[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:
____________________