[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 156 (Saturday, November 8, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12088-S12094]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to comment 
on the agreement that has been entered into on national tests. Do I 
need to have time yielded?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, you would.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.

[[Page S12089]]

  Mr. BINGAMAN. I appreciate the time very much.
  Thank you, Mr. President.


                       Voluntary National Testing

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just comment on the agreement 
that has been reached on the issue of national tests and is part of the 
conference report that we are getting ready to vote on.
  After weeks of delay, and essentially a campaign of misinformation 
waged against voluntary national tests, we now have an agreement that 
will allow parents to know how their children are really doing in 
school. And they will be able to know that as soon as the 1999-2000 
school year.
  As my colleagues know, people who paid attention on this issue, I 
have long advocated developing voluntary national education tests. And 
despite the firestorm of controversy that has erupted here on Capitol 
Hill in the last week or two, the vast majority of Americans have 
always thought that this was a good idea. Why should we continue to 
fumble around in the dark trying to guess what is wrong with our 
educational system when we can simply turn on the light and see for 
ourselves?
  For these reasons, I worked with others here in the Senate to 
negotiate the initial Senate compromise that we approved here by a vote 
of 87 to 13. I worked with my colleagues to ensure that the Labor-HHS 
conferees knew how important it was to have new tests that States could 
use if they chose to as soon as possible. Here on the floor I have done 
my best to describe the myths and the realities of what national 
testing is all about.
  As a result, I am glad to report that an agreement on moving forward 
with developing new tests has been finalized.
  In essence, this new agreement does four things.
  First, it transfers control over development and administration of 
voluntary national tests to the National Assessment Governing Board. 
That was part of what we discussed and proposed here in the Senate 
version of the legislation. And I think that was a very good proposal. 
So I am very glad to see that in this final bill.
  Second, it calls on the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a 
study about whether it is feasible to link State and commercial tests 
to the rigorous National Assessment of Educational Progress.
  Third, it allows for development of new national test items aligned 
with the National Assessment in the areas of 4th grade reading and 8th 
grade math.
  And, fourth, it eliminates any prohibition against future 
implementation of the new tests without prior congressional 
authorization.
  In my view, there are two main benefits to this agreement.
  First, transferring control to this National Assessment Governing 
Board, NAGB, takes the same approach as the Senate compromise. This 
ensures that the tests are controlled by an independent and bipartisan 
agency with a proven record of administering national assessments.
  The second benefit of this agreement is that it removes any explicit 
requirement for future congressional authorization before 
implementation of testing. Making sure that the tests are available to 
be used is one of the most important objectives here. There is no point 
in having shiny new tests ready and on the shelf if States and 
districts and parents who want to use those are prohibited from doing 
so. This agreement puts the burden of blocking any implementation of 
national tests on those who would oppose States and school districts 
and parents from using them when they want to.
  In my view, these provisions are all reasonable steps to take. They 
allow the process to go forward. They establish a level playing field 
for authorizers and appropriators during any future disputes about the 
implementation of national tests next year. And they provide 
reassurances against inventing a wheel that we have already invented 
before.
  Let me make a few additional statements though about the agreement.
  First, I want to clarify that, in fact, the agreement does allow the 
development of national testing to go forward this year. The 
development of fourth grade reading and eighth grade math exams based 
on the National Assessment of Educational Progress will go forward 
during the upcoming school year. Starting in the next fiscal year, this 
National Assessment Governing Board can begin piloting and field 
testing these items, which are necessary steps for implementing the 
tests in the spring of 2000.

