide funding for the CDC
above the administration's request, my constituents fear that the CDC's
research potential will not be attained under the Senate's lower
appropriation level. As you may know, I joined with several of my
colleagues in sponsoring S. Res. 84 which recognizes suicide as a
national problem. I share my constituents' interest in promoting
efforts to prevent suicide, and as deliberations on S. 1061 continue, I
respectfully request that the Chairman consider my constituents'
request to fund the CDC at the House level.
Mr. SPECTER. I appreciate the Senator from Georgia's comments
regarding fiscal year 1998 CDC funds. Let me assure him that the
subcommittee will take his comments into careful consideration.
Mr. COVERDELL. Once again, I would like to thank the Senator for his
and his subcommittee's support. I yield the floor.
Mr. SPECTER. I appreciate the distinguished Senator from Georgia
bringing to the attention of this Senate his interest in the valuable
work of the CDC. I will ensure that the conference committee considers
the Senator's interest in these important public health programs.
Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the distinguished chairman for his attention
to my interest in these matters.
department of labor job search initiative
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to engage the distinguished
chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education
Appropriations Subcommittee in a dialog about an item in the House
version of the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill.
Mr. President, the House Appropriations Committee has approved $3
million within the Employment and Training Administration to support a
telephone-access job search system. These funds are provided as part of
the $71.8 million approved in the House bill for other federally
administered programs. Through the labor market information activity,
$3 million would be used to support the installation of a telephone
access labor market exchange network for searching America's Job Bank
by telephone. This service has the potential of providing access to job
information to persons with disabilities, including individuals who are
blind.
I would ask the chairman if he would review the House proposal and
give it serious consideration for inclusion in the final version of the
Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. I understand that the $3
million would most appropriately go to assist states in meeting the
first-year costs of joining a labor market exchange network for
providing job seekers with access to America's Job Bank by telephone.
With the innovative use of computer technology, this proposal could be
of significant assistance to those who are disabled and in search of
employment opportunities.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for bringing this
matter to my attention. I am familiar with the recommendation of the
House Appropriations Committee to encourage a telephone-access job
search initiative. I can assure my friend from New Mexico that I will
give this proposal serious consideration for inclusion in the
conference report accompanying the final bill.
WHITE HOUSE INITIATIVE ON TRIBAL COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to speak
in support of a new Office of Tribal Colleges and Universities that has
been created by Executive order, and to clarify language in the Senate
Committee Report 105-58 that accompanies the legislation currently
under consideration. This Executive order began as Senate Resolution
264, a Sense-of-the-Senate Resolution urging the President to issue an
Executive order to promote and expand Federal assistance for Indian
institutions of higher education. I am proud to be one of the
initiators of this resolution, and I was very pleased when the
President responded by issuing Executive Order 13021 pertaining to
tribal colleges and universities in October 1996, in which he created
an Office of White House Initiative in the Department of Education. The
order also directed the Department of Education to ``provide
appropriate administrative services and staff support for the Board and
the Initiative.''
This issue was raised in two separate sections in the Senate
committee report. Support for the Initiative Office was mentioned in
the section pertaining to the Department of Education's Office of
Indian Education, and then again in the section pertaining to the
Office of Vocational Education. I ask my colleague from Pennsylvania,
Senator Specter, if it was the committee's intent to provide the White
House Initiative Office with adequate support from the Department of
Education's increased funds for general departmental management, and
not from the limited funds allocated to the Office of Indian Education?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for this
opportunity to clarify the committee's recommendation regarding the
Department of Education's White House Initiative Office on tribal
colleges and universities. It was, indeed, the committee's intent that
the Office receive adequate support for its mission, and that
administrative funds be allocated for this purpose from the Department
of Education's general management funds.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank my colleague for this clarification. The 30
Tribal Colleges and Universities in this country provide the best
opportunity for many Native Americans to attend college. The Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching recently published its
second report on Native American colleges, pointing out the critical
role they play. I believe that the office created under the White House
initiative will have an opportunity to work across Federal agencies to
strengthen tribal institutions of higher education and can help to
implement the recommendations made in the Carnegie Foundation report.
I know that my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, shares my
concern for the support of tribal colleges and universities, and I
would ask for his thoughts on this issue.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico for
his leadership in urging the creation of this White House Office on
Tribal Colleges and Universities. Like Senator Bingaman, I supported S.
Res. 264 and was among the Senators that subsequently urged the
President to issue the Executive order. It was at my request that the
committee included language for increased funding support for this
office, and I am most grateful to the chairman for his help on this
matter and for clarifying the committee's intent.
North Dakota is home to five tribal colleges, and these institutions
are an
[[Page S9114]]
important part of the higher education community in my State. It is my
belief that the White House initiative has the potential to galvanize
Federal support for these institutions, and in so doing will open the
door to college wider for many Native Americans.
national mediation board
Mr. HARKIN. As the chairman knows, this bill includes funding for the
National Mediation Board [NMB] which is responsible for mediating
labor-management disputes in the railroad and airline industries under
the Railway Labor Act [RLA]. To help meet this responsibility section 3
of the RLA requires the arbitration of certain disputes that arise
between employee and their employers in the rail industry.
Unfortunately, there is a serious need to help the NMB fulfill its
section 3 responsibilities. Delays in care processing cause uncertainty
and hardship for both rail workers and the carriers. I want to thank
the chairman for recognizing this problem and for including an
additional $500,000 to the budget of the NMB. It is my understanding
that it is the intent of the chairman and the committee that the NMB
should use this extra money to deal with the section 3 cases. Is this
also understanding of the chairman?
Mr. SPECTER. I want to thank the Senator from Iowa for raising this
issue. In appropriating an additional $500,000 over the
administration's request it is indeed by intent that the NMB will use
these funds to more quickly process the section 3 cases that are
currently pending. There are now a few thousand unresolved cases
affecting workers and employers in Pennsylvania and throughout the
Nation who deserve to have these cases decided as quickly as possible.
Mr. HARKIN. I want to again thank the chairman for his interest and
help in addressing this problem.
Mr. LEAHY. I am concerned that the Community Schools Program has not
been funded within the fiscal year 1998 HHS appropriations bill. The
elimination of this program means the cutting of funds for grants in
over 35 States, midcycle, including programs in Vermont and
Pennsylvania.
Senator Jeffords and I have been working to find an acceptable way to
ensure that the Community Schools programs which work well will
continue to be funded.
I understand the fiscal constraints faced by the committee. I
appreciate the willingness of the chairman to add language to this bill
that would give priority funding through the high-risk youth grant
program to currently running Community Schools grants that are
successful.
The program in Vermont is called CITYSCAPE. This grant has allowed
Barre City to develop partnerships between the schools, the community
and other key service providers to target assistance to youth who are
at risk of abuse and neglect, at risk of substance abuse and at risk of
teen pregnancy. The program seeks to increasing community and school
connection to these youth, decrease youth violence and to decrease
youth use or potential use of alcohol, tobacco or other drugs.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank my colleague for his remarks. We share a
commitment to ensure that effective Community Schools programs like
CITYSCAPE in Vermont are given priority in funding within the new
program for at-risk youth.
I would also add to my colleague from Vermont's remarks that a key
component of the Barre City Program is the development of community
ownership and a volunteer base that will ensure the continuation of
this program beyond the end of the grant cycle.
Our intention is to work with the committee to make sure that
CITYSCAPE and other good programs reach the point that they can stand
on their own with community support.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senators from Vermont for bringing their
concerns about the elimination of this program to me. I certainly want
programs that are successful to continue. I and will work with the
House during the conference to make sure that programs that are meeting
the needs of high-risk youth can continue.
aids drug assistance program and other program funding under the ryan
white care act
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to commend the chairman for
his continued leadership in providing substantial support for the Ryan
White CARE Act, research through the National Institutes of Health, and
various prevention and education programs seeking to discover new
treatments and a cure for the HIV/AIDS virus. Each of these areas
deserves the full attention from congressional leaders if we are to
finally win our struggle with this dreaded virus.
However, I am particularly concerned that the level of funding for
the AIDS Drug Assistance Program [ADAP] under title II of the Ryan
White CARE Act will fail to meet the needs of those suffering from this
terrible disease. With some of the recent advances in HIV/AIDS drug
treatments, many seem to believe that the pressure imposed by this
disease upon our society has been relieved. However, I believe the
Senate must increase the ADAP funding level for fiscal year 1998 to the
House level of $132 million in order to protect our citizens from this
continued deadly disease.
As with every State, in my State of New York many working people
living with HIV/AIDS must rely on the ADAP Program for their only
access to the new effective combination therapy AIDS medications which
were discovered and produced through our public and private investment
in research at the National Institutes of Health and in private
industry. These newly approved drugs offer real hope for continued life
to hundreds of thousands of Americans living with HIV/AIDS. With
millions of Americans lacking health insurance with adequate
prescription benefits, the ability to access these treatments has
literally become a matter of life and death for thousands of these
Americans.
Currently, the ADAP Program in New York State provides treatment
opportunities to nearly 17,000 people with many, many more projected to
seek treatment in the future. Congress has the ability to lead the way
to assure access to these therapies and the hope they provide against
the inescapable progression to an untimely death. We must seize this
opportunity. No one wants to be in the position of telling a
constituent that they are out of luck this year and that maybe next
year we can do something. Every State will face intolerable choices in
deciding who shall have the opportunity to receive these life-saving
treatments without an adequate ADAP funding level. I ask the chairman
to leave no stone unturned in obtaining the funds so desperately needed
for us to offer a chance for life to every American living with HIV/
AIDS in the United States. I know my colleague from California would
like to provide further emphasis to this statement.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York and I
appreciate his comments on the Ryan White CARE Act. This vital program
is literally a life line for people living with HIV and AIDS.
AIDS continues to be the leading cause of death for Americans between
the ages of 25 and 44. Over a half million Americans have been
diagnosed with AIDS, and over 360,000 have died of the disease. In the
coming year, HIV will infect some 40,000 Americans, half of them under
the age of 25.
The Ryan White CARE Act demonstrates our commitment to providing
necessary health care services to these individuals and families with
HIV, and to assisting communities hardest hit by the AIDS epidemic.
Recent advances in research have provided us with new and effective
combination therapy AIDS medications. These newly approved drugs offer
the first real hope to the hundreds of thousands of people living with
HIV and AIDS.
Under title II of the CARE Act, the ADAP program provides access to
these essential, life-saving drugs to the people who desperately need
them. It literally makes the difference between life and death for tens
of thousands of Americans. It is because of this new hope that new
clients are coming to get the treatment they need to survive, and that
is why increased funding for this program is vital.
We have the ability and the responsibility to make these drugs
available to people who need them. I don't believe anyone in this room
would want his or her State to be in a position of having to cut
patients off life-saving drugs because funding is inadequate.
[[Page S9115]]
Given that the number of individuals with HIV continues to escalate,
our commitment to providing AIDS care must remain firm. Therefore, I
strongly urge my colleagues in conference to adopt the highest funding
for the Ryan White CARE Act. I urge support of the House funding levels
for title I and title II and the Senate levels for title III, IV, and
V.
In addition, I would like to reiterate my strong support for AIDS
prevention and education programs through the Centers for Disease
Control. These programs are key to stopping the spread of HIV infection
and saving lives, and I urge the highest funding level possible.
Individuals living with this disease and their loved ones known that
these programs are saving lives, enabling patients to live life to the
fullest, and preventing new infections. It is our obligation to provide
the highest level of funding possible for these critical
appropriations.
Again, I thank the Senator from New York and the chairman and ranking
member of the subcommittee for their tireless work on behalf of people
with HIV and AIDS.
Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the Senator from California for providing
further perspective on this issue. Mr. President, we again thank the
chairman for his leadership and support of the Ryan White CARE Act in
the past. We hope to secure your continued support for Senate
appropriations for titles III, IV, and V of the Ryan White CARE Act,
and at least the House funding levels for titles I and II in conference
committee. In particular, the ADAP funding level affects every State in
our great Nation and, therefore, I look forward to working with him and
our colleagues to ensure that every American will have access to any
HIV/AIDS treatment he or she may require.
community employment alliance
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention
of the Senator the Community Employment Alliance [CEA], which is
sponsored by the Enterprise Foundation. It is my hope that the
Department of Labor may identify the CEA as a project for full
consideration under research, demonstration, and pilot program funds
being made available to the Department in the 1998 Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act.
CEA is working in eight cities nationwide, including San Antonio and
Dallas in my home State, to develop an effective job opportunity system
for low-income individuals, particularly those on public assistance.
CEA offers a new, comprehensive model for developing job opportunities
for low-income citizens based on the utilization of community-based
organizations, in conjunction with private sector and Government
resources.
CEA's approach envisions the development of compacts involving city
and State governments, local and regional business leaders, and
community-based organizations. Each local alliance will formulate
strategies and implement programs for creating an effective job
opportunity system for welfare recipients. The ultimate goal of the
CEA, therefore, is to improve job prospects for unemployed and
underemployed residents of distressed inner-city neighborhoods through
well-coordinated, high performance economic and work force development
activities. I believe that it is this type of integrated approach that
will help move more Americans from welfare to work.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank Senator Hutchison for bringing this important
project to my attention and the attention of the committee. There is
much work to be done in assisting those on welfare to gain a better
life. Approaches to this problem which fully integrate business, civic,
and community leaders are in my view the most likely to succeed.
Therefore, I believe that the Department of Labor should, in fact, give
full consideration to the request for funds made by the Community
Employment Alliance for this purpose.
BOSTON SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA
MR. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of the integral parts of a classical
education includes a knowledge and appreciation of music. Studies have
shown that there is a direct correlation between children with an early
exposure to music and high achievement in mathematics. Music provides a
universal language that knows no boundaries, and heightens a person's
awareness and sensitivity to the world around them.
Boston Symphony Orchestra, one of the world's leading symphonies, has
developed in collaboration with area schools a model youth concert
program which contributes to a student's understanding and appreciation
of music. It annually conducts 15 youth concerts for approximately
40,000 elementary, middle and high school students from over 120
communities throughout Massachusetts. BSO also provides training for
music teachers and manages a resources center for educators in New
England.
The House fiscal year 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education Appropriations Committee report contains language that
encourages the Department of Education's fund for the Improvement of
Education to support the operation and evaluation of such a program as
the Boston Symphony Orchestra's model youth concert program. I urge the
final conference report to adopt this language, which will broaden the
horizons of our children's education.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation at
this time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the
amendments and the third reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time.
Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to take just a minute before the
final passage of this bill to comment upon an amendment that was just
adopted here, the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington
State. I am concerned about the impact of that amendment and what it is
going to do to education.
I do not know how many people understand what we have just done here.
What we have just said in adopting this amendment on such a narrow vote
is that many education programs including vocational education,
bilingual education, education technology, immigrant education, safe
and drug-free schools, and Goals 2000--some you may like, some you may
not like, but all of these programs are now part of a block grant. This
money now goes to local education agencies in the form of a block
grant. All of the things that we have worked so hard on, on a
bipartisan basis, in terms of technology, safe and drug-free schools,
vocational education, all of these are gone under this amendment.
Mr. President, $4 billion of that money now goes out to local
education agencies in the form of a block grant. There will be no
requirements on how this money is to be spent--none whatsoever. In
other words, they can take the money and build a swimming pool and say
the heck with education technology or safe and drug-free schools or
vocational education. There is no limitation. We have had in the past
limitations on how much of this money could be used for administrative
costs, to pay for superintendents and all the administrative people who
make up our schools.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Two minutes equally before the vote.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. And the other side, too, get an additional minute.
Mr. President, we have had requirements in the past that no more than
a certain amount of this money could be spent for administration
because we wanted it to get to the kids and we wanted it to get to
vocational education and technology.
These requirements are done away with in this amendment. So now they
can use this money to pay superintendents or other school personnel
more money.
Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?
Mr. HARKIN. I will yield.
Mr. DODD. Would my colleague not disagree with me, Mr. President, if
this bill comes back from conference with this measure, we ought to
filibuster this bill; it ought not to pass?
Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that. I just have a sense that some people
may
[[Page S9116]]
have voted on this and not understood exactly what was going on in
terms of stripping away all of these measures and taking away the
prohibition that we had in the past to limit how much could be spent on
administration. That is all taken off.
I heard time and time again from people on both sides of the aisle
how we should cut down on how much money we put into administration. I
agree with that. We all agreed with that. Now those restrictions are
gone. They will be able to use this money for whatever they want. I
just think it is a terrible mistake on the part of the Senate to have
adopted this amendment.
I appreciate the time.
Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I find it regrettable but not surprising
that the expressions against the amendment which we just adopted are
based on the proposition that all knowledge with respect to educational
priorities is lodged right here among the 100 Members of this body,
and, if not here, certainly no closer to our students than the
Department of Education's bureaucrats here in Washington, DC; that if
we are to allow local school board members, teachers, and parents to
decide how they would like to spend the money on the education of their
children setting different priorities in different school districts,
they will, of course, waste the money, ignore our children, and use it
to build swimming pools.
Well, Mr. President, I wonder why it is that the voters are so wise
when they pick us and so foolish when they pick local school board
members. That is the real issue here. Do we trust the people who are
running our schools to run them properly, to care for the education of
their children and to do a better job than Washington, DC, bureaucrats?
Fifty-one of you voted that we trust our educators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the vote now is on
final passage.
Mr. INOUYE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall it pass? On this question, the yeas and nays have
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 8, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 235 Leg.]
YEAS--92
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--8
Ashcroft
Coats
Faircloth
Gramm
Helms
Inhofe
Sessions
Smith (NH)
The bill (S. 1061), as amended, was passed, as follows:
S. 1061
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 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, namely:
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
training and employment services
For necessary expenses of the Job Training Partnership Act,
as amended, including the purchase and hire of passenger
motor vehicles, the construction, alteration, and repair of
buildings and other facilities, and the purchase of real
property for training centers as authorized by the Job
Training Partnership Act; the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless
Assistance Act; the Women in Apprenticeship and
Nontraditional Occupations Act; the National Skill Standards
Act of 1994; and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act;
$5,010,053,000 plus reimbursements, of which $3,815,062,000
is available for obligation for the period July 1, 1998
through June 30, 1999; of which $118,491,000 is available for
the period July 1, 1998 through June 30, 2001 for necessary
expenses of construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of
Job Corps centers; and of which $200,000,000 shall be
available from July 1, 1998 through September 30, 1999, for
carrying out activities of the School-to-Work Opportunities
Act: Provided, That $55,127,000 shall be for carrying out
section 401 of the Job Training Partnership Act, $72,749,000
shall be for carrying out section 402 of such Act, $7,300,000
shall be for carrying out section 441 of such Act,
$10,000,000 shall be for all activities conducted by and
through the National Occupational Information Coordinating
Committee under such Act, $955,000,000 shall be for carrying
out title II, part A of such Act, and $129,965,000 shall be
for carrying out title II, part C of such Act: Provided
further, That the National Occupational Information
Coordinating Committee is authorized, effective upon
enactment, to charge fees for publications, training and
technical assistance developed by the National Occupational
Information Coordinating Committee: Provided further, That
revenues received from publications and delivery of technical
assistance and training, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302,
shall be credited to the National Occupational Information
Coordinating Committee program account and shall be available
to the National Occupational Information Coordinating
Committee without further appropriations, so long as such
revenues are used for authorized activities of the National
Occupational Information Coordinating Committee: Provided
further, That no funds from any other appropriation shall be
used to provide meal services at or for Job Corps centers:
Provided further, That funds provided for title III of the
Job Training Partnership Act shall not be subject to the
limitation contained in subsection (b) of section 315 of such
Act; that the waiver described in section 315(a)(2) may be
granted if a substate grantee demonstrates to the Governor
that such waiver is appropriate due to the availability of
low-cost retraining services, is necessary to facilitate the
provision of needs-related payments to accompany long-term
training, or is necessary to facilitate the provision of
appropriate basic readjustment services; and that funds
provided for discretionary grants under part B of such title
III may be used to provide needs-related payments to
participants who, in lieu of meeting the enrollment
requirements under section 314(e) of such Act, are enrolled
in training by the end of the sixth week after grant funds
have been awarded: Provided further, That funds provided to
carry out section 324 of such Act may be used for
demonstation projects that provide assistance to new entrants
in the workforce and incumbent workers: Provided further,
That service delivery areas may transfer funding provided
herein under authority of title II, parts B and C of the Job
Training Partnership Act between the programs authorized by
those titles of the Act, if the transfer is approved by the
Governor: Provided further, That service delivery areas and
substate areas may transfer up to 20 percent of the funding
provided herein under authority of title II, part A and title
III of the Job Training Partnership Act between the programs
authorized by those titles of the Act, if such transfer is
approved by the Governor: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, any proceeds from
the sale of Job Corps center facilities shall be retained by
the Secretary of Labor to carry out the Job Corps program:
Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary of Labor may waive any of the statutory or
regulatory requirements of titles I-III of the Job Training
Partnership Act (except for requirements relating to wage and
labor standards, worker rights, participation and protection,
grievance procedures and judicial review, nondiscrimination,
allocation of funds to local areas, eligibility, review and
approval of plans, the establishment and functions of service
delivery areas and private industry councils, and the basic
purposes of the Act), and any of the statutory or regulatory
requirements of sections 8-10 of the Wagner-Peyser Act
(except for requirements relating to the provision of
services to unemployment insurance claimants and veterans,
and to universal access to basic labor exchange services
without cost to job seekers), only for funds available for
expenditure in program year 1998, pursuant to a request
submitted by a State which identifies the statutory or
regulatory requirements that are requested to be waived and
the goals which the State or local service delivery areas
intend to achieve, describes the actions that the State or
local service delivery areas have undertaken to remove State
or local statutory or regulatory barriers, describes the
goals of the waiver and the expected programmatic outcomes if
the request is granted, describes the individuals impacted by
the waiver, and describes the
[[Page S9117]]
process used to monitor the progress in implementing a
waiver, and for which notice and an opportunity to comment on
such request has been provided to the organizations
identified in section 105(a)(1) of the Job Training
Partnership Act, if and only to the extent that the Secretary
determines that such requirements impede the ability of the
State to implement a plan to improve the workforce
development system and the State has executed a Memorandum of
Understanding with the Secretary requiring such State to meet
agreed upon outcomes and implement other appropriate measures
to ensure accountability: Provided further, That the
Secretary of Labor shall establish a workforce flexibility
(work-flex) partnership demonstration program under which the
Secretary shall authorize not more than six States, of which
at least three States shall each have populations not in
excess of 3,500,000, with a preference given to those States
that have been designated Ed-Flex Partnership States under
section 311(e) of Public Law 103-227, to waive any statutory
or regulatory requirement applicable to service delivery
areas or substate areas within the State under titles I-III
of the Job Training Partnership Act (except for requirements
relating to wage and labor standards, grievance procedures
and judicial review, nondiscrimination, allotment of funds,
and eligibility), and any of the statutory or regulatory
requirements of sections 8-10 of the Wagner-Peyser Act
(except for requirements relating to the provision of
services to unemployment insurance claimants and veterans,
and to universal access to basic labor exchange services
without cost to job seekers), for a duration not to exceed
the waiver period authorized under section 311(e) of Public
Law 103-227, pursuant to a plan submitted by such States and
approved by the Secretary for the provision of workforce
employment and training activities in the States, which
includes a description of the process by which service
delivery areas and substate areas may apply for and have
waivers approved by the State, the requirements of the
Wagner-Peyser Act to be waived, the outcomes to be achieved
and other measures to be taken to ensure appropriate
accountability for Federal funds.
For necessary expenses of Opportunity Areas of Out-of-
School Youth, in addition to amounts otherwise provided
herein, $250,000,000, to be available for obligation for the
period October 1, 1998 through September 30, 1999, if job
training reform legislation authorizing this or similar at-
risk youth projects is enacted by April 1, 1998.
Community Service Employment for Older Americans
(transfer of funds)
To carry out the activities for national grants or
contracts with public agencies and public or private
nonprofit organizations under paragraph (1)(A) of section
506(a) of title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965, as
amended, or to carry out older worker activities as
subsequently authorized, $353,340,000.
To carry out the activities for grants to States under
paragraph (3) of section 506(a) of title V of the Older
Americans Act of 1965, as amended, or to carry out older
worker activities as subsequently authorized, $99,660,000.
The funds appropriated under this heading shall be
transferred to and merged with the Department of Health and
Human Services, ``Aging Services Programs'', for the same
purposes and the same period as the account to which
transferred, following the enactment of legislation
authorizing the administration of the program by that
Department.
federal unemployment benefits and allowances
For payments during the current fiscal year of trade
adjustment benefit payments and allowances under part I; and
for training, allowances for job search and relocation, and
related State administrative expenses under part II,
subchapters B and D, chapter 2, title II of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended, $349,000,000, together with such amounts as
may be necessary to be charged to the subsequent
appropriation for payments for any period subsequent to
September 15 of the current year.
state unemployment insurance and employment service operations
For authorized administrative expenses, $173,452,000,
together with not to exceed $3,288,476,000 (including not to
exceed $1,228,000 which may be used for amortization payments
to States which had independent retirement plans in their
State employment service agencies prior to 1980, and
including not to exceed $2,000,000 which may be obligated in
contracts with non-State entities for activities such as
occupational and test research activities which benefit the
Federal-State Employment Service System), which may be
expended from the Employment Security Administration account
in the Unemployment Trust Fund including the cost of
administering section 1201 of the Small Business Job
Protection Act of 1996, section 7(d) of the Wagner-Peyser
Act, as amended, the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the
Immigration Act of 1990, and the Immigration and Nationality
Act, as amended, and of which the sums available in the
allocation for activities authorized by title III of the
Social Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 502-504), and the
sums available in the allocation for necessary administrative
expenses for carrying out 5 U.S.C. 8501-8523, shall be
available for obligation by the States through December 31,
1998, except that funds used for automation acquisitions
shall be available for obligation by States through September
30, 2000; and of which $173,452,000, together with not to
exceed $738,283,000 of the amount which may be expended from
said trust fund, shall be available for obligation for the
period July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999, to fund activities
under the Act of June 6, 1933, as amended, including the cost
of penalty mail authorized under 39 U.S.C. 3202(a)(1)(E) made
available to States in lieu of allotments for such purpose,
and of which $150,000,000 shall be available solely for the
purpose of assisting States to convert their automated State
employment security agency systems to be year 2000 compliant,
and of which $212,333,000 shall be available only to the
extent necessary for additional State allocations to
administer unemployment compensation laws to finance
increases in the number of unemployment insurance claims
filed and claims paid or changes in a State law: Provided,
That to the extent that the Average Weekly Insured
Unemployment (AWIU) for fiscal year 1998 is projected by the
Department of Labor to exceed 2,789,000 an additional
$28,600,000 shall be available for obligation for every
100,000 increase in the AWIU level (including a pro rata
amount for any increment less than 100,000) from the
Employment Security Administration Account of the
Unemployment Trust Fund: Provided further, That funds
appropriated in this Act which are used to establish a
national one-stop career center network may be obligated in
contracts, grants or agreements with non-State entities:
Provided further, That funds appropriated under this Act for
activities authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act, as
amended, and title III of the Social Security Act, may be
used by the States to fund integrated Employment Service and
Unemployment Insurance automation efforts, notwithstanding
cost allocation principles prescribed under Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-87.
advances to the unemployment trust fund and other funds
For repayable advances to the Unemployment Trust Fund as
authorized by sections 905(d) and 1203 of the Social Security
Act, as amended, and to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund
as authorized by section 9501(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954, as amended; and for nonrepayable advances to
the Unemployment Trust Fund as authorized by section 8509 of
title 5, United States Code, section 104(d) of Public Law
102-164, and section 5 of Public Law 103-6, and to the
``Federal unemployment benefits and allowances'' account, to
remain available until September 30, 1999, $392,000,000.
In addition, for making repayable advances to the Black
Lung Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year after
September 15, 1998, for costs incurred by the Black Lung
Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year, such sums
as may be necessary.
program administration
For expenses of administering employment and training
programs, $88,308,000, together with not to exceed
$41,285,000, which may be expended from the Employment
Security Administration account in the Unemployment Trust
Fund.
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the Pension and Welfare Benefits
Administration, $82,000,000, of which $3,000,000 shall remain
available through September 30, 1999 for expenses of
completing the revision of the processing of employee benefit
plan returns.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
pension benefit guaranty corporation fund
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is authorized to
make such expenditures, including financial assistance
authorized by section 104 of Public Law 96-364, within limits
of funds and borrowing authority available to such
Corporation, and in accord with law, and to make such
contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal year
limitations as provided by section 104 of the Government
Corporation Control Act, as amended (31 U.S.C. 9104), as may
be necessary in carrying out the program through September
30, 1998, for such Corporation: Provided, That not to exceed
$10,433,000 shall be available for administrative expenses of
the Corporation: Provided further, That expenses of such
Corporation in connection with the termination of pension
plans, for the acquisition, protection or management, and
investment of trust assets, and for benefits administration
services shall be considered as non-administrative expenses
for the purposes hereof, and excluded from the above
limitation.
