[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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.

                          ____________________