  Second, I would like to lower people's expectations about the 
proposed study of the feasibility of linking State and commercial tests 
to this National Assessment. That is because the current hodgepodge of 
State and commercial tests cannot replace a uniform national test and 
are almost certainly not comparably vigorous to the National Assessment 
of Educational Progress.
  Few of the current State tests require more than 10th grade learning 
levels. The percentage of students who score proficiently in the 
National Assessment of Education Progress on any given subject is 
usually much lower than the percentage of students who pass a State 
exam or a commercial exam.
  A series of studies and reports over the past two decades, have shown 
that linking State or commercial tests is a costly and an uncertain 
undertaking. In the end, the National Academy of Sciences study will 
most likely reiterate the need for a voluntary national test.
  Third, I would like to say that it is unfortunate that the opponents 
of voluntary national testing did not allow the agreement to include as 
many protections against discriminatory uses of the tests or bias or 
other safeguards for poor and minority students as were in the Senate 
version of the test proposal that we negotiated here. Coming from a 
State with many poor and minority students, I am committed to ensuring 
that any new tests are fair to all who take them.
  Overall, I would have to say that this agreement brings us closer to 
the day when we will have a national yardstick to measure students' 
academic progress and gauge how well our education system is doing, and 
not just the system overall, but be able to gauge how the system is 
doing on a State by State basis or a district by district basis.
  I know that there are those who oppose this effort who still fear 
that voluntary national tests will undercut local control. I myself 
would have preferred to move faster than this bill will move us. But I 
am glad that the commonsense potential of developing these measures now 
seems clear to all and that we can finally move forward.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Specter and Senator 
Harkin for giving education the high priority it deserves in the fiscal 
year 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
appropriations conference report, and I give it my strong support.
  We all know the serious challenges we face in improving public 
education and increasing access to college. Enrollments in elementary 
and secondary schools have reached an all-time high of 52 million 
children this year, and will continue to rise in the years ahead. Forty 
percent of fourth graders score below the basic level in reading, and 
fewer than 30 percent score in the advanced category. Yet our modern 
economy and the country's future depend more and more heavily on well-
trained people.
  This bill increases funding for Federal education programs by $3.4 
billion over last year to help provide young children with a good 
education and help more qualified students go to college.
  The bill provides a $1.5 billion increase in Pell grants to help an 
additional 210,000 young people attend college, and increases the 
maximum Pell grant from $2,700 to $3,000.
  The bill increases funding for title I by $200 million to help 
disadvantaged students get the extra help they need to improve their 
math and reading skills.
  The Education Technology Literacy Challenge Fund is more than 
doubled, from $200 million to $425 million. The technology innovation 
challenge grants receive $106 million, an increase of $49 million, to 
help teachers learn to use technology effectively and help 
schoolchildren prepare for the 21st century. The highly successful Star 
Schools Program will receive $34 million to continue to provide 
educational services to remote and underserved areas.

[[Page S12090]]

  The bill also increases Head Start funding by $375 million, including 
$279 million for the Early Head Start Program, to help more preschool 
children reach school ready to learn.
  Special education receives $775 million more than last year to help 
more children with disabilities get a good, appropriate education.
  The bill also contains a compromise on the issue of testing. Despite 
the efforts of many parents, schools, and communities to improve 
education, too many schools in communities across the country are 
educating in the dark. They have no way to compare the performance of 
their students with students in other schools in other communities in 
other parts of the country. We know that by every current indicator, 
the performance of American elementary and secondary school students 
falls far short of the performance of students in many other countries. 
We have to do better, and knowing where schools and students now stand 
is an essential part of helping them do better.
  This bill addresses these issues by including a fair compromise on 
President Clinton's proposal for voluntary national tests based on 
widely recognized national standards, so that parents, communities, and 
schools will have a better guide for improving local education. The 
voluntary national tests will be designed to test fourth grade reading 
and eighth grade math--two basic subjects at two critical times in 
students' academic development.

  Parents want to know how well their children are doing and how well 
their schools are doing, compared to other students and schools across 
the Nation.
  Voluntary national tests are an effective way to support local school 
reform, and I commend the conferees for their decision to move forward 
on these tests.
  This bill takes another step forward in higher education, too, by 
creating the Emergency Student Loan Consolidation Act. I commend 
Senator Jeffords for his leadership in continuing to make paying for 
college easier for more students.
  The Emergency Student Loan Consolidation Act reflects Congress's 
concern for students who have been unable to consolidate their loans in 
the direct loan program due to problems with the Department of 
Education's contractor. The act responds by opening up consolidation 
under the bank loan program to students who have direct loans. It does 
so without undermining the Department of Education's ability to pay for 
the administration of the loan programs.
  The act contains important nondiscrimination provisions that will 
help prevent lenders from choosing to allow consolidation of loans only 
for the most profitable borrowers. We will have an opportunity to do 
more on nondiscrimination during the reauthorization of the Higher 
Education Act, but this bill is a good step toward making loans truly 
available to all students.
  The act also makes an important adjustment in the needs analysis 
calculation, so that needy students will benefit more effectively from 
the President's new education tax credits. Students who benefit from 
the HOPE tax credit and the life-long learning tax credit should not be 
penalized in their eligibility for future Federal financial aid. This 
change will help approximately 70,000 needy students, and it is an 
important part of this act.
  In addition to these advances in education, I also commend Senators 
Specter and Harkin for including increased funding for important 
health, energy, and biomedical research programs.
  This year's spending bill provides more funds for the Ryan White AIDS 
Program and the Community and Migrant Health Program.
  It provides $1.1 billion in fiscal year 1999 for LIHEAP, which will 
enable this program to serve thousands of additional senior citizens, 
the disabled, and working families by providing them with heating and 
cooling assistance.
  And it provides an increase of $907 million over last year for the 
National Institutes of Health. These investments in biomedical research 
hold great promise for the Nation to cure or prevent illnesses, and can 
also be an important factor in finding a long-term solution to the 
fiscal problems facing Medicare.
  One of the few major problems with the conference report is that it 
retains the ban on using any Labor Department funds in the bill to 
oversee the forthcoming Teamsters election. That election is a rerun of 
the 1996 election conducted under government supervision as part of the 
important ongoing effort to free the Teamsters from domination by 
organized crime. The 1996 election was cancelled because of fundraising 
improprieties by both sides driving the election campaign. A Federal 
court has ordered a rerun of the election, and Labor Department funds 
should be available to supervise it.
  The conference report is also disappointing in its funding of the 
National Labor Relations Board, which is frozen at last year's level. 
This result will require the agency to lay off 50 employees, and will 
hamper its ability to process its pending cases. There is no 
justification for Congress to disrupt the Nation's industrial relations 
in this way.
  There are many worthwhile provisions in this bill, and I intend to 
support it. But I hope that in action early next year, we can 
reconsider these unwise provisions and achieve a more satisfactory 
resolution.