Employment Standards Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the Employment Standards
Administration, including reimbursement to State, Federal,
and local agencies and their employees for inspection
services rendered, $299,660,000, together with $993,000 which
may be expended from the Special Fund in accordance with
sections 39(c) and 44(j) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act: Provided further, That the Secretary of
Labor is authorized to accept, retain, and spend, until
expended, in the name of the Department of Labor, all sums of
money ordered to be paid
[[Page S9118]]
to the Secretary of Labor, in accordance with the terms of
the Consent Judgment in Civil Action No. 91-0027 of the
United States District Court for the District of the Northern
Mariana Islands (May 21, 1992): Provided further, That the
Secretary of Labor is authorized to establish and, in
accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3302, collect and deposit in the
Treasury fees for processing applications and issuing
certificates under sections 11(d) and 14 of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C. 211(d) and 214)
and for processing applications and issuing registrations
under title I of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
special benefits
(including transfer of funds)
For the payment of compensation, benefits, and expenses
(except administrative expenses) accruing during the current
or any prior fiscal year authorized by title 5, chapter 81 of
the United States Code; continuation of benefits as provided
for under the head ``Civilian War Benefits'' in the Federal
Security Agency Appropriation Act, 1947; the Employees'
Compensation Commission Appropriation Act, 1944; and sections
4(c) and 5(f) of the War Claims Act of 1948 (50 U.S.C. App.
2012); and 50 per centum of the additional compensation and
benefits required by section 10(h) of the Longshore and
Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as amended, $201,000,000
together with such amounts as may be necessary to be charged
to the subsequent year appropriation for the payment of
compensation and other benefits for any period subsequent to
August 15 of the current year: Provided, That amounts
appropriated may be used under section 8104 of title 5,
United States Code, by the Secretary to reimburse an
employer, who is not the employer at the time of injury, for
portions of the salary of a reemployed, disabled beneficiary:
Provided further, That balances of reimbursements unobligated
on September 30, 1997, shall remain available until expended
for the payment of compensation, benefits, and expenses:
Provided further, That in addition there shall be transferred
to this appropriation from the Postal Service and from any
other corporation or instrumentality required under section
8147(c) of title 5, United States Code, to pay an amount for
its fair share of the cost of administration, such sums as
the Secretary of Labor determines to be the cost of
administration for employees of such fair share entities
through September 30, 1998: Provided further, That of those
funds transferred to this account from the fair share
entities to pay the cost of administration, $7,269,000 shall
be made available to the Secretary of Labor for expenditures
relating to capital improvements in support of Federal
Employees' Compensation Act administration, and the balance
of such funds shall be paid into the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts: Provided further, That the Secretary
may require that any person filing a notice of injury or a
claim for benefits under chapter 81 of title 5, United States
Code, or 33 U.S.C. 901 et seq., provide as part of such
notice and claim, such identifying information (including
Social Security account number) as such regulations may
prescribe.
black lung disability trust fund
(including transfer of funds)
For payments from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund,
$1,007,000,000, of which $960,650,000 shall be available
until September 30, 1999, for payment of all benefits as
authorized by section 9501(d) (1), (2), (4), and (7) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and interest on
advances as authorized by section 9501(c)(2) of that Act, and
of which $26,147,000 shall be available for transfer to
Employment Standards Administration, Salaries and Expenses,
$19,551,000 for transfer to Departmental Management, Salaries
and Expenses, $296,000 for transfer to Departmental
Management, Office of Inspector General, and $356,000 for
payment into miscellaneous receipts for the expenses of the
Department of Treasury, for expenses of operation and
administration of the Black Lung Benefits program as
authorized by section 9501(d)(5) of that Act: Provided, That,
in addition, such amounts as may be necessary may be charged
to the subsequent year appropriation for the payment of
compensation, interest, or other benefits for any period
subsequent to August 15 of the current year.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, $336,205,000, including not to exceed
$77,941,000 which shall be the maximum amount available for
grants to States under section 23(g) of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act, which grants shall be no less than
fifty percent of the costs of State occupational safety and
health programs required to be incurred under plans approved
by the Secretary under section 18 of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970; and, in addition, notwithstanding 31
U.S.C. 3302, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration may retain up to $750,000 per fiscal year of
training institute course tuition fees, otherwise authorized
by law to be collected, and may utilize such sums for
occupational safety and health training and education grants:
Provided, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, the Secretary
of Labor is authorized, during the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1998, to collect and retain fees for services
provided to Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories, and
may utilize such sums, in accordance with the provisions of
29 U.S.C. 9a, to administer national and international
laboratory recognition programs that ensure the safety of
equipment and products used by workers in the workplace:
Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under
this paragraph shall be obligated or expended to prescribe,
issue, administer, or enforce any standard, rule, regulation,
or order under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
which is applicable to any person who is engaged in a farming
operation which does not maintain a temporary labor camp and
employs ten or fewer employees: Provided further, That no
funds appropriated under this paragraph shall be obligated or
expended to administer or enforce any standard, rule,
regulation, or order under the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 with respect to any employer of ten or fewer
employees who is included within a category having an
occupational injury lost workday case rate, at the most
precise Standard Industrial Classification Code for which
such data are published, less than the national average rate
as such rates are most recently published by the Secretary,
acting through the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in accordance
with section 24 of that Act (29 U.S.C. 673), except--
(1) to provide, as authorized by such Act, consultation,
technical assistance, educational and training services, and
to conduct surveys and studies;
(2) to conduct an inspection or investigation in response
to an employee complaint, to issue a citation for violations
found during such inspection, and to assess a penalty for
violations which are not corrected within a reasonable
abatement period and for any willful violations found;
(3) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect
to imminent dangers;
(4) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect
to health hazards;
(5) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect
to a report of an employment accident which is fatal to one
or more employees or which results in hospitalization of two
or more employees, and to take any action pursuant to such
investigation authorized by such Act; and
(6) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect
to complaints of discrimination against employees for
exercising rights under such Act: Provided further, That the
foregoing proviso shall not apply to any person who is
engaged in a farming operation which does not maintain a
temporary labor camp and employs ten or fewer employees.
Mine Safety and Health Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the Mine Safety and Health
Administration, $205,804,000, including purchase and bestowal
of certificates and trophies in connection with mine rescue
and first-aid work, and the hire of passenger motor vehicles;
the Secretary is authorized to accept lands, buildings,
equipment, and other contributions from public and private
sources and to prosecute projects in cooperation with other
agencies, Federal, State, or private; the Mine Safety and
Health Administration is authorized to promote health and
safety education and training in the mining community through
cooperative programs with States, industry, and safety
associations; and any funds available to the Department may
be used, with the approval of the Secretary, to provide for
the costs of mine rescue and survival operations in the event
of a major disaster: Provided, That none of the funds
appropriated under this paragraph shall be obligated or
expended to carry out section 115 of the Federal Mine Safety
and Health Act of 1977 or to carry out that portion of
section 104(g)(1) of such Act relating to the enforcement of
any training requirements, with respect to shell dredging, or
with respect to any sand, gravel, surface stone, surface
clay, colloidal phosphate, or surface limestone mine.
Bureau of Labor Statistics
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
including advances or reimbursements to State, Federal, and
local agencies and their employees for services rendered,
$320,097,000, of which $15,430,000 shall be for expenses of
revising the Consumer Price Index and shall remain available
until September 30, 1999, together with not to exceed
$52,574,000, which may be expended from the Employment
Security Administration account in the Unemployment Trust
Fund.
Departmental Management
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for Departmental Management,
including the hire of three sedans, and including up to
$4,439,000 for the President's Committee on Employment of
People With Disabilities, $152,131,000; together with not to
exceed $282,000, which may be expended from the Employment
Security Administration account in the Unemployment Trust
Fund: Provided, That no funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Solicitor of Labor to participate in a review
in any United States court of appeals of any decision made by
the Benefits Review Board under section 21 of the Longshore
and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 921) where
such participation is precluded by the decision of the United
States Supreme Court in Director, Office
[[Page S9119]]
of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Newport News
Shipbuilding, 115 S. Ct. 1278 (1995): Provided further, That
no funds made available by this Act may be used by the
Secretary of Labor to review a decision under the Longshore
and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 901 et seq.)
that has been appealed and that has been pending before the
Benefits Review Board for more than 12 months: Provided
further, That any such decision pending a review by the
Benefits Review Board for more than one year shall be
considered affirmed by the Benefits Review Board on that
date, and shall be considered the final order of the Board
for purposes of obtaining a review in the United States
courts of appeals: Provided further, That these provisions
shall not be applicable to the review of any decision issued
under the Black Lung Benefits Act (30 U.S.C. 901 et seq.).
working capital fund
The paragraph under this heading in Public Law 85-67 (29
U.S.C. 563) is amended by striking the last period and
inserting after ``appropriation action'' the following: ``:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Labor may transfer
annually an amount not to exceed $3,000,000 from unobligated
balances in the Department's salaries and expenses accounts,
to the unobligated balance of the Working Capital Fund, to be
merged with such Fund and used for the acquisition of capital
equipment and the improvement of financial management,
information technology and other support systems, and to
remain available until expended: Provided further, That the
unobligated balance of the Fund shall not exceed
$20,000,000.''.
assistant secretary for veterans employment and training
Not to exceed $181,955,000 may be derived from the
Employment Security Administration account in the
Unemployment Trust Fund to carry out the provisions of 38
U.S.C. 4100-4110A and 4321-4327, and Public Law 103-353, and
which shall be available for obligation by the States through
December 31, 1998.
office of inspector general
For salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector
General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended, $43,105,000, together with
not to exceed $3,645,000, which may be expended from the
Employment Security Administration account in the
Unemployment Trust Fund.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 101. None of the funds appropriated in this title for
the Job Corps shall be used to pay the compensation of an
individual, either as direct costs or any proration as an
indirect cost, at a rate in excess of $125,000.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 102. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary
funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act, as amended) which are appropriated for the
current fiscal year for the Department of Labor in this Act
may be transferred between appropriations, but no such
appropriation shall be increased by more than 3 percent by
any such transfer: Provided, That the Appropriations
Committees of both Houses of Congress are notified at least
fifteen days in advance of any transfer.
Sec. 103. Funds shall be available for carrying out title
IV-B of the Job Training Partnership Act, notwithstanding
section 427(c) of that Act, if a Job Corps center fails to
meet national performance standards established by the
Secretary.
Sec. 104. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
to promulgate or issue any proposed or final standard
regarding ergonomic protection before September 30, 1998:
Provided, That nothing in this section shall be construed to
limit the Occupational Safety and Health Administration from
issuing voluntary guidelines on ergonomic protection or from
developing a proposed standard regarding ergonomic
protection: Provided further, That no funds made available in
this Act may be used by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration to enforce voluntary guidelines through
section 5 (general duty clause) of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act.
Sec. 105. 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''.
Sec. 106. (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection
(b), none of the funds made available under this Act, or any
other Act making appropriations for fiscal year 1998, may be
used by the Department of Labor or the Department of Justice
to conduct a rerun of a 1996 election for the office of
President, General Secretary, Vice-President, or Trustee of
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
(b) Exception.--
(1) In general.--Upon the submission to Congress of a
certification by the President of the United States that the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters does not have funds
sufficient to conduct a rerun of a 1996 election for the
office of President, General Secretary, Vice-President, or
Trustee of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the
President of the United States may transfer funds from the
Department of Justice and the Department of Labor for the
conduct and oversight of such a rerun election.
(2) Requirement.--Prior to the transfer of funds under
paragraph (1), the International Brotherhood of Teamsters
shall agree to repay the Secretary of the Treasury for the
costs incurred by the Department of Labor and the Department
of Justice in connection with the conduct of an election
described in paragraph (1). Such agreement shall provide that
any such repayment plan be reasonable and practicable, as
determined by the Attorney General and the Secretary of the
Treasury, and be structured in a manner that permits the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters to continue to
operate.
(3) Repayment plan.--The International Brotherhood of
Teamsters shall submit to the President of the United States,
the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, the Majority
and Minority Leaders of the House of Representatives, and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, a plan for the
repayment of amounts described in paragraph (2), at an
interest rate equal to the Federal underpayment rate
established under section 6621(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 as in effect for the calender quarter in which
the plan is submitted, prior to the expenditure of any funds
under this section.
