[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 160 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12630-S12631]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES APPROPRIATIONS BILL

 Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to take a few 
minutes today in order to lay out my reasons for voting against the 
Fiscal Year 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, when I was running for the Senate last year, there 
were two campaign promises that I made to the people of the great State 
of Alabama. First, I promised that I would work to reign in wasteful 
Washington spending and secondly, that I would work to bring Alabama 
values into the Washington public-policy debate. It was for these two 
simple reasons that I felt compelled to cast my vote against the Labor, 
HHS appropriations bill.
  The fiscal year 1998 Labor, HHS appropriations bill contained roughly 
$80 billion in spending for Washington social programs. This is an 
increase of roughly $6.2 billion from fiscal year 1997's bill. Now Mr. 
President, the average Alabamian, if they're lucky, sees a cost-of-
living increase in their paycheck each year of around 2.8 percent. 
That's it, 2.8 percent. However, this bill increases Washington social 
spending by over 8 percent. That's an increase of almost three times 
the average Alabamian's yearly cost-of-living increase. That to me is 
unacceptable.
  I have spent many long hours looking through the merits of many of 
these programs. We have many good programs, with a proven track record, 
that need to be funded and supported. But Mr. President, the Labor, HHS 
appropriations bill we voted on also contained many social programs 
that are unproven or just too costly. The taxpayers of America deserve 
to know that their hard earned tax dollars are spent wisely. If we 
continue to raise spending faster than our economic growth--faster than 
the cost of living--then we are in danger of returning to the old tax 
and spend mentality that has nearly bankrupted this country. With great 
reluctance, I must vote ``no.''
  There were several other provisions missing from this bill which also 
compelled me to vote against it. First, my tobacco amendment, added to 
the bill by the Senate on September 10, which would have limited any 
tobacco attorney's fees and required that all such fees be made public 
for inspection prior to the passage of any global settlement, was 
stripped during negotiations

[[Page S12631]]

between the Senate and House of Representatives conference committee. 
These fees, in many cases, will be the largest fees in history and will 
be windfalls for these attorneys. These moneys would be better spent on 
health care for children.
  Second, an education provision, which I strongly supported, authored 
by my good friend from Washington, Senator Slade Gorton, was also 
stripped during the House-Senate conference negotiations. This 
amendment would have required the Secretary of Education to award 
certain funds appropriated for the Department of Education for 
kindergarten through grade 12 programs and activities directly to the 
local education agencies. This will allow them to use the funds for 
their greatest needs and reduce paperwork. I supported this amendment 
because I believe it is time to take control of our schools out of the 
hands of the well-intentioned individuals in Washington and instead put 
the control into the hands of the real experts--the teachers, 
principals, parents and the students of Alabama. Mr. President, this is 
another example of Government putting Washington values ahead of 
Alabama's values. The fundamental question is this: Will our children 
benefit more if Washington is in charge of their education or if their 
elected representatives are? Alabama values would support the local 
control of our schools while Washington values support the bureaucratic 
heavy handed federal control of our education system.
  Mr. President, in closing, let me say plainly I support many of the 
programs and services found in this bill. It was my sincere hope to 
have been counted among its supporters on the Senate floor. However in 
this era when families are struggling to get by, we simply must begin 
the process of controlling the growth of Washington spending. That is 
why I have decided to vote ``no.''

                          ____________________