                                DIABETES

  Mr. DOMENICI. I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of 
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, 
and Education, Senator Specter, in a discussion about certain details 
of the fiscal year 1998 funding for the Centers for Disease Control 
[CDC] and Indian Health Service [IHS] regarding American Indians and 
diabetes.
  Mr. SPECTER. I would be happy to respond to the Senator from New 
Mexico about the intentions of my committee with regard to funding 
diabetes programs for American Indians through the CDC. I am also 
interested in his ideas about coordinating efforts between the CDC and 
the IHS.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Earlier this year, I wrote to you about my interest in 
establishing a national diabetes prevention research center in Gallup, 
NM.
  Mr. SPECTER. Yes, Senator Domenici, I recall your letter of June 26, 
1997.
  Mr. DOMENICI. In that letter, I requested $8 million for CDC to 
establish a national diabetes prevention research center. It is my 
primary intention to see this center begin a serious and vigorous 
effort to control the diabetes epidemic among American Indians through 
greatly improved, culturally relevant diagnosis and prevention, with 
preliminary attention to the Navajo Tribe and the Zuni Pueblo near 
Gallup, New Mexico. I believe CDC is the best agency in our Government 
to lead this very specialized task. I also hope to find better 
prevention strategies that will benefit the large Hispanic population 
of the city of Gallup, the States of New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and 
California, and minority communities nationwide. I am also hopeful that 
the prevention research conducted in Gallup would be a major benefit 
for the large population of African-Americans who have this disease.
  Mr. SPECTER. I certainly agree that prevention research is a very 
specialized field that must prove itself to be culturally relevant and 
attractive, or it will be meaningless. It is also my understanding that 
diabetes is rampant among American Indians and getting worse. The rate 
is almost three times as high among Indians as it is among all 
Americans. The national rates of diabetes among Hispanics, Blacks, and 
Asians are also among the highest in the Nation, and are about double 
the rate among Americans as a whole.
  Mr. DOMENICI. When I held a hearing about the seriousness of diabetes 
among Navajo and Zuni Indians, and Hispanics in the Gallup area, I was 
pleased to learn that there are relatively inexpensive ways--such as 
the monofilament device for testing circulation in the feet--to detect 
diabetes at an a early stage. We want to incorporate early detection 
into our prevention activities, so that the Indian populations most 
susceptible to this disease will have better diagnostic information as 
early as possible.
  Among the Navajo Indians, we are told that 40 percent of all Navajo 
Indians are diagnosed as diabetic, and this high rate is among known 
cases. The sad truth is that testing is very sparse in the remote areas 
of the Navajo Nation. Some experts fear that the rate could actually be 
nearly twice as high,

[[Page S12091]]

if better outreach were performed. I view the Gallup center as the 
national center for finding better ways to improve outreach and 
diagnosis among native Americans. The earlier a person knows about the 
onset of diabetes, the more can be done to prevent it.
  Mr. SPECTER. I concur with the Senator's observations.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would like my colleagues to know that I met with 
Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala in my office about 
the seriousness of this epidemic among American Indians. The Secretary 
offered her own plan to establish this diabetes prevention research 
center in Gallup, NM. She recommended ``a single $8 million per year, 
multiyear award for a large-scale, coordinated primary, secondary, and 
tertiary prevention effort among the Navajo, who have a large 
population with a high incidence of diabetes and risk factors for 
diabetes.''
  Her support for the Gallup research center came as welcome news. In 
working with the CDC, we have obtained an estimate of at least $2 
million for the first year startup costs for this center. The 
Senate committee report on this bill specifically mentions the Gallup 
prevention research center. Would the chairman agree that the conferees 
intended to target at least this amount for the first year costs of 
establishing to Gallup center?