(c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect one day
after enactment of this Act.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Labor
Appropriations Act, 1998''.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Health Resources and Services Administration
health resources and services
For carrying out titles II, III, VII, VIII, X, XII, XVI,
XIX, and XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, section
427(a) of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, title
V of the Social Security Act, and the Health Care Quality
Improvement Act of 1986, as amended, and the Native Hawaiian
Health Care Act of 1988, as amended, $3,449,071,000, of which
$225,000 shall remain available until expended for interest
subsidies on loan guarantees made prior to fiscal year 1981
under part B of title VII of the Public Health Service Act:
Provided, That the Division of Federal Occupational Health
may utilize personal services contracting to employ
professional management/administrative and occupational
health professionals: Provided further, That in addition to
fees authorized by section 427(b) of the Health Care Quality
Improvement Act of 1986, fees shall be collected for the full
disclosure of information under the Act sufficient to recover
the full costs of operating the National Practitioner Data
Bank, and shall remain available until expended to carry out
that Act: Provided further, That no more than $5,000,000 is
available for carrying out the provisions of Public Law 104-
73: Provided further, That of the funds made available under
this heading, $208,452,000 shall be for the program under
title X of the Public Health Service Act to provide for
voluntary family planning projects: Provided further, That
amounts provided to said projects under such title shall not
be expended for abortions, that all pregnancy counseling
shall be nondirective, and that such amounts shall not be
expended for any activity (including the publication or
distribution of literature) that in any way tends to promote
public support or opposition to any legislative proposal or
candidate for public office: Provided further, That
$217,000,000 shall be for State AIDS Drug Assistance Programs
authorized by section 2616 of the Public Health Service Act:
Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, funds made available under this heading may be used to
continue operating the Council on Graduate Medical Education
established by section 301 of Public Law 102-408: Provided
further, That, of the funds made available under this
heading, not more than $6,000,000 shall be made available and
shall remain available until expended for loan guarantees for
loans funded under part A of title XVI of the Public Health
Service Act as amended, made by non-Federal lenders for the
construction, renovation, and modernization of medical
facilities that are owned and operated by health centers, and
for loans made to health centers under section 330(d) of the
Public Health Service Act as amended by Public Law 104-299,
and that such funds be available to subsidize guarantees of
total loan principal in an amount not to exceed $80,000,000:
Provided further, That notwithstanding section 502(a)(1) of
the Social Security Act, not to exceed $103,609,000 is
available for carrying out special projects of regional and
national significance pursuant to section 501(a)(2) of such
Act.
medical facilities guarantee and loan fund
federal interest subsidies for medical facilities
For carrying out subsections (d) and (e) of section 1602 of
the Public Health Service Act, $6,000,000, together with any
amounts received by the Secretary in connection with loans
and loan guarantees under title VI of the Public Health
Service Act, to be available without fiscal year limitation
for the payment of interest subsidies. During the fiscal
year, no commitments for direct loans or loan guarantees
shall be made.
health education assistance loans program
(including transfer of funds)
For the cost of guaranteed loans, such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the purpose of the program, as
authorized by title VII of the Public Health Service Act, as
amended: Provided, That such costs, including the cost of
modifying such loans, shall be
[[Page S9120]]
as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974: Provided further, That these funds are available to
subsidize gross obligations for the total loan principal any
part of which is to be guaranteed at not to exceed
$85,000,000: Provided further, That the Secretary may use up
to $1,000,000 derived by transfer from insurance premiums
collected from guaranteed loans made under title VII of the
Public Health Service Act for the purpose of carrying out
section 709 of that Act. In addition, for administrative
expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan program,
$2,688,000.
vaccine injury compensation program trust fund
For payments from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
Trust Fund, such sums as may be necessary for claims
associated with vaccine-related injury or death with respect
to vaccines administered after September 30, 1988, pursuant
to subtitle 2 of title XXI of the Public Health Service Act,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That for
necessary administrative expenses, not to exceed $3,000,000
shall be available from the Trust Fund to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
disease control, research, and training
To carry out titles II, III, VII, XI, XV, XVII, and XIX of
the Public Health Service Act, sections 101, 102, 103, 201,
202, 203, 301, and 501 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health
Act of 1977, and sections 20, 21 and 22 of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970, title IV of the Immigration
and Nationality Act and section 501 of the Refugee Education
Assistance Act of 1980; including insurance of official motor
vehicles in foreign countries; and hire, maintenance, and
operation of aircraft, $2,317,113,000, of which $23,007,000
shall remain available until expended for equipment and
construction and renovation of facilities, and in addition,
such sums as may be derived from authorized user fees, which
shall be credited to this account: Provided, That in addition
to amounts provided herein, up to $70,063,000 shall be
available from amounts available under section 241 of the
Public Health Service Act, to carry out the National Center
for Health Statistics surveys: Provided further, That none of
the funds made available for injury prevention and control at
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to
advocate or promote gun control: Provided further, That the
Director may redirect the total amount made available under
authority of Public Law 101-502, section 3, dated November 3,
1990, to activities the Director may so designate: Provided
further, That the Congress is to be notified promptly of any
such transfer.
In addition, $51,000,000, to be derived from the Violent
Crime Reduction Trust Fund, for carrying out sections 40151
and 40261 of Public Law 103-322.
National Institutes of Health
national cancer institute
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to cancer, $2,558,377,000.
national heart, lung, and blood institute
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to cardiovascular, lung, and
blood diseases, and blood and blood products, $1,539,898,000.
national institute of dental research
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to dental disease,
$211,611,000.
national institute of diabetes and digestive and kidney diseases
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to diabetes and digestive and
kidney disease, $883,321,000.
national institute of neurological disorders and stroke
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to neurological disorders and
stroke, $781,351,000.
national institute of allergy and infectious diseases
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to allergy and infectious
diseases, $1,359,688,000.
national institute of general medical sciences
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to general medical sciences,
$1,058,969,000.
national institute of child health and human development
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to child health and human
development, $676,870,000.
national eye institute
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to eye diseases and visual
disorders, $357,695,000.
national institute of environmental health sciences
For carrying out sections 301 and 311 and title IV of the
Public Health Service Act with respect to environmental
health sciences, $331,969,000.
national institute on aging
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to aging, $520,705,000.
national institute of arthritis and musculoskeletal and skin diseases
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to arthritis and
musculoskeletal and skin diseases, $272,631,000.
national institute on deafness and other communication disorders
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to deafness and other
communication disorders, $200,428,000.
national institute of nursing research
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to nursing research,
$64,016,000.
national institute on alcohol abuse and alcoholism
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to alcohol abuse and
alcoholism, $228,585,000.
national institute on drug abuse
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to drug abuse, $531,751,000.
national institute of mental health
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to mental health,
$753,334,000.
national human genome research institute
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to human genome research,
$218,851,000.
national center for research resources
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to research resources and
general research support grants, $455,805,000: Provided, That
none of these funds shall be used to pay recipients of the
general research support grants program any amount for
indirect expenses in connection with such grants: Provided
further, That $20,000,000 shall be for extramural facilities
construction grants.
john e. fogarty international center
For carrying out the activities at the John E. Fogarty
International Center, $28,468,000.
national library of medicine
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to health information
communications, $162,825,000, of which $4,000,000 shall be
available until expended for improvement of information
systems: Provided, That in fiscal year 1998, the Library may
enter into personal services contracts for the provision of
services in facilities owned, operated, or constructed under
the jurisdiction of the National Institutes of Health.
office of the director
(including transfer of funds)
For carrying out the responsibilities of the Office of the
Director, National Institutes of Health, $292,196,000 of
which $40,266,000 shall be for the Office of AIDS Research:
Provided, That funding shall be available for the purchase of
not to exceed five passenger motor vehicles for replacement
only: Provided further, That the Director may direct up to 1
percent of the total amount made available in this Act to all
National Institutes of Health appropriations to activities
the Director may so designate: Provided further, That no such
appropriation shall be decreased by more than 1 percent by
any such transfers and that the Congress is promptly notified
of the transfer: Provided further, That NIH is authorized to
collect third party payments for the cost of clinical
services that are incurred in National Institutes of Health
research facilities and that such payments shall be credited
to the National Institutes of Health Management Fund:
Provided further, That all funds credited to the NIH
Management Fund shall remain available for one fiscal year
after the fiscal year in which they are deposited: Provided
further, That up to $500,000 shall be available to carry out
section 499 of the Public Health Service Act: Provided
further, That $13,000,000 shall be available to carry out
section 404E of the Public Health Service Act.
buildings and facilities
For the study of, construction of, and acquisition of
equipment for, facilities of or used by the National
Institutes of Health, including the acquisition of real
property, $203,500,000, to remain available until expended,
of which $90,000,000 shall be for the clinical research
center: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, a single contract or related contracts for the
development and construction of the clinical research center
may be employed which collectively include the full scope of
the project: Provided further, That the solicitation and
contract shall contain the clause ``availability of funds''
found at 48 CFR 52.232-18.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
substance abuse and mental health services
For carrying out titles V and XIX of the Public Health
Service Act with respect to substance abuse and mental health
services, the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill
Individuals Act of 1986, and section 301 of the Public Health
Service Act with respect to program management,
$2,126,643,000 of which $10,000,000 shall be for grants to
rural and Native American projects: Provided, That in
addition to amounts provided herein, up to
[[Page S9121]]
$10,000,000 shall be available from amounts available under
section 241 of the Public Health Service Act, for State-level
data collection activities by the National Household Survey
on Drug Abuse: Provided further, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, each State's allotment for fiscal
year 1998 for each of the programs under subparts I and II of
part B of title XIX of the Public Health Service Act shall be
equal to such State's allotment for such programs for fiscal
year 1997.
retirement pay and medical benefits for commissioned officers
For retirement pay and medical benefits of Public Health
Service Commissioned Officers as authorized by law, and for
payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family Protection
Plan and Survivor Benefit Plan and for medical care of
dependents and retired personnel under the Dependents'
Medical Care Act (10 U.S.C. ch. 55), and for payments
pursuant to section 229(b) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 429(b)), such amounts as may be required during the
current fiscal year.
Agency for Health Care Policy and Research
health care policy and research
For carrying out titles III and IX of the Public Health
Service Act, and part A of title XI of the Social Security
Act, $77,587,000; in addition, amounts received from Freedom
of Information Act fees, reimbursable and interagency
agreements, and the sale of data tapes shall be credited to
this appropriation and shall remain available until expended:
Provided, That the amount made available pursuant to section
926(b) of the Public Health Service Act shall not exceed
$65,000,000.
Health Care Financing Administration
grants to states for medicaid
For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI
and XIX of the Social Security Act, $71,602,429,000, to
remain available until expended.
For making, after May 31, 1998, payments to States under
title XIX of the Social Security Act for the last quarter of
fiscal year 1998 for unanticipated costs, incurred for the
current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
For making payments to States under title XIX of the Social
Security Act for the first quarter of fiscal year 1999,
$27,800,689,000, to remain available until expended.
Payment under title XIX may be made for any quarter with
respect to a State plan or plan amendment in effect during
such quarter, if submitted in or prior to such quarter and
approved in that or any subsequent quarter.
payments to health care trust funds
For payment to the Federal Hospital Insurance and the
Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, as
provided under sections 217(g) and 1844 of the Social
Security Act, sections 103(c) and 111(d) of the Social
Security Amendments of 1965, section 278(d) of Public Law 97-
248, and for administrative expenses incurred pursuant to
section 201(g) of the Social Security Act, $63,581,000,000.
program management
For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI,
XVIII, and XIX of the Social Security Act, titles XIII and
XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, the Clinical
Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, and section 191 of
Public Law 104-191, not to exceed $1,719,241,000 to be
transferred from the Federal Hospital Insurance and the
Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, as
authorized by section 201(g) of the Social Security Act;
together with all funds collected in accordance with section
353 of the Public Health Service Act, the latter funds to
remain available until expended, together with such sums as
may be collected from authorized user fees and the sale of
data, which shall remain available until expended, and
together with administrative fees collected relative to
medicare overpayment recovery activities, which shall remain
available until expended: Provided, That all funds derived in
accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9701 from organizations established
under title XIII of the Public Health Service Act are to be
credited to and available for carrying out the purposes of
this appropriation: Provided further, That $900,000 shall be
for carrying out section 4021 of Public Law 105-33: Provided
further, That in carrying out its legislative mandate, the
National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare
shall examine the role increased investments in health
research can play in reducing future Medicare costs, and the
potential for coordinating Medicare with cost-effective long-
term care services: Provided further, That $54,100,000
appropriated under this heading for the development of,
transition to, and implementation of the Medicare Transaction
System shall remain available until expended: Provided
further, That $2,000,000 of the amount available for
research, demonstration, and evaluation activities shall be
available for carrying out demonstration projects on Medicaid
coverage of community-based attendant care services for
people with disabilities which ensures maximum control by the
consumer to select and manage their attendant care services:
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.
health maintenance organization loan and loan guarantee fund
For carrying out subsections (d) and (e) of section 1308
of the Public Health Service Act, any amounts received by the
Secretary in connection with loans and loan guarantees under
title XIII of the Public Health Service Act, to be available
without fiscal year limitation for the payment of outstanding
obligations. During fiscal year 1998, no commitments for
direct loans or loan guarantees shall be made.
Administration for Children and Families
family support payments to states
For making payments to each State for carrying out the
program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children under
title IV-A of the Social Security Act before the effective
date of the program of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
(TANF) with respect to such State, such sums as may be
necessary: Provided, That the sum of the amounts available to
a State with respect to expenditures under such title IV-A in
fiscal year 1997 under this appropriation and under such
title IV-A as amended by the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 shall not exceed the
limitations under section 116(b) of such Act: 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.
For making, after May 31 of the current fiscal year,
payments to States or other non-Federal entities under titles
I, IV-D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social Security Act and
the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), for the last three
months of the current year for unanticipated costs, incurred
for the current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities
under titles I, IV-D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social
Security Act and the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9),
for the first quarter of fiscal year 1999, $660,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
low income home energy assistance
For making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981, $1,200,000,000, to be available
for obligation in the period October 1, 1998 through
September 30, 1999.
For making payments under title XXVI of such Act,
$300,000,000: Provided, That these funds are hereby
designated by Congress to be emergency requirements pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That these
funds shall be made available only after submission to
Congress of a formal budget request by the President that
includes designation of the entire amount of the request as
an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act.
refugee and entrant assistance
For making payments for refugee and entrant assistance
activities authorized by title IV of the Immigration and
Nationality Act and section 501 of the Refugee Education
Assistance Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-422), $392,332,000:
Provided, That funds appropriated pursuant to section 414(a)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act under Public Law 104-
134 for fiscal year 1996 shall be available for the costs of
assistance provided and other activities conducted in such
year and in fiscal years 1997 and 1998.
child care and development block grant
For carrying out sections 658A through 658R of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (The Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act of 1990), in addition to amounts
already appropriated for fiscal year 1998, $26,120,000; and
to become available on October 1, 1998 and remain available
through September 30, 1999, $1,000,000,000: Provided, That of
funds appropriated for each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999,
$19,120,000 shall be available for child care resource and
referral and school-aged child care activities, of which for
fiscal year 1998 $6,120,000 shall be derived from an amount
that shall be transferred from the amount appropriated under
section 452(j) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 652(j))
for fiscal year 1997 and remaining available for expenditure.
social services block grant
For making grants to States pursuant to section 2002 of the
Social Security Act, $2,245,000,000: Provided, That
notwithstanding section 2003(c) of such Act, as amended, the
amount specified for allocation under such section for fiscal
year 1998 shall be $2,245,000,000.
children and families services programs
(including rescissions)
For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, the Runaway
and Homeless Youth
[[Page S9122]]
Act, the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of
Rights Act, the Head Start Act, the Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act, (including section 105(a)(2) of the Child
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act), the Native American
Programs Act of 1974, title II of Public Law 95-266 (adoption
opportunities), the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of 1988,
part B(1) of title IV and sections 413, 429A and 1110 of the
Social Security Act; for making payments under the Community
Services Block Grant Act; and for necessary administrative
expenses to carry out said Acts and titles I, IV, X, XI, XIV,
XVI, and XX of the Social Security Act, the Act of July 5,
1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1981, title IV of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
section 501 of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980,
and section 126 and titles IV and V of Public Law 100-485,
$5,611,094,000, of which $539,432,000 shall be for making
payments under the Community Services Block Grant Act:
Provided, That to the extent Community Services Block Grant
funds are distributed as grant funds by a State to an
eligible entity as provided under the Act, and have not been
expended by such entity, they shall remain with such entity
for carryover into the next fiscal year for expenditure by
such entity consistent with program purposes: Provided
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 10
percent of any additional funds for Head Start over the
fiscal year 1997 appropriation shall be made available for
Early Head Start programs.
In addition, $93,000,000, to be derived from the Violent
Crime Reduction Trust Fund, for carrying out sections 40155,
40211 and 40241 of Public Law 103-322.
Funds appropriated for fiscal year 1998 under section
429A(e), part B of title IV of the Social Security Act shall
be reduced by $6,000,000.
Funds appropriated for fiscal year 1998 under section
413(h)(1) of the Social Security Act shall be reduced by
$15,000,000.
family preservation and support
For carrying out section 430 of the Social Security Act,
$255,000,000.
payments to states for foster care and adoption assistance
For making payments to States or other non-Federal
entities, under title IV-E of the Social Security Act,
$3,200,000,000.
For making payments to States or other non-Federal
entities, under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, for
the first quarter of fiscal year 1999, $1,157,500,000.
Administration on Aging
aging services programs
For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended, $894,074,000:
Provided, That notwithstanding section 308(b)(1) of such Act,
the amounts available to each State for administration of the
State plan under title III of such Act shall be reduced not
more than 5 percent below the amount that was available to
such State for such purpose for fiscal year 1995: Provided
further, That of the funds appropriated to carry out section
303(a)(1) of such Act, $4,449,000 shall be available for
carrying out section 702(a) of such Act and $4,732,000 shall
be available for carrying out section 702(c) of such Act:
Provided further, That in considering grant applications for
nutrition services for elder Indian recipients, the Assistant
Secretary shall provide maximum flexibility to applicants who
seek to take into account subsistence, local customs, and
other characteristics that are appropriate to the unique
cultural, regional, and geographic needs of the American
Indian, Alaskan and Hawaiian native communities to be served.
Office of the Secretary
general departmental management
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided, for general
departmental management, including hire of six sedans, and
for carrying out titles III, XVII, and XX of the Public
Health Service Act, the United States-Mexico Border Health
Commission Act, and research studies under section 1110 of
the Socal Security Act, $174,588,000, together with
$5,851,000, to be transferred and expended as authorized by
section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act from the
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the Supplemental Medical
Insurance Trust Fund.
office of inspector general
For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $31,921,000.
office for civil rights
For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights,
$16,345,000, together with not to exceed $3,314,000, to be
transferred and expended as authorized by section 201(g)(1)
of the Social Security Act from the Hospital Insurance Trust
Fund and the Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Fund.
policy research
For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided,
research studies under section 1110 of the Social Security
Act, $9,500,000.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Funds appropriated in this title shall be
available for not to exceed $37,000 for official reception
and representation expenses when specifically approved by the
Secretary.
Sec. 202. The Secretary shall make available through
assignment not more than 60 employees of the Public Health
Service to assist in child survival activities and to work in
AIDS programs through and with funds provided by the Agency
for International Development, the United Nations
International Children's Emergency Fund or the World Health
Organization.
Sec. 203. None of the funds appropriated under this Act may
be used to implement section 399L(b) of the Public Health
Service Act or section 1503 of the National Institutes of
Health Revitalization Act of 1993, Public Law 103-43.
Sec. 204. None of the funds appropriated in this Act for
the National Institutes of Health and the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration shall be used to pay
the salary of an individual, through a grant or other
extramural mechanism, at a rate in excess of $125,000 per
year.
Sec. 205. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
expended pursuant to section 241 of the Public Health Service
Act, except for funds specifically provided for in this Act,
or for other taps and assessments made by any office located
in the Department of Health and Human Services, prior to the
Secretary's preparation and submission of a report to the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and of the House
detailing the planned uses of such funds.
Sec. 206. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
obligated or expended for the Federal Council on Aging under
the Older Americans Act or the Advisory Board on Child Abuse
and Neglect under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Act.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 207. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary
funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act, as amended) which are appropriated for the
current fiscal year for the Department of Health and Human
Services in this Act may be transferred between
appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased
by more than 3 percent by any such transfer: Provided, That
the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress are
notified at least fifteen days in advance of any transfer.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 208. The Director of the National Institutes of
Health, jointly with the Director of the Office of AIDS
Research, may transfer up to 3 percent among institutes,
centers, and divisions from the total amounts identified by
these two Directors as funding for research pertaining to the
human immunodeficiency virus: Provided, That the Congress is
promptly notified of the transfer.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 209. Of the amounts made available in this Act for the
National Institutes of Health, the amount for research
related to the human immunodeficiency virus, as jointly
determined by the Director of NIH and the Director of the
Office of AIDS Research, shall be made available to the
``Office of AIDS Research'' account. The Director of the
Office of AIDS Research shall transfer from such account
amounts necessary to carry out section 2353(d)(3) of the
Public Health Service Act.
Sec. 210. Funds appropriated in this Act for the National
Institutes of Health may be used to provide transit subsidies
in amounts consistent with the transportation subsidy
programs authorized under section 629 of Public Law 101-509
to non-FTE bearing positions including trainees, visiting
fellows and volunteers.
comprehensive independent study of nih research priority setting
Sec. 211. (a) Study by the Institute of Medicine.--Not
later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall enter into a
contract with the Institute of Medicine to conduct a
comprehensive study of the policies and process used by the
National Institutes of Health to determine funding
allocations for biomedical research.
(b) Matters To Be Assessed.--The study under subsection (a)
shall assess--
(1) the factors or criteria used by the National Institutes
of Health to determine funding allocations for disease
research;
(2) the process by which research funding decisions are
made;
(3) the mechanisms for public input into the priority
setting process; and
(4) the impact of statutory directives on research funding
decisions.
(c) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date on
which the Secretary of Health and Human Services enters into
the contract under subsection (a), the Institute of Medicine
shall submit a report concerning the study to the Committee
on Labor and Human Resources and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate, and the Committee on Commerce
and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives.
(2) Requirement.--The report under paragraph (1) shall set
forth the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Institute of Medicine for improvements in the National
Institutes of Health research funding policies and processes
and for any necessary congressional action.
(d) Funding.--Of the amount appropriated in this title for
the National Institutes of Health, $300,000 shall be made
available for the study and report under this section.
parkinson's disease research.
Sec. 212. (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as
the ``Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research Act of 1997''.
(b) Finding and Purpose.--
[[Page S9123]]
(1) Finding.--Congress finds that to take full advantage of
the tremendous potential for finding a cure or effective
treatment, the Federal investment in Parkinson's must be
expanded, as well as the coordination strengthened among the
National Institutes of Health research institutes.
(2) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to provide
for the expansion and coordination of research regarding
Parkinson's, and to improve care and assistance for afflicted
individuals and their family caregivers.
(c) Parkinson's Research.--Part B of title IV of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 284 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``parkinson's disease
``Sec. 409B. (a) In General.--The Director of NIH shall
establish a program for the conduct and support of research
and training with respect to Parkinson's disease (subject to
the extent of amounts appropriated under subsection (e)).
``(b) Inter-Institute Coordination.--
``(1) In general.--The Director of NIH shall provide for
the coordination of the program established under subsection
(a) among all of the national research institutes conducting
Parkinson's research.
``(2) Conference.--Coordination under paragraph (1) shall
include the convening of a research planning conference not
less frequently than once every 2 years. Each such conference
shall prepare and submit to the Committee on Appropriations
and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate
and the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on
Commerce of the House of Representatives a report concerning
the conference.
``(c) Morris K. Udall Research Centers.--
``(1) In general.--The Director of NIH shall award Core
Center Grants to encourage the development of innovative
multidisciplinary research and provide training concerning
Parkinson's. The Director shall award not more than 10 Core
Center Grants and designate each center funded under such
grants as a Morris K. Udall Center for Research on
Parkinson's Disease.
``(2) Requirements.--
``(A) In general.--With respect to Parkinson's, each center
assisted under this subsection shall--
``(i) use the facilities of a single institution or a
consortium of cooperating institutions, and meet such
qualifications as may be prescribed by the Director of the
NIH; and
``(ii) conduct basic and clinical research.
``(B) Discretionary requirements.--With respect to
Parkinson's, each center assisted under this subsection may--
``(i) conduct training programs for scientists and health
professionals;
``(ii) conduct programs to provide information and
continuing education to health professionals;
``(iii) conduct programs for the dissemination of
information to the public;
``(iv) separately or in collaboration with other centers,
establish a nationwide data system derived from patient
populations with Parkinson's, and where possible, comparing
relevant data involving general populations;
``(v) separately or in collaboration with other centers,
establish a Parkinson's Disease Information Clearinghouse to
facilitate and enhance knowledge and understanding of
Parkinson's disease; and
``(vi) separately or in collaboration with other centers,
establish a national education program that fosters a
national focus on Parkinson's and the care of those with
Parkinson's.
``(3) Stipends regarding training programs.--A center may
use funds provided under paragraph (1) to provide stipends
for scientists and health professionals enrolled in training
programs under paragraph (2)(B).
``(4) Duration of support.--Support of a center under this
subsection may be for a period not exceeding five years. Such
period may be extended by the Director of NIH for one or more
additional periods of not more than five years if the
operations of such center have been reviewed by an
appropriate technical and scientific peer review group
established by the Director and if such group has recommended
to the Director that such period should be extended.
``(d) Morris K. Udall Awards for Excellence in Parkinson's
Disease Research.--The Director of NIH shall establish a
grant program to support investigators with a proven record
of excellence and innovation in Parkinson's research and who
demonstrate potential for significant future breakthroughs in
the understanding of the pathogensis, diagnosis, and
treatment of Parkinson's. Grants under this subsection shall
be available for a period of not to exceed 5 years.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this section and section 301 and title IV of the
Public Health Service Act with respect to direct Parkinson's
disease research, there are authorized to be appropriated a
total of $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, and such sums as
may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1999 and
2000.''.
comprehensive fetal alcohol syndrome prevention
Sec. 213. (a) Short Title.--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
[[Page S9124]]
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--
``(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.''.
Sec. 214. (a) 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) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect
October 1, 1997.
Sec. 215. (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.
Sec. 216. Subparagraphs (B) and (C) of section 1143(a)(2)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-13(a)(2)(B), (C))
are each amended by striking ``employee'' and inserting
``employer, employee,''.
Sec. 217. (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).
Sec. 218. (a) Study.--Not later than 30 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, in consultation with the General Accounting Office,
shall conduct a comprehensive study concerning efforts to
improve organ and tissue procurement at hospitals. Under such
study, the Secretary shall survey at least 5 percent of the
hospitals who have entered into agreements with an organ
procurement organization required under the Public Health
Service Act and the hospitals' designated organ procurement
organizations to examine--
(1) the differences in protocols for the identification of
potential organ and tissue donors;
(2) whether each hospital, and the designated organ
procurement organization of the hospital, have a system in
place for such identification of donors; and
(3) protocols for outreach to the relatives of potential
organ or tissue donors.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall prepare and submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress a report concerning the study
conducted under subsection (a), that shall include
recommendations on hospital best practices--
(1) that result in the most efficient and comprehensive
identification of organ and tissue donors; and
(2) for communicating with the relatives of potential organ
and tissue donors.
Sec. 219. (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) over 53,000 Americans are currently awaiting organ
transplants;
(2) in 1996, 3,916 people on the transplant waiting list
died because no organs became available for such people;
(3) the number of organ donors has grown slowly over the
past several years, even though there is significant
unrealized donor potential;
(4) a Gallup survey indicated that 85 percent of the
American public supports organ donation, and 69 percent
describe themselves as likely to donate their organs upon
death;
(5) most potential donors are cared for in hospitals with
greater than 350 beds, trauma services, and medical school
affiliations;
[[Page S9125]]
(6) a recent Harvard study showed that hospitals frequently
fail to offer donation services to the families of medically
eligible potential organ donors;
(7) staff and administration in large hospitals often are
not aware of the current level of donor potential in their
institution or the current level of donation effectiveness of
the institution;
(8) under titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq; 1396 et seq.), hospitals that
participate in the medicare or medicaid program are required
to have in place policies to offer eligible families the
option of organ and tissue donation; and
(9) many hospitals have not yet incorporated systematic
protocols for offering donation to eligible families in a
skilled and sensitive way.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that hospitals that have organ or tissue donor potential take
prompt steps to ensure that a skilled and sensitive request
for organ or tissue donation is provided to eligible families
by--
(1) working with the designated organ procurement
organization or other suitable agency to assess donor
potential and performance in their institutions;
(2) establishing protocols for organ donation that
incorporate best-demonstrated practices;
(3) providing education to hospital staff to ensure
adequate skills related to organ and tissue donation;
(4) establishing teams of skilled hospital staff to respond
to potential organ donor situations, ensure optimal
communication with the patient's surviving family, and
achieve smooth coordination of activities with the designated
organ procurement organization; and
(5) monitoring organ donation effectiveness through quality
assurance mechanisms.
protecting victims of family violence
Sec. 220. (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 454(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
unreasonably 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 or 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).
Sec. 221. (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.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Health and
Human Services Appropriations Act, 1998''.