  Mr. SPECTER. Yes, I would agree that the increase in funding for CDC 
for fiscal year 1998, includes sufficient funds for this purpose, and 
the House has concurred with the Senate's intention to do so. The 
conferees intend to increase both prevention and treatment activities 
among native Americans. The final bill also contains at least $2 
million for CDC programs among native Americans. In addition to this 
general Indian funding, I believe the Senate report clarifies our 
intention to fund the Gallup prevention research center in the first 
year from fiscal year 1998 funds. This program would then continue as 
envisioned by Secretary Shalala on a multiyear basis.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I Thank the chairman for these important clarifications 
of congressional intent in this final Labor-HHS-Education 
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. I would like to add one final 
comment about the Balanced Budget Act of 1998. In that act, signed by 
the President, we included $30 million annually for the prevention and 
treatment of diabetes among American Indians for the next 5 years.
  As most American Indians with serious diabetes problems live on or 
near the reservations, we have allocated $30 million per year for 
enhancing the prevention and treatment of diabetes through the Indian 
Health Service of the Public Health Service in the U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services.
  I have written to Secretary Shalala asking her support for partial 
funding of the Gallup center from this Balanced Budget Act allotment. 
While I have not received a definitive answer yet, I remain optimistic 
that the Secretary will see the value of directing the IHS to 
coordinate its prevention efforts with the CDC through the Gallup 
center. Does the chairman concur with this strategy?
  Mr. SPECTER. I commend the Senator from New Mexico for his thoughtful 
and coordinated approach to the problems of diabetes for minorities, 
especially American Indians. I concur that CDC and IHS would be an 
invaluable combination at the Gallup prevention research center.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chairman for his thoughts on this vital 
coordination issue. I am convinced that the IHS could improve the 
effectiveness of its outreach and prevention efforts, funded in the 
Balanced Budget Act, by using the most current information and 
prevention strategies developed at the national diabetes prevention 
research center in Gallup, New Mexico.
  Mr. SPECTER. As the Senator from New Mexico has suggested, I would 
hope that IHS would invite the CDC to participate in developing 
meaningful prevention strategies at the Gallup research center with 
funds from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. I would add that the 
resources of the National Institutes of Health [NIH] and the National 
Center for Genome Research would be other valuable resources for both 
the CDC and the IHS to incorporate into their efforts.
  I thank the Senator from new Mexico for his coordinated efforts to 
bring immediate assistance to American Indians, especially the Navajo 
and Zuni Indians in the Gallup area. I believe this diabetes prevention 
research effort in Gallup will benefit the Pueblo Indians, Apaches, and 
other Indian tribes nationwide.
  I fully support Senator Domenici's efforts to start and maintain 
funding for the national diabetes prevention research center in Gallup, 
NM, funded by both CDC and IHS resources as we have discussed.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished Chairman, and I look forward 
to working with him again next year to continue our progress in funding 
vital programs for controlling the epidemic of diabetes among American 
Indians and other minorities.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of 
the subcommittee in a colloquy regarding the statement of the managers 
on fiscal year 1998 Labor Department appropriations. During the debate 
on S. 1061, I brought to the attention of the chairman an important 
project that is making a difference in the lives of poor people in two 
cities in my State and in many other cities across the country. The 
Community Employment Alliance [CEA], sponsored by the Enterprise 
Foundation, is working with community development corporations, State 
and local governments and the private sector to provide a range of 
employment and training and job creation service to welfare recipients. 
I appreciated the support of the chairman in urging the Department of 
Labor to give full consideration for application by the Enterprise 
Foundation to provide funding for the Community Employment Alliance.
  Mr. SPECTER. I want to thank the Senator from Texas for all her 
efforts to gain the support of the conference committee for this 
important project and for the work the Community Employment Alliance 
and the Enterprise Foundation are doing in welfare to work. I am 
pleased to inform the Senator that the statement of the managers 
accompanying the conference report includes a reference to the 
Community Employment Alliance and urges the Department of Labor to give 
careful consideration to a proposal for funding.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference 
report to accompany the fiscal year 1998 Labor, HHS, and Education 
appropriations bills, but I am also sadly disappointed in the actions 
of the other body concerning my amendment to clarify the family 
violence option.
  The conference report before us today in the result of a bipartisan 
effort that focused on the priorities important to American families; 
education, a safe work place, biomedical research and disease 
prevention, child care, Headstart, and low-income energy assistance. I 
was proud to work with my colleagues in producing this conference 
report. I want to thank Chairman Specter and Senator Harkin for their 
willingness to work with all of us in negotiating a final bill with the 
other body. I also want to thank both of them for including many of my 
priorities in this final legislation.
  I am pleased that we were able to increase our commitment to the 
Older Americans Act programs, breast and cervical cancer research, 
heart disease prevention, literacy, child care, Headstart, and maintain 
a strong Federal role in education. I know that in a balanced budget 
framework meeting these priorities was a difficult task and am grateful 
for the leadership shown by Senators Specter and Harkin.
  While I worked to ensure the enactment of important increases in our 
investment in our future, I am sadly disappointed that this final 
conference report does not include my amendment to protect victims of 
domestic violence and abuse from the harsh punitive requirements called 
for in welfare reform. Despite a 98 to 1 vote in the Senate, 
Republicans on the conference committee from the other body, refused to 
help victims of family violence from continued abuse. This is a big 
loss that will come back and haunt us as the States begin full 
implementation of their welfare reform plans.
  The Republicans in the other body seemed more concerned about grossly 
incorrect statements made by the

[[Page S12092]]

chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Human Resources. It was interesting to see that the 
chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee felt it necessary to 
attend the final conference meeting to ensure that there was no further 
effort to give States the flexibility that they need to truly help 
those victims of domestic violence.
  In a letter to the conferees, the chairman of the House Ways and 
Means Committee concluded that the way to break the cycle of violence 
was to improve the self esteem of moms; this could only be accomplished 
through work. This statement in itself explains the difficulty I have 
had in getting this amendment enacted into law. There appear to be some 
Members of Congress who firmly believe that domestic violence is the 
fault of the woman.
  I will ask that this letter be printed in the Record so that the 
American public can see how some Members of Congress view family 
violence and abuse.
  While I am disappointed in the lack of consensus on my amendment, I 
am pleased to report that as a result of the courage shown by the 
Senate and the public debate conducted on my amendment, the chairman of 
the Human Resources Subcommittee in the other body has pledged his 
support for hearings on this important initiative. I am also inserting 
a copy of his letter to me stating his intention to hold these 
hearings. I intend to hold him to this commitment and am hopeful that 
hearings will be held early in 1998. Depending upon the status of these 
hearings, I intend on maintaining my strategy of offering this 
amendment to each and every appropriate legislative vehicle. I will not 
give up until this amendment is adopted. The stakes are simply too 
high. The lives of too many women and children are at stake.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      Committee on Ways and Means,