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
education reform
For carrying out activities authorized by titles III and IV
of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, the School-to-Work
Opportunities Act, and sections 3132, 3136, and 3141 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,
$1,271,000,000, of which $530,000,000 for the Goals 2000:
Educate America Act and $200,000,000 for the School-to-Work
Opportunities Act shall become available on July 1, 1998, and
remain available through September 30, 1999: Provided, That
none of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be
obligated or expended to carry out section 304(a)(2)(A) of
the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, except that no more than
$1,500,000 may be used to carry out activities under section
314(a)(2) of that Act: Provided further, That section
315(a)(2) of the Goals 2000 Act shall not apply: Provided
further, That up to one-half of one percent of the amount
available under section 3132 shall be set aside for the
outlying areas, to be distributed on the basis of their
relative need as determined by the Secretary in accordance
with the purposes of the program: Provided further, That if
any State educational agency does not apply for a grant under
section 3132, that State's allotment under section 3131 shall
be reserved by the Secretary for grants to local educational
agencies in that State that apply directly to the Secretary
according to the terms and conditions published by the
Secretary in the Federal Register.
education for the disadvantaged
For carrying out title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, and section 418A of the Higher
Education Act, $7,807,349,000, of which $6,488,271,000 shall
become available on July 1, 1998, and shall remain available
through September 30, 1999, and of which $1,298,386,000 shall
become available on October 1, 1998 and shall remain
available through September 30, 1999, for academic year 1998-
1999: Provided, That $6,273,712,000 shall be available for
basic grants under section 1124: Provided further, That up to
$4,000,000 of these funds shall be available to the Secretary
on October 1, 1997,
[[Page S9126]]
to obtain updated local-educational-agency-level census
poverty data from the Bureau of the Census: Provided further,
That $1,022,020,000 shall be available for concentration
grants under section 1124A, $6,977,000 shall be available for
evaluations under section 1501 and not more than $7,500,000
shall be reserved for section 1308, of which not more than
$3,000,000 shall be reserved for section 1308(d): Provided
further, That grant awards under section 1124 and 1124(A) of
title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act shall
be made to each State or local educational agency at no less
than 100 percent of the amount such State or local
educational agency received under this authority for fiscal
year 1997 under Public Laws 104-208 and 105-18: Provided
further, That in determining State allocations under any
other program administered by the Secretary, amounts provided
under Public Law 105-18, or equivalent amounts provided for
in this bill, will not be taken into account in determining
State allocations.
impact aid
For carrying out programs of financial assistance to
federally affected schools authorized by title VIII of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, $794,500,000,
of which $623,500,000 shall be for basic support payments
under section 8003(b), $80,000,000 shall be for payments for
children with disabilities under section 8003(d),
$52,000,000, to remain available until expended, shall be for
payments under section 8003(f), $5,000,000 shall be for
construction under section 8007, and $24,000,000 shall be for
Federal property payments under section 8002 and $10,000,000,
to remain available until expended, shall be for facilities
maintenance under section 8008.
school improvement programs
For carrying out school improvement activities authorized
by titles II, IV-A-1 and 2, V-A and B, VI, IX, X, XII and
XIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965;
the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act; and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964; $1,482,293,000, of which
$1,206,278,000 shall become available on July 1, 1998, and
remain available through September 30, 1999: Provided, That
of the amount appropriated, $310,000,000 shall be for
Eisenhower professional development State grants under title
II-B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
$310,000,000 shall be for innovative education program
strategies State grants under title VI-A of said Act and
$750,000 shall be for an evaluation of comprehensive regional
assistance centers under title XIII of said Act: 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.
Indian education
For expenses necessary to carry out, to the extent not
otherwise provided, title IX, part A of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, and section 215
of the Department of Education Organization Act, $62,600,000.
bilingual and immigrant education
For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided,
bilingual, foreign language and immigrant education
activities authorized by parts A and C and section 7203 of
title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
without regard to section 7103(b), $354,000,000: Provided,
That State educational agencies may use all, or any part of,
their part C allocation for competitive grants to local
educational agencies: Provided further, That the Department
of Education should only support instructional programs which
ensure that students completely master English in a timely
fashion (a period of three to five years) while meeting
rigorous achievement standards in the academic content areas.
special education
For carrying out the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, $4,958,073,000, of which $4,713,112,000 shall
become available for obligation on July 1, 1998, and shall
remain available through September 30, 1999: Provided, That
$1,500,000 of the funds provided shall be for secton
687(b)(2)(G), and shall remain available until expended.
rehabilitation services and disability research
For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Technology-Related Assistance
for Individuals with Disabilities Act, and the Helen Keller
National Center Act, as amended, $2,591,286,000.
Special Institutions for Persons With Disabilities
american printing house for the blind
For carrying out the Act of March 3, 1879, as amended (20
U.S.C. 101 et seq.), $7,906,000.
National technical institute for the deaf
For the National Technical Institute for the Deaf under
titles I and II of the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20
U.S.C. 4301 et seq.), $44,141,000: Provided, That from the
amount available, the Institute may at its discretion use
funds for the endowment program as authorized under section
207.
gallaudet university
For the Kendall Demonstration Elementary School, the Model
Secondary School for the Deaf, and the partial support of
Gallaudet University under titles I and II of the Education
of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.),
$81,000,000: Provided, That from the amount available, the
University may at its discretion use funds for the endowment
program as authorized under section 207.
vocational and adult education
For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education
Act and the Adult Education Act and the National Literacy Act
of 1991, $1,487,698,000, of which $1,484,598,000 shall become
available on July 1, 1998 and shall remain available through
September 30, 1999; and of which $5,491,000 from amounts
available under the Adult Education Act shall be for the
National Institute for Literacy under section 384(c) which
shall be derived from unobligated Pell Grant funds: Provided,
That, of the amounts made available for title II of the Carl
D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act,
$13,497,000 shall be used by the Secretary for national
programs under title IV, without regard to section 451:
Provided further, That the Secretary may reserve up to
$4,998,000 under section 313(d) of the Adult Education Act
for activities carried out under section 383 of that Act:
Provided further, That no funds shall be awarded to a State
Council under section 112(f) of the Carl D. Perkins
Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act, and no State
shall be required to operate such a Council.
student financial assistance
For carrying out subparts 1, 3, and 4 of part A, part C and
part E of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended, $8,556,641,000, which shall remain available through
September 30, 1999: Provided, That, $35,000,000 shall be
available for State Student Incentive grants derived from
unobligated balances: 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.
The maximum Pell Grant for which a student shall be
eligible during award year 1998-1999 shall be $3,000:
Provided, That notwithstanding section 401(g) of the Act, if
the Secretary determines, prior to publication of the payment
schedule for such award year, that the amount included within
this appropriation for Pell Grant awards in such award year,
and any funds available from the fiscal year 1997
appropriation for Pell Grant awards, are insufficient to
satisfy fully all such awards for which students are
eligible, as calculated under section 401(b) of the Act, the
amount paid for each such award shall be reduced by either a
fixed or variable percentage, or by a fixed dollar amount, as
determined in accordance with a schedule of reductions
established by the Secretary for this purpose.
federal family education loan program account
For Federal administrative expenses to carry out guaranteed
student loans authorized by title IV, part B, of the Higher
Education Act, as amended, $46,482,000.
higher education
For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided,
parts A and B of title III, without regard to section
360(a)(1)(B)(ii), titles IV, V, VI, VII, and IX, and part A
and subpart 1 of parts B and E of title X and title XI of the
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, part G of title XV
of Public Law 102-325, the Mutual Educational and Cultural
Exchange Act of 1961, and Public Law 102-423; $929,752,000,
of which $13,700,000 for interest subsidies under title VII
of the Higher Education Act shall remain available until
expended: Provided, That funds available for part D of title
IX of the Higher Education Act shall be available to fund new
and noncompeting continuation awards for academic year 1998-
1999 for fellowships awarded originally under part C of title
IX of said Act, under the terms and conditions of part C.
howard university
For partial support of Howard University (20 U.S.C. 121 et
seq.), $198,000,000: Provided, That not less than $3,530,000,
shall be for a matching endowment grant pursuant to the
Howard University Endowment Act (Public Law 98-480) and shall
remain available until expended.
college housing and academic facilities loans program
For Federal administrative expenses to carry out
activities related to facility loans
[[Page S9127]]
entered into under title VII, part C and section 702 of the
Higher Education Act, as amended, $698,000.
historically black college and university capital financing, program
account
The total amount of bonds insured pursuant to section 724
of title VII, part B of the Higher Education Act shall not
exceed $357,000,000, and the cost, as defined in section 502
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of such bonds shall
not exceed zero.
For administrative expenses to carry out the Historically
Black College and University Capital Financing Program
entered into pursuant to title VII, part B of the Higher
Education Act, as amended, $104,000.
education research, statistics, and improvement
For carrying out activities authorized by the Educational
Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act of
1994, including part E; the National Education Statistics Act
of 1994; section 2102 of title II, and parts B, C, and D of
title III, and parts A, B, I, and K and section 10601 of
title X, and part C of title XIII of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, and title VI of
Public Law 103-227, $362,225,000.
child literacy initiative
For carrying out a child literacy initiative, $260,000,000,
which shall become available on October 1, 1998 and shall
remain available through September 30, 1999 only if
specifically authorized by subsequent legislation enacted by
April 1, 1998.
institute of museum and library services
For carrying out subtitle B of the Museum and Library
Services Act, $146,369,000, of which $15,455,000 shall be for
national leadership grants, notwithstanding section
221(a)(1)(B).
Departmental Management
program administration
For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Department of Education Organization Act, including rental of
conference rooms in the District of Columbia and hire of two
passenger motor vehicles, $340,064,000: Provided, That
$1,100,000 shall be used for the Millennium 2000 project.
office for civil rights
For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights, as
authorized by section 203 of the Department of Education
Organization Act, $57,522,000.
office of the inspector general
For expenses necessary for the Office of the Inspector
General, as authorized by section 212 of the Department of
Education Organization Act, $32,000,000.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. No funds appropriated in this Act may be used for
the transportation of students or teachers (or for the
purchase of equipment for such transportation) in order to
overcome racial imbalance in any school or school system, or
for the transportation of students or teachers (or for the
purchase of equipment for such transportation) in order to
carry out a plan of racial desegregation of any school or
school system.
Sec. 302. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be
used to require, directly or indirectly, the transportation
of any student to a school other than the school which is
nearest the student's home, except for a student requiring
special education, to the school offering such special
education, in order to comply with title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. For the purpose of this section an
indirect requirement of transportation of students includes
the transportation of students to carry out a plan involving
the reorganization of the grade structure of schools, the
pairing of schools, or the clustering of schools, or any
combination of grade restructuring, pairing or clustering.
The prohibition described in this section does not include
the establishment of magnet schools.
Sec. 303. No funds appropriated under this Act may be used
to prevent the implementation of programs of voluntary prayer
and meditation in the public schools.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 304. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary
funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act, as amended) which are appropriated for the
Department of Education may be transferred between
appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased
by more than 3 percent by any such transfer: Provided, That
the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress are
notified at least fifteen days in advance of any transfer.
Sec. 305. 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. 306. 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 threats to the personal safety of the students.
Sec. 307. 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.
Sec. 308. (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.
Sec. 309. (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 additional funds 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 prompt action should
be taken by the authorizing committees to--
(1) make the change in the needs analysis for Federal Pell
Grants for independent and for dependent students; and
(2) enact legislation and authorize the funds needed to
cover the cost of the changes for a $260,000,000 child
literacy initiative.
(c) It is the sense of the Senate that the maximum level
possible of fiscal year 1998 funding should be achieved in
the appropriations conference committee.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Education
Appropriations Act, 1998''.
TITLE IV--RELATED AGENCIES
Armed Forces Retirement Home
For expenses necessary for the Armed Forces Retirement Home
to operate and maintain the United States Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home and the United States Naval Home, to be paid
from funds available in the Armed Forces Retirement Home
Trust Fund, $65,452,000, of which $10,000,000 shall remain
available until expended for construction and renovation of
the physical plants at the United States Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home and the United States Naval Home.
Corporation for National and Community Service
domestic volunteer service programs, operating expenses
For expenses necessary for the Corporation for National
and Community Service to carry out the provisions of the
Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, as amended,
$232,604,000.
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
For payment to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as
authorized by the Communications Act of 1934, an amount which
shall be available within limitations specified by that Act,
for the fiscal year 2000, $300,000,000: Provided, That no
funds made available to the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting by this Act shall be used to pay for receptions,
parties, or similar forms of entertainment for Government
officials or employees: Provided further, That none of the
funds contained in this paragraph shall be available or used
to aid or support any program or activity from which any
person is excluded, or is denied benefits, or is
discriminated against, on the basis of race, color, national
origin, religion, or sex.
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service to carry out
[[Page S9128]]
the functions vested in it by the Labor Management Relations
Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 171-180, 182-183), including hire of
passenger motor vehicles; and for expenses necessary for the
Labor-Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a);
and for expenses necessary for the Service to carry out the
functions vested in it by the Civil Service Reform Act,
Public Law 95-454 (5 U.S.C. chapter 71), $33,481,000,
including $1,500,000, to remain available through September
30, 1999, for activities authorized by the Labor-Management
Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a): Provided, That
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, fees charged, up to full-cost
recovery, for special training activities and for arbitration
services shall be credited to and merged with this account,
and shall remain available until expended: Provided further,
That fees for arbitration services shall be available only
for education, training, and professional development of the
agency workforce: Provided further, That the Director of the
Service is authorized to accept on behalf of the United
States gifts of services and real, personal, or other
property in the aid of any projects or functions within the
Director's jurisdiction.
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Review Commission (30 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), $6,060,000.
National Commission on Libraries and Information Science
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the National Commission on
Libraries and Information Science, established by the Act of
July 20, 1970 (Public Law 91-345, as amended by Public Law
102-95), $1,000,000.
National Council on Disability
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the National Council on
Disability as authorized by title IV of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, as amended, $1,793,000.
National Education Goals Panel
For expenses necessary for the National Education Goals
Panel, as authorized by title II, part A of the Goals 2000:
Educate America Act, $2,000,000.
National Labor Relations Board
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the National Labor Relations
Board to carry out the functions vested in it by the Labor-
Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended (29 U.S.C. 141-
167), and other laws, $174,661,000: Provided, That no part of
this appropriation shall be available to organize or assist
in organizing agricultural laborers or used in connection
with investigations, hearings, directives, or orders
concerning bargaining units composed of agricultural laborers
as referred to in section 2(3) of the Act of July 5, 1935 (29
U.S.C. 152), and as amended by the Labor-Management Relations
Act, 1947, as amended, and as defined in section 3(f) of the
Act of June 25, 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203), and including in said
definition employees engaged in the maintenance and operation
of ditches, canals, reservoirs, and waterways when maintained
or operated on a mutual, nonprofit basis and at least 95 per
centum of the water stored or supplied thereby is used for
farming purposes: Provided further, That none of the funds
made available by this Act shall be used in any way to
promulgate a final rule (altering 29 CFR part 103) regarding
single location bargaining units in representation cases.
National Mediation Board
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Railway Labor Act, as amended (45 U.S.C. 151-188), including
emergency boards appointed by the President, $8,600,000:
Provided, That unobligated balances at the end of fiscal year
1998 not needed for emergency boards shall remain available
for other statutory purposes through September 30, 1999.
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the Occupational Safety and
Health Review Commission (29 U.S.C. 661), $7,800,000.
Physician Payment Review Commission
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary to carry out section 1845(a) of the
Social Security Act, $3,508,000, to be transferred to this
appropriation from the Federal Supplementary Medical
Insurance Trust Fund.
Prospective Payment Assessment Commission
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary to carry out section 1886(e) of the
Social Security Act, $3,507,000, to be transferred to this
appropriation from the Federal Hospital Insurance and the
Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds.
Railroad Retirement Board
dual benefits payments account
For payment to the Dual Benefits Payments Account,
authorized under section 15(d) of the Railroad Retirement Act
of 1974, $205,500,000, which shall include amounts becoming
available in fiscal year 1998 pursuant to section
224(c)(1)(B) of Public Law 98-76; and in addition, an amount,
not to exceed 2 percent of the amount provided herein, shall
be available proportional to the amount by which the product
of recipients and the average benefit received exceeds
$205,500,000: Provided, That the total amount provided herein
shall be credited in 12 approximately equal amounts on the
first day of each month in the fiscal year.
federal payments to the railroad retirement accounts
For payment to the accounts established in the Treasury for
the payment of benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act for
interest earned on unnegotiated checks, $50,000, to remain
available through September 30, 1999, which shall be the
maximum amount available for payment pursuant to section 417
of Public Law 98-76.
limitation on administration
For necessary expenses for the Railroad Retirement Board
for administration of the Railroad Retirement Act and the
Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, $87,728,000, to be
derived in such amounts as determined by the Board from the
railroad retirement accounts and from moneys credited to the
railroad unemployment insurance administration fund.
limitation on the office of inspector general
For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General
for audit, investigatory and review activities, as authorized
by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, not more
than $5,394,000, to be derived from the railroad retirement
accounts and railroad unemployment insurance account.
Social Security Administration
payments to social security trust funds
For payment to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
and the Federal Disability Insurance trust funds, as provided
under sections 201(m), 228(g), and 1131(b)(2) of the Social
Security Act, $20,308,000.
special benefits for disabled coal miners
For carrying out title IV of the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Act of 1977, $426,090,000, to remain available until
expended.
For making, after July 31 of the current fiscal year,
benefit payments to individuals under title IV of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, for costs incurred in the
current fiscal year, such amounts as may be necessary.
For making benefit payments under title IV of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act 1977 for the first quarter of
fiscal year 1999, $160,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
supplemental security income program
For carrying out titles XI and XVI of the Social Security
Act, section 401 of Public Law 92-603, section 212 of Public
Law 93-66, as amended, and section 405 of Public Law 95-216,
including payment to the Social Security trust funds for
administrative expenses incurred pursuant to section
201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act, $16,162,525,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That any portion
of the funds provided to a State in the current fiscal year
and not obligated by the State during that year shall be
returned to the Treasury: 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.
From funds provided under the previous paragraph, not less
than $100,000,000 shall be available for payment to the
Social Security trust funds for administrative expenses for
conducting continuing disability reviews.
In addition, $175,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 1999, for payment to the Social Security trust
funds for administrative expenses for continuing disability
reviews as authorized by section 103 of Public Law 104-121
and Supplemental Security Income administrative work as
authorized by Public Law 104-193. The term ``continuing
disability reviews'' means reviews and redeterminations as
defined under section 201(g)(1)(A) of the Social Security
Act, as amended, and reviews and redeterminations authorized
under section 211 of Public Law 104-193.
For making, after June 15 of the current fiscal year,
benefit payments to individuals under title XVI of the Social
Security Act, for unanticipated costs incurred for the
current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
For making benefit payments under title XVI of the Social
Security Act for the first quarter of fiscal year 1999,
$8,680,000,000, to remain available until expended.
limitation on administrative expenses
For necessary expenses, including the hire of two passenger
motor vehicles, and not to exceed $10,000 for official
reception and representation expenses, not more than
$5,937,708,000 may be expended, as authorized by section
201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act, from any one or all of
the trust funds referred to therein: Provided, That not less
than $1,268,000 shall be for the Social Security Advisory
Board: Provided further, That unobligated balances at the end
of fiscal year 1998 not needed for fiscal year 1998 shall
remain available until expended for a state-of-the-art
computing network, including related equipment and non-
payroll administrative expenses associated solely with this
network.
[[Page S9129]]
From funds provided under the previous paragraph, not less
than $200,000,000 shall be available for conducting
continuing disability reviews.
In addition to funding already available under this
heading, and subject to the same terms and conditions,
$290,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1999,
for continuing disability reviews as authorized by section
103 of Public Law 104-121, section 10203 of Public Law 105-33
and Supplemental Security Income administrative work as
authorized by Public Law 104-193. The term ``continuing
disability reviews'' means reviews and redeterminations as
defined under section 201(g)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act
as amended, and reviews and redeterminations authorized under
section 211 of Public Law 104-193.
In addition to funding already available under this
heading, and subject to the same terms and conditions,
$200,000,000, which shall remain available until expended, to
invest in a state-of-the-art computing network, including
related equipment and non-payroll administrative expenses
associated solely with this network, for the Social Security
Administration and the State Disability Determination
Services, may be expended from any or all of the trust funds
as authorized by section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security
Act.
In addition, $35,000,000 to be derived from administration
fees in excess of $5.00 per supplementary payment collected
pursuant to section 1616(d) of the Social Security Act or
section 212(b)(3) of Public Law 93-66, which shall remain
available until expended. To the extent that the amounts
collected pursuant to such section 1616(d) or 212(b)(3) in
fiscal year 1998 exceed $35,000,000, the amounts shall be
available in fiscal year 1999 only to the extent provided in
advance in appropriations Acts.
office of inspector general
(including transfer of funds)
For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $6,265,000, together with not to exceed
$31,089,000, to be transferred and expended as authorized by
section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act from the Federal
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal
Disability Insurance Trust Fund.
In addition, an amount not to exceed 3 percent of the total
provided in this appropriation may be transferred from the
``Limitation on Administrative Expenses'', Social Security
Administration, to be merged with this account, to be
available for the time and purposes for which this account is
available: Provided, That notice of such transfers shall be
transmitted promptly to the Committees on Appropriations of
the House and Senate.
United States Institute of Peace
operating expenses
For necessary expenses of the United States Institute of
Peace as authorized in the United States Institute of Peace
Act, $11,160,000.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. The Secretaries of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education are authorized to transfer unexpended
balances of prior appropriations to accounts corresponding to
current appropriations provided in this Act: Provided, That
such transferred balances are used for the same purpose, and
for the same periods of time, for which they were originally
appropriated.
Sec. 502. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 503. (a) No part of any appropriation contained in
this Act shall be used, other than for normal and recognized
executive-legislative relationships, for publicity or
propaganda purposes, for the preparation, distribution, or
use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet, publication, radio,
television, or video presentation designed to support or
defeat legislation pending before the Congress or any State
legislature, except in presentation to the Congress or any
State legislature itself.
(b) No part of any appropriation contained in this Act
shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant or
contract recipient, or agent acting for such recipient,
related to any activity designed to influence legislation or
appropriations pending before the Congress or any State
legislature.
Sec. 504. The Secretaries of Labor and Education are each
authorized to make available not to exceed $15,000 from funds
available for salaries and expenses under titles I and III,
respectively, for official reception and representation
expenses; the Director of the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service is authorized to make available for
official reception and representation expenses not to exceed
$2,500 from the funds available for ``Salaries and expenses,
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service''; and the
Chairman of the National Mediation Board is authorized to
make available for official reception and representation
expenses not to exceed $2,500 from funds available for
``Salaries and expenses, National Mediation Board''.
Sec. 505. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
no funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to carry
out any program of distributing sterile needles for the
hypodermic injection of any illegal drug unless the Secretary
of Health and Human Services determines that such programs
are effective in preventing the spread of HIV and do not
encourage the use of illegal drugs.
Sec. 506. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and
Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available in this Act should be
American-made.
(b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance
to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using
funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal
agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to
such entity a notice describing the statement made in
subsection (a) by the Congress.
(c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling
Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency that any person
intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America''
inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any
product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not
made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to
receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made
available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension,
and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400
through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 507. When issuing statements, press releases, requests
for proposals, bid solicitations and other documents
describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part
with Federal money, all grantees receiving Federal funds
included in this Act, including but not limited to State and
local governments and recipients of Federal research grants,
shall clearly state (1) the percentage of the total costs of
the program or project which will be financed with Federal
money, (2) the dollar amount of Federal funds for the project
or program, and (3) percentage and dollar amount of the total
costs of the project or program that will be financed by
nongovernmental sources.
Sec. 508. (a) None of the funds appropriated under this Act
shall be expended for any abortion.
(b) None of the funds appropriated under this Act shall be
expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage
of abortion.
(c) The term ``health benefits coverage'' means the package
of services covered by a managed care provider or
organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.
Sec. 509. (a) The limitations established in the preceding
section shall not apply to an abortion--
(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or
incest; or
(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical
disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a
life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from
the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a
physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an
abortion is performed.
(b) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as
prohibiting the expenditure by a State, locality, entity, or
private person of State, local, or private funds (other than
a State's or locality's contribution of medicaid matching
funds) for abortion services or coverage of abortion by
contract or other arrangement.
(c) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as
restricting the ability of any managed care provider or
organization from offering abortion coverage or the ability
of a State or locality to contract separately with such a
provider for such coverage with State funds (other than a
State's or locality's contribution of medicaid matching
funds).
Sec. 510. Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
(1) no amount may be transferred from an appropriation
account for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education except as authorized in this or any
subsequent appropriation Act, or in the Act establishing the
program or activity for which funds are contained in this
Act;
(2) no department, agency, or other entity, other than the
one responsible for administering the program or activity for
which an appropriation is made in this Act, may exercise
authority for the timing of the obligation and expenditure of
such appropriation, or for the purpose for which it is
obligated and expended, except to the extent and in the
manner otherwise provided in sections 1512 and 1513 of title
31, United States Code; and
(3) no funds provided under this Act shall be available for
the salary (or any part thereof) of an employee who is
reassigned on a temporary detail basis to another position in
the employing agency or department or in any other agency or
department, unless the detail is independently approved by
the head of the employing department or agency.
Sec. 511. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enforce the requirements of section
428(b)(1)(U)(iii) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 with
respect to any lender when it is made known to the Federal
official having authority to obligate or expend such funds
that the lender has a loan portfolio under part B of title IV
of such Act that is equal to or less than $5,000,000.
Sec. 512. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used for--
(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research
purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are
destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of
injury or death greater than that allowed for research on
fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and section 498(b)
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).
[[Page S9130]]
(b) For purposes of this section, the term ``human embryo
or embryos'' include any organism, not protected as a human
subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of
this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis,
cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or
human diploid cells.
Sec. 513. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds for Promotion of
Legalization of Controlled Substances.--None of the funds
made available in this Act may be used for any activity when
it is made known to the Federal official having authority to
obligate or expend such funds that the activity promotes the
legalization of any drug or other substance included in
schedule I of the schedules of controlled substances
established by section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act
(21 U.S.C. 812).
(b) Exceptions.--The limitation in subsection (a) shall not
apply when it is made known to the Federal official having
authority to obligate or expend such funds that there is
significant medical evidence of a therapeutic advantage to
the use of such drug or other substance or that Federally-
sponsored clinical trials are being conducted to determine
therapeutic advantage.
Sec. 514. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be obligated or expended to enter into or renew a contract
with an entity when it is made known to the Federal official
having authority to obligate or expend such funds that--
(1) such entity is otherwise a contractor with the United
States and is subject to the requirement in section 4212(d)
of title 38, United States Code, regarding submission of an
annual report to the Secretary of Labor concerning employment
of certain veterans; and
(2) such entity has not submitted a report as required by
that section for the most recent year for which such
requirement was applicable to such entity.
Sec. 515. (a) Fees for Federal Administration of State
Supplementary SSI Payments.--
(1) Optional state supplementary payments.--
(A) In general.--Section 1616(d)(2)(B) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1382e(d)(2)(B)) is amended--
(i) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (iii); and
(ii) by striking clause (iv) and inserting the following:
``(iv) for fiscal year 1997, $5.00;
``(v) for fiscal year 1998, $6.20;
``(vi) for fiscal year 1999, $7.60;
``(vii) for fiscal year 2000, $7.80;
``(viii) for fiscal year 2001, $8.10;
``(ix) for fiscal year 2002, $8.50; and
``(x) for fiscal year 2003 and each succeeding fiscal
year--
``(I) the applicable rate in the preceding fiscal year,
increased by the percentage, if any, by which the Consumer
Price Index for the month of June of the calendar year of the
increase exceeds the Consumer Price Index for the month of
June of the calendar year preceding the calendar year of the
increase, and rounded to the nearest whole cent; or
``(II) such different rate as the Commissioner determines
is appropriate for the State.''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Section 1616(d)(2)(C) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 1382e(d)(2)(C)) is amended by striking
``(B)(iv)'' and inserting ``(B)(x)(II)''.
(2) Mandatory state supplementary payments.--
(A) In general.--Section 212(b)(3)(B)(ii) of Public Law 93-
66 (42 U.S.C. 1382 note) is amended--
(i) by striking ``and'' at the end of subclause (III); and
(ii) by striking subclause (IV) and inserting the
following:
``(IV) for fiscal year 1997, $5.00;
``(V) for fiscal year 1998, $6.20;
``(VI) for fiscal year 1999, $7.60;
``(VII) for fiscal year 2000, $7.80;
``(VIII) for fiscal year 2001, $8.10;
``(IX) for fiscal year 2002, $8.50; and
``(X) for fiscal year 2003 and each succeeding fiscal
year--
``(aa) the applicable rate in the preceding fiscal year,
increased by the percentage, if any, by which the Consumer
Price Index for the month of June of the calendar year of the
increase exceeds the Consumer Price Index for the month of
June of the calendar year preceding the calendar year of the
increase, and rounded to the nearest whole cent; or
``(bb) such different rate as the Commissioner determines
is appropriate for the State.''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Section 212(b)(3)(B)(iii) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 1382 note) is amended by striking
``(ii)(IV)'' and inserting ``(ii)(X)(bb)''.
(b) Use of New Fees To Defray the Social Security
Administration's Administrative Expenses.--
(1) Credit to special fund for fiscal year 1998 and
subsequent years.--
(A) Optional state supplementary payment fees.--Section
1616(d)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1382e(d)(4))
is amended to read as follows:
``(4)(A) The first $5 of each administration fee assessed
pursuant to paragraph (2), upon collection, shall be
deposited in the general fund of the Treasury of the United
States as miscellaneous receipts.
``(B) That portion of each administration fee in excess of
$5, and 100 percent of each additional services fee charged
pursuant to paragraph (3), upon collection for fiscal year
1998 and each subsequent fiscal year, shall be credited to a
special fund established in the Treasury of the United States
for State supplementary payment fees. The amounts so
credited, to the extent and in the amounts provided in
advance in appropriations Acts, shall be available to defray
expenses incurred in carrying out this title and related
laws.''.