                                     House of Representatives,

                               Washington, DC, September 26, 1997.
     Hon. John Edward Porter,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, 
         and Education, Washington, DC.
       Dear John: We want to draw your attention to a provision 
     added to the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill in 
     the Senate that we strongly oppose. Senator Murray and 
     several others offered a floor amendment concerning domestic 
     violence that received nearly unanimous support. 
     Unfortunately, this amendment does not, as claimed 
     ``clarify'' a provision of last year's historic welfare 
     reform bill but instead would have the effect of gutting the 
     reform.
       As nearly as we can tell, every Member of Congress and 
     virtually every American citizen abhors domestic violence. 
     Every level of government already has strong laws, including 
     criminal laws, designed to deal with the perpetrators of 
     domestic violence. Moreover, in the last decade or so, the 
     nation has made significant progress both in increasing 
     awareness of this serious problem and inventing both civic 
     and governmental responses to the problem.
       But fighting domestic violence by adopting a national 
     policy of exempting welfare mothers, who may have been 
     abused, from the work requirements and time limits of welfare 
     reform is not a wise policy. First, we cannot understand how 
     keeping mothers dependent on welfare can help them achieve 
     independence from an abusive partner. There may be some 
     exceptions to the rule, but in the vast majority of cases 
     women who can support themselves and their children have a 
     much better chance of escaping an abusive relationship. In 
     recent years, Congress has enacted generous non-welfare 
     benefits including tax credits, expanded health coverage; and 
     more day care, all of which are designed to help women with 
     children become self-supporting. The domestic violence trap 
     can only be broken when mothers improve their self-esteem 
     through work. Thus, exempting these mothers from the work 
     requirements and time limits seems to be precisely the wrong 
     thing to do.
       Second, states already can exempt 75 percent of their 
     caseload from the work requirement in the first year. Even 
     when the work requirement is fully implemented in 2002, 
     states will still be able to exempt half of their caseload. 
     If in some special circumstances a mother involved in an 
     abusive relationship would be helped by being temporarily 
     exempted from the work requirement, states have plenty of 
     room under existing law to provide the exemption. Similarly, 
     the 5-year limitation on benefits is drafted so that states 
     can exempt up to 20 percent of their caseload from the 
     requirement.
       Thus, under current law, states already enjoy a great deal 
     of flexibility that can be used to address the needs of 
     individual mothers. To allow states to ignore all cases in 
     which abuse is involved is to invite them to destroy both the 
     work requirement and the time limit. We have seen numerous 
     claims that the original welfare reform bill intended to 
     allow states to exempt these cases without counting them 
     against the ceiling on work and time limit exemptions. As the 
     authors of the original bill and the bill finally enacted by 
     Congress and signed by the President, we want to clear up 
     this myth. Such exemptions were never intended. Indeed, every 
     time they have been proposed, we have fought them. Given the 
     widespread and widely recognized success of the welfare 
     reform bill, we believe a change of this magnitude would be 
     exceptionally destructive--especially when the justification 
     for making the change is so weak.
       Finally, House and Senate rules prohibit legislating 
     appropriation bills. We all know that when there is 
     bipartisan agreement and the committee of jurisdiction agrees 
     with an authorization provision, we tend to overlook these 
     rules. But we are informing you in the most direct terms that 
     we strongly oppose this Senate action. If there is any doubt 
     about whether this provision will be removed from the 
     conference report, we would like to be informed at the 
     earliest moment so we can take this issue to the House and 
     Senate Leadership.
       Thanks for your personal help and the help of your staff on 
     this issue.
           Sincerely,
     E. Clay Shaw, Jr.,
       Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources.
     Bill Archer,
       Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, 
           Subcommittee on Human Resources
                                 Washington, DC, October 29, 1997.
     Hon. Patty Murray,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Murray and Specter: I am writing to you about 
     the Murray/Wellstone amendment concerning domestic violence 
     to the FY 1998 Labor, HHS and Education appropriations bill.
       As nearly as I can tell, every Member of Congress and 
     virtually every American citizen abhors domestic violence. 
     Every level of government already has strong laws, including 
     criminal laws, designed to deal with the perpetrators of 
     domestic violence. Moreover, in the last decade or so, the 
     nation has made significant progress both in increasing 
     awareness of this serious problem and inventing both civic 
     and governmental responses to the problem.
       The Murray/Wellstone amendment continues this tradition of 
     both drawing attention to the issue of domestic violence and 
     creating special conditions for those who have been abused. 
     Nonetheless, there are several procedural and substantive 
     reasons why this proposal should not be included in the 
     Labor, HHS appropriations bill. First, the provision violates 
     House rules against legislating on an appropriations bill. 
     Second, it is against regular order to make such significant 
     changes without committee input. Finally, the Ways and Means 
     Committee has never had a hearing on the Murray/Wellstone 
     amendment, so it is unclear whether this change is needed or 
     what its unanticipated consequences might be.
       It is also important to note that, while the Murray/
     Wellstone amendment would allow states to exempt an unlimited 
     number of victims of domestic violence from the welfare 
     reform law's time limits and work requirements, current law 
     already exempts 70 percent of the caseload from work 
     requirements and 20 percent from the 5-year time limit. 
     States already have the discretion to include any or all 
     victims of domestic violence under these exemptions.
       Each of these factors argues against including the Murray/
     Wellstone amendment in the bill currently before the 
     conference committee. However, as Chairman of the 
     Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and 
     Means, I am offering to convene a subcommittee hearing on 
     this topic early in the next session, provided that the 
     Murray/Wellstone amendment is withdrawn from consideration by 
     the Labor, HHS conference committee. I would expect and look 
     forward to your appearing as the first witnesses at this 
     hearing.
       I appreciate your consideration of this offer, and look 
     forward to your response.
           Sincerely,
                                                     E. Clay Shaw,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to address a matter in the Labor-
HHS Appropriations Conference Report that is of great interest to me. 
Would the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Specter, be 
willing to clarify a matter contained in the conference report?
  Mr. SPECTER. I would be happy to respond to an inquiry from my friend 
from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, an amendment offered by Senator Kennedy 
and myself providing the Department of Education with $1.1 million to