(B) Mandatory state supplementary payment fees.--Section
212(b)(3)(D) of Public Law 93-66 (42 U.S.C. 1382 note) is
amended to read as follows:
``(D)(i) The first $5 of each administration fee assessed
pursuant to subparagraph (B), upon collection, shall be
deposited in the general fund of the Treasury of the United
States as miscellaneous receipts.
``(ii) The portion of each administration fee in excess of
$5, and 100 percent of each additional services fee charged
pursuant to subparagraph (C), upon collection for fiscal year
1998 and each subsequent fiscal year, shall be credited to a
special fund established in the Treasury of the United States
for State supplementary payment fees. The amounts so
credited, to the extent and in the amounts provided in
advance in appropriations Acts, shall be available to defray
expenses incurred in carrying out this section and title XVI
of the Social Security Act and related laws.''.
(2) Limitations on authorization of appropriations.--From
amounts credited pursuant to section 1616(d)(4)(B) of the
Social Security Act and section 212(b)(3)(D)(ii) of Public
Law 93-66 to the special fund established in the Treasury of
the United States for State supplementary payment fees, there
is authorized to be appropriated an amount not to exceed
$35,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, and such sums as may be
necessary for each fiscal year thereafter, for administrative
expenses in carrying out the supplemental security income
program under title XVI of the Social Security Act and
related laws.
Sec. 516. Section 520(c)(2)(D) of Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997, is amended by striking
``September 30, 1997'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``December 31, 1997''.
Sec. 517. Of the budgetary resources available to agencies
funded in this Act for salaries and expenses during fiscal
year 1998, $75,500,000, to be allocated by the Office of
Management and Budget, are permanently canceled: Provided
further, That this provision shall not apply to the Food and
Drug Administration and the Indian Health Service.
Sec. 518. 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.
Sec. 519. (a) General Limitation.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, if any attorneys' fees are paid (on
behalf of attorneys for the plaintiffs or defendants) in
connection with an action maintained by a State against one
or more tobacco companies to recover tobacco-related medicaid
expenditures or for other causes of action involved in the
national tobacco settlement agreement, such fees shall--
(1) not be paid at a rate that exceeds $250 per hour; and
(2) be limited to a total of $5,000,000.
(b) Fee Arrangements.--Subsection (a) shall apply to
attorneys' fees provided for or in connection with an action
of the type described in such subsection under any--
(1) court order;
(2) settlement agreement;
(3) contingency fee arrangement;
(4) arbitration procedure;
(5) alternative dispute resolution procedure (including
mediation); or
(6) other arrangement providing for the payment of
attorneys' fees.
(c) Expenses.--The limitation described in subsection (a)
shall not apply to any amounts provided for the attorneys'
reasonable and customary expenses.
(d) Requirements.--No award of attorneys' fees shall be
made under any national tobacco settlement until the
attorneys involved have--
(1) provided to the Governor of the appropriate State, a
detailed time accounting with respect to the work performed
in relation to any legal action which is the subject of the
settlement or with regard to the settlement itself; and
(2) made public disclosure of the time accounting under
paragraph (1) and any fee agreements entered into, or fee
arrangements made, with respect to any legal action that is
the subject of the settlement.
(e) Provision of Funds for Children's Health Research.--Any
amounts provided for attorneys' fees in excess of the
limitation applicable under this section shall be paid into
the Treasury for use by the National Institutes of Health for
research relating to children's health.
(f) Effective Date.--The limitation on the payment of
attorneys' fees contained in this section shall become
effective on the date of enactment of any Act providing for a
national tobacco settlement.
Sec. 520. 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;
[[Page S9131]]
(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
$368,500,000,000 in payments from tobacco manufacturers over
the next 25 years, and not all of this amount has been
specifically earmarked by the agreement; and
(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 $368,500,000,000 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.
Sec. 521. Nothing in this Act may be construed to interfere
with, or abrogate, any agreement previously entered into
between any State and any private attorney or attorneys with
respect to litigation involving tobacco.
Sec. 522. It is the sense of the Senate that attorneys'
fees paid in connection with an action maintained by a State
against one or more tobacco companies to recover tobacco-
related costs affected by Federal tobacco settlement
legislation should be publicly disclosed and should not
displace spending in the settlement legislation intended for
public health.
Sec. 523. (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 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;
(J) to carry out part K of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965;
(K) to carry out subpart 5 of part A of title IV of the
Higher Education Act of 1965; or
(L) to carry out title I 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 subsection (a) 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.
(2) 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.
(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), the Secretary shall
compute the amount awarded to each local educational agency
serving the State of Alaska or Hawaii by multiplying the base
line amount determined under paragraph (2) for the local
educational agency by a factor of 1.00.
(e) If the total amount of funds described in subsection
(b) that are made available to carry out subsection (a) 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 subsection (a), 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)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Education shall award the total amount of funds
made available under this Act to carry out title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 for fiscal
year 1998 directly to local educational agencies in
accordance with paragraph (2) to enable the local educational
agencies to support programs or activities for kindergarten
through grade 12 students that the local educational agencies
deem appropriate.
(2) Each local educational agency shall receive an amount
awarded under this subsection that bears the same relation to
the total amount of funds made available under this Act to
carry out title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 for fiscal year 1998 as the number of children
counted under section 1124(c) of such Act for the local
educational agency for fiscal year 1997 bears to the total
number of students so counted for all local educational
agencies for fiscal year 1997.
(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,
the total amount awarded to local educational agencies in
each State under this section shall not be less than the net
dollars that States would have received absent the provisions
of this section.
(i) 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
(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.
Sec. 524. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Office of Educational Research and Improvement shall
submit to
[[Page S9132]]
the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate a spending plan
for activities funded under this title under the heading
``Education Research, Statistics, and Improvement'', prior to
the obligation of the funds.
(b)(1) 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) (hereafter in this section referred to as the
``Board'') shall hereafter have exclusive authority over all
policies, direction, and guidelines for establishing and
implementing voluntary national tests for 4th grade English
reading and 8th grade mathematics: Provided, That the tests
shall be made available to a State, local educational agency,
or private or parochial school, upon the request of the
State, agency, or school, and the use of the tests shall not
be a condition for receiving any Federal funds: Provided
further, That within 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Board shall review the national test
development contract in effect on the date of enactment of
this Act, and modify the contract as the Board determines
necessary: Provided further, That if the contract cannot be
modified to the extent determined necessary by the Board, the
contract shall be terminated and the Board shall negotiate a
new contract, under the Board's exclusive control, for the
tests.
(2) In exercising the Board's responsibilities under
paragraph (1) regarding the national tests, and
notwithstanding any action undertaken by the Department of
Education or a person contracting with or providing services
for the Department regarding the planning, or the development
of specifications, for the tests, the Board shall--
(A) ensure that the content and standards for the tests are
the same as the content and standards for the National
Assessment;
(B) exercise exclusive authority over any expert panel or
advisory committee that will be or is established with
respect to the tests;
(C) ensure that the tests are linked to the National
Assessment to the maximum degree possible;
(D) develop test objectives, test specifications, and test
methodology;
(E) develop policies for test administration, including
guidelines for inclusion of, and accommodations for, students
with disabilities and students with limited English
proficiency;
(F) develop policies for reporting test results, including
the use of standards or performance levels, and for test use;
(G) have final authority over the appropriateness of all
test items;
(H) ensure that all items selected for use on the tests are
free from racial, cultural, or gender bias; and
(I) take such actions and make such policies as the Board
determines necessary.
(c) No State or local educational agency may require any
private or parochial school student, or home-schooled
individual, to take any test developed under this Act without
the written consent of the student or individual.
(d) Section 412 of the National Education Statistics Act of
1994 (20 U.S.C. 9011) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1)--
(A) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
``(A) three Governors, or former Governors, of whom not
more than 1 shall be a member of the same political party as
the President;'';
(B) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
``(B) two State legislators, of whom not more than 1 shall
be a member of the same political party as the President;'';
(C) in subparagraph (H), by striking ``one representative''
and inserting ``three representatives'';
(D) by amending subparagraph (I) to read as follows:
``(I) two mayors, of whom not more than 1 shall be a member
of the same political party as the President;'';
(E) by striking subparagraph (J); and
(F) by redesignating subparagraphs (K), (L), and (M) as
subparagraphs (J), (K), and (L), respectively;
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and may not exceed a
period of 3'' and inserting ``and shall be for periods of
4''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``consecutive'' after
``two'';
(3) by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:
``(d) Vacancies.--As vacancies on the Board occur, new
members of the Board shall be appointed by the Secretary from
among individuals who are nominated by the Board after
consultation with representatives of the individuals
described in subsection (b)(1). For each vacancy, the Board
shall nominate at least 3 individuals who are qualified by
experience or training to fill the particular Board
vacancy.''; and
(4) in subsection (e) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Independence.--In the exercise of its functions,
powers, and duties, the Board shall be independent of the
Secretary and the other offices and officers of the
Department. The Secretary shall, by written delegation of
authority, authorize the Board to award grants and contracts,
and otherwise operate, to the maximum extent practicable,
independent of the Department.''.
(e) Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Education, in consultation with
the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives, and the Majority Leader and Minority Leader
of the Senate, shall appoint individuals to fill vacancies on
the National Assessment Governing Board caused by the
expiration of the terms of members of the Board, or the
creation of new membership positions on the Board pursuant to
amendments made by this Act.
This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1998''.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague,
Senator Harkin, for his cooperation on this bill and the outstanding
staff: Bettilou Taylor, Craig Higgins, Jim Sourwine, Jack Chow, Dale
Cabaniss, for the majority, and the outstanding work on the minority
side by Marsha Simon and Ellen Murray. I thank the leadership of
Senator Lott--who is right here--and has been here at all times.
I believe the passage of this bill is noteworthy. We had great
problems passing a separate appropriations bill on Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education for fiscal year 1996. We were not able to
get floor action on a bill until April 1996. It should have been
finished on September 30, 1995. We finally broke that logjam with an
amendment, which Senator Harkin and I had offered, for an additional
$2.6 billion for education and training programs. That legislation was
then folded into the omnibus appropriations bill. So we did not have a
regular Labor, HHS and Education appropriations bill for fiscal year
1996.
Then the fiscal year 1997 bill was not considered separately by the
Senate. Instead, funding was included in an Omnibus appropriations bill
that was significantly written by the administration and leadership. I
said at that time that I thought the process was inappropriate. Our
constitutional system is to have Congress deliberate and pass the bills
and then submit them to the White House for approval or veto.
This year we were able to complete it the regular Labor, HHS and
Education appropriations bill. It took a fair amount of time. We
started on September 2. Senator Lott brought us back at 11 o'clock the
day after Labor Day. We now mark its conclusion. I am delighted. I also
thank the distinguished minority leader, the Democratic leader. We have
concluded action on an important bill. I thank the Chair and yield the
floor.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I join with my colleague, my chairman,
Senator Specter, in commending, first of all, the staff for all the
wonderful work they did in pulling this bill together. I especially
want to thank Craig Higgins, Bettilou Taylor, Jack Chow, Jim Sourwine
of Senator Specter's staff. And our staff on our side: Ellen Murray and
Marsha Simon.
This is a very complex, very big bill. It took us a long time to get
it through. The Senate worked its will, and we did finish action on the
bill. For the most part, I think it is a good bill, and I think it does
move us in the right direction. There is a lot of good stuff in there
for children's health, preventive health care measures. There are good
provisions in there dealing with human services. For the most part,
there are a lot of good items in there that will advance the cause of
education in this country.
However, I must once again, Mr. President, for the record state that
the adoption of the Gorton amendment basically does away with all the
targeted programs that this Congress has supported on a bipartisan
basis for so long; things like vocational education, bilingual
education, education technology, and some of the newer ones, like Goals
2000. These are all done away with by the Gorton amendment.
What it says is we are going to take all this money and it goes to
the local education agencies without any restrictions whatsoever. I am
concerned that this was not widely known by a number of Senators when
the vote was taken, and what also was not widely known, I don't
believe, is that we have always had a cap, a limitation on how much
money could be spent for administration.
That has been even more heavily supported on the Republican side than
the Democratic side, and yet that is removed. So the money that we have
said should go out to States for vocational education will now go to a
local education agency, and they can do whatever they want with it.
They can build
[[Page S9133]]
a swimming pool. They can pay their superintendents whatever they want.
They can take, not the 5-percent cap we have on administration, they
can say we want to use 20 percent for administration.
Also, we have said in the past that these moneys should be used to
supplement, not supplant, State efforts. That is taken away. So what
can happen is all the money we put out to an area now that normally
would go for vocational education or education technology or safe and
drug-free schools, all of that money now doesn't have to be used for
that, and the State can say, ``OK, we're not going to put the money in,
we'll just use the Federal dollars and we'll take our money for roads,
bridges'' and whatever else the State wants to do with their money,
thus downgrading the amount of funds that actually go into education.
I know it was said by the Senator from Washington, ``Well, not all
knowledge resides in Washington; do we know what to do best in local
school districts? The answer to that, obviously, is no. Keep in mind
this money is not forced on the States. We are just saying this is
Federal tax money that we vote to collect. And, yes, we do have a right
and an obligation under the Constitution of the United States to decide
how that money is to be spent.
We don't have the obligation or the right to decide how States spend
their own State tax dollars, but we certainly do have the right and the
constitutional obligation to decide how we spend Federal tax dollars.
And that's what we said. We want it spent on vocational education. We
want it spent on safe and drug-free schools. Those programs have been
supported widely on both sides of the aisle.
We have also said we don't want more than 5 percent of that money to
go to administrative costs, which has been widely supported on both
sides of the aisle. That is all taken away by the Gorton amendment.
Mr. President, I talked with a number of my colleagues on this side
of the aisle--certainly not all of them--but a great number of them
prior to the vote on final passage. While I voted for final passage of
the bill, because there is a lot more good than bad in it, I must state
for the record that if, in fact, this provision is not dropped in
conference, if we don't have the votes to drop it in conference, if it
comes back from conference, as the minority manager on this bill, I am
going to vote against it.
I hope that the President will send strong signals that he will veto
this bill if this provision remains in the bill because it would do
away with years and years of what we have done to focus attention on
areas of education, like vocational education, safe and drug-free
schools, education technology and others, that we thought were so
necessary in order to move this country forward. I just hope this
provision will be dropped in conference and that we can come back and
support the bill out of conference with the same strong vote that we
had here.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
____________________