[[Page S12093]]

begin planning efforts for Nation's celebration of the millennium was 
adopted by the Senate during consideration of the Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill. These funds were requested by the Department of 
Education and were to be offset within the Department. However, it is 
my understanding that this language was deleted without prejudice 
during conference.
  Mr. SPECTER. That is correct. However, $1 million in funding was 
included in the Department of Education's program administration budget 
to be utilized for national millennium activities.
  Mr. WARNER. Then it would be correct to say that while the Warner-
Kennedy language was deleted in conference, $1 million in funds will be 
available for activities associated with the millennium through the 
Department of Education's program administration budget?
  Mr. SPECTER. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman for his clarification 
of this matter.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to 
highlight language in the Senate's committee report on the fiscal year 
1998 Labor-HHS bill under the National Institute of Health's [NIH] 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [NIAID]. This 
language notes the significant research on emerging infectious diseases 
being conducted at the Public Health Research Institute [PHRI]. I would 
like to clarify that PHRI is a component of a scientific research and 
collaborative venture in New Jersey known as the International Center 
for Public Health, located at University Heights Science Park in 
Newark. Furthermore, I would like to clarify that the intent of the 
Senate's report language is to encourage NIAID to give appropriate 
consideration to proposals received from the International Center for 
Public Health, one component of which is PHRI.
  I would like to ask my colleagues Senators Specter and Harkin if they 
agree with this interpretation of the intent of the Senate language? 
Furthermore, I would like to ask my colleagues if they agree that the 
International Center for Public Health's efforts to create a world 
class research and treatment complex to address infectious diseases are 
consistent with the committee's objectives for the Department of Health 
and Human Services, specifically the NIH's NIAID?
  Mr. SPECTER. I am aware of this language and agree with this 
interpretation. I appreciate my colleague's leadership role in working 
with this important International Center, and I hope the NIH will give 
every appropriate consideration to the Center's proposals.
  Mr. HARKIN. I, too, appreciate the leadership of my colleague from 
New Jersey on this issue, and concur with the Chairman that the NIH 
should give appropriate consideration to proposals from the 
International Center for Public Health.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support 
for key provisions of the fiscal year 1998 Labor, Health and Human 
Services and Education appropriations bill.
  This bill is the product of a long, often difficult, process and, 
like many of our legislative efforts, it is in no way perfect. However, 
I am particularly pleased with the $3.3 billion increase included for 
education.
  With this legislation, students, parents and schools across the 
country will see broad increases in Federal spending in key areas. 
Funding for education technology will double. Special education funding 
will increase by $800 million to a historic high of nearly $5 billion. 
The title I program, which provides disadvantaged students with 
remedial tutoring in math and science, will receive $7.4 billion. This 
bill also provides for the continued development of voluntary national 
tests in fourth grade reading and eighth grade math. While there was a 
great deal of negotiation, discussion, and compromise on this last 
issue, I am pleased that the final legislation does not set up any 
roadblocks that will block full implementation of this important 
accountability initiative in schools across the country.
  This bill also includes new funding for young children. Head Start 
funding will grow by $300 million, putting it on the path to serving 
1,000,000 3- and 4-year-olds by the year 2000. The Child Care and 
Development Block Grant will also grow by $50 million to reach $1 
billion and provide working families with additional assistance in 
meeting their child care needs.
  On the other end of education funding, college students and their 
parents will receive substantial new assistance through this bill. 
First and most importantly, the Pell grant program will receive an 
increase of $1.5 billion. These funds will increase the Pell grant 
maximum to $3,000--the highest level in history--and will expand the 
Pell grant program to assist an additional 210,000 students.
  This last step is particularly crucial in my view. Earlier this year, 
I introduced legislation to better assist students by modifying the 
treatment of dependent student income to ensure that needy students are 
not penalized for working. This appropriations bill includes this 
initiative and consequently will reach thousands of new students who 
work. This appropriations bill does not fully accomplish the goals set 
by my legislation, but it takes the first vital steps, which we can 
hopefully build upon during next year's reauthorization of the Higher 
Education Act.
  This bill also includes legislation approved by the Labor and Human 
Resources Committee last month to assist students in better managing 
their Federal student loans. This bill, the Emergency Student Loan 
Consolidation Act, responds to the recent shutdown of the Federal 
direct loan consolidation programs by providing all student borrowers 
with the option of consolidating their student loans into the 
guaranteed loan program. There had been some concern that this bill, as 
it passed the Labor Committee, did not have an appropriate offset; 
however, additional clarifying language is included today which will 
allow the administration to manage this offset appropriately. We also 
include another emergency provision which ensures that families who 
receive a HOPE Scholarship will not be penalized for this scholarship 
in the determination of families' need for Federal student aid. It is 
very important to America's families and college students that these 
two initiatives pass this year and I am pleased that their inclusion in 
this bill today will make that possible.
  Thus far, Mr. President, I have focused on what is in this bill in 
terms of education. However, I am pleased that one education provision 
adopted by the Senate was dropped in this final bill--the Gorton 
amendment. This very destructive amendment, which I have strenuously 
opposed since it was first introduced, would have eliminated Federal 
funding for school safety, character education, vocational 
rehabilitation services, Indian education, teacher training and 
education technology. The conferees recognized that this policy was not 
fully considered by the Senate, as well as the appropriate committees, 
and took us in the wrong direction on education policy.
  For all that is good in this bill, it is clearly the product of 
considerable compromise and is not the bill I would have written. I am 
particularly disturbed by the inclusion of language expanding the reach 
of the Hyde amendment which will further limit the rights of Federal 
employees in this important, personal area. However, on the whole, I 
believe this is a good bill for the families and children of America 
and will join my colleagues in supporting its passage.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry. Does Senator Specter have time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Specter has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. What time are we going to vote under the order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 2:35.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself the remaining time that Senator Specter 
has.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S12094]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. I wish to applaud the subcommittee chairman, Senator 
Specter, and other members of the Appropriations subcommittee for 
receiving a consensus on this bill, and at the same time adhering to 
the important provisions of the bipartisan budget agreement.
  First, let me say this bill has a very exceptional provision in it 
which was not part of the budget agreement but, rather, was in the 
Republican budget resolution, and that was to add $5 billion for 
special education for the next 5 years that was for educating children 
with disabilities. The appropriations bill includes an additional $775 
million for this program, the biggest increase in the history of the 
program. This is the program that many States were critical of our 
Government for because we started it and committed a share of the 
payment and we never lived up to our commitment in the shared expenses 
of the program but insisted that our rules and regulations be followed 
by the States.
  Now we are beginning to catch up. Senator Judd Gregg was the leader 
of this from the State of New Hampshire, and certainly he will take a 
great deal of pride as this bill works its way to the President for 
signature--$5 billion over the next 5 years for educating children with 
disabilities.
  Now, Mr. President, this bill has a lot of different provisions in it 
for different parts of the U.S. Government, but the education funding 
for the United States is almost all found in this bill. While we are 
not a big contributor nationally to education--that is, the National 
Government--there are some programs that are noteworthy that we agreed 
in our 22-page agreement, the historic agreement of the President and 
the Congress, to give high priority to, and I might say on all of these 
on education, with our bipartisan agreement, this committee lived up to 
those and funded them in every single instance, even though it meant 
much of their allocation of resources was being predetermined by this 
previous agreement.
  Let me give a few examples. Regarding Head Start, the budget 
agreement called for an additional $2.75 billion over the next 5 years; 
the appropriations bill provides an additional $274 million for this 
program. For both these programs I have just discussed, the bill 
provides more funding than the President's original 1998 budget 
request.
  Now, looking at Pell grants, which many think are very helpful in 
getting our young people through college--another very important 
bipartisan effort--the budget agreement called for an additional $8.6 
billion over the next 5 years and to raise the maximum Pell grant to 
students from $2,700 to $3,000. True to the other measures that I have 
discussed, the appropriations bill provides an additional $1.4 billion 
for Pell grants and increased maximum grant awards from $2,700 to 
$3,000.
  Finally, in the area of bilingual and immigrant education, 
particularly difficult for our States, the budget agreement called for 
$446 million over the next 5 years, and the appropriations bill 
provided $92 million of that increase in this bill.
  Now, I realize many constraints were on this committee, and I want to 
again offer my words of thanks and congratulations for their fine work 
and especially for their serious effort to uphold the bipartisan budget 
agreement. I believe we can all be proud of these particular increases 
which have such broad bipartisan support. From the standpoint of the 
Republicans who were part of the bipartisan agreement with the 
President, I think today on education we are seeing some very positive 
results from that effort.
  Mr. President, I have changes to the budget resolution aggregates and 
Appropriations Committee allocation which are in order, and I ask 
unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.
  There being no obligation, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

                          ____________________