[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 130 (Thursday, September 30, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11681-S11720]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
         RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000 --Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the distinguished manager, Senator 
Harkin, and I had talked yesterday about a time limit on sending of 
amendments. I believe that has been worked out now.
  On behalf of Senator Lott, the majority leader, I ask unanimous 
consent that all first-degree amendments in order to the Labor-HHS-
Education appropriations bill must be filed at the desk by 2 p.m. on 
Thursday, today, and all second-degree amendments must be relevant to 
the first-degree amendments they propose, and in addition thereto, each 
leader may offer one first-degree amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am not 
objecting other than to add to the unanimous consent request that in 
addition to the two leaders, each manager will also have the right to 
offer an amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. I accept that addendum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. I understand the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. 
Reid, has an amendment which he wishes to submit. I have discussed a

[[Page S11682]]

time limit with Senator Reid, and I ask unanimous consent the time 
limit be 30 minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask the pending amendment be set aside since it is my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1820

(Purpose: To increase the appropriations for the Corporation for Public 
                             Broadcasting)

  Mr. REID. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1820.
       On page 66, line 16, strike $350 million and replace with 
     $475 million.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, ``Prairie Home Companion'': My wife and I 
have enjoyed many Sunday afternoons listening to this great program on 
public radio. It lasts 2 hours; there is music, comedy, drama. It is a 
great program. It comes on public radio.
  On public television, we all watched the series on the Civil War. I 
don't know if there was a more dramatic, a more effective presentation 
of history ever made on public broadcasting than of the Civil War.
  It was tremendous.
  Then several years later, the same person who produced the Civil War 
series produced a magnificent series on baseball, the history of 
baseball. It had pictures we had never seen, stories we had never 
heard, all on public broadcasting, all without any type of commercial 
interruption of any kind.
  I watched on public broadcasting, public television, a presentation 
about the city of New York. I have been to the city of New York 
numerous times. Never did I see New York as it was shown in that 
program. I saw parts of New York I would never, ever be able to see. I 
understand New York better than I would have ever been able to 
understand New York as a result of that program on public television.
  I am a fan of public broadcasting. I think America is a fan of public 
broadcasting. We can look back to the mid-1990s when Newt Gingrich took 
control of the House of Representatives and publicly proposed cutting 
all public broadcasting funds.
  There has been an effort by public broadcasters to do all kinds of 
things to be able to meet the demands of their viewers. One of the 
things they have done--there is report language in this bill that I 
think is important, and that is to stand up and say what they have done 
as far as selling lists of their subscribers is wrong. We have public 
broadcasting selling lists to Democratic organizations; we have public 
broadcasting selling lists to Republican organizations. They were put 
up to bid, in effect, and that is wrong. The report that accompanies 
this bill says, in very strong terms, that was wrong.
  It was wrong. I acknowledge that without any question. But we have to 
decide whether we want to have a public broadcasting system or not have 
a public broadcasting system. Either we fund the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting so they can exist or we decide to end it. I prefer the 
former. I prefer that we fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 
I suggest we increase funding as indicated in this amendment, this 
year, by $125 million.

  I think it is important we talk about public broadcasting, what it 
does for this Nation. As long as the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting is leery of Congress cutting their funds--and certainly 
they should be--I suspect they will begin to sound more and more like 
private broadcasting stations.
  There was one article in the Washington Post, written by a man named 
Frank Ahrens, in which there was substantial research about what has 
happened to public broadcasting. We find there has been a 700-percent 
increase in corporate funding over just the past few years, since 
Congressman Gingrich got involved in this. It is not just listeners who 
are noticing the change. Private stations, which are not tax exempt as 
are these public broadcasters, are voicing their concern about an 
increasingly uneven playing field--as well they should.
  Why do they do that? They do it because corporate support has shifted 
radically in the past several years. In fact, at WAMU, which is a 
station here in Washington, the broadcasts of which we hear all over 
the country, the station president said it has gone up significantly. 
That is an understatement.
  Bob Edwards, for those of us who listen to public broadcasting--and I 
listen to it in the morning more than any other time; I listen to the 
morning edition--he is even more blunt. Bob Edwards says:

       Underwriting has kept us alive.
       It has cut into our air time. If you have to read a 30-
     second underwriter credit, that's less news you can do.

  That is an understatement. There is much less news that is done. 
Underwriting spots sound like commercials, a trend that troubles 
listeners, and recent surveys show this.
  As this article indicates, the public is getting upset about this. In 
Boston, a radio station called WBUR has aggressively pursued corporate 
underwriting, as many stations around America have--in fact, they have 
all done this. It lists 315 corporate sponsors on its web site--1 radio 
station.
  The corporations love to advertise on public radio. They believe 
demographically they have an audience that listens to their messages, 
understands their messages; many times they are well-educated, upper-
middle-class listeners who have expensive tastes and, some say, the 
money to indulge them. Moreover, they trust public radio much more than 
listeners trust, perhaps, commercial radio.
  We know on WAMU and other public radio stations, the Nuclear Energy 
Institute, the lobbying arm for the atomic power industry, has done a 
lot of advertising. This comes not from the Senator from Nevada but 
from this article from the Washington Post. With its ads, the Nuclear 
Energy Institute says, by using their slogan, ``Nuclear technology 
contributes to life in many ways you probably never thought of.''
  This upset listeners. There was a lot of complaining. As Bob Edwards, 
the host of the program indicated, there was an e-mail campaign 
suggesting NPR was in the pocket of the nuclear industry. I personally 
do not think they are. But when this advertising takes place, people do 
not have to stretch really far to come to that conclusion.

  The same radio station, WAMU, decided several years ago they were 
going to do a show sponsored by the National Agricultural Chemical 
Association which advertised its products as safe. People complained 
because some people do not like these chemicals that are put on crops. 
Calls came in suggesting the radio station was in the pocket of this 
chemical company. That is really not true, but people can draw that 
conclusion because of the advertising that takes place on public radio.
  Still, public radio managers are concerned and they are inventing all 
kinds of ways to get around FCC rules. They are creating promotions 
with adjectives and lengthy explanations: ``the blue-chip company,'' 
``18 million customers worldwide,'' and ``converting natural gas to 
sulfur-free synthetic fuels.'' These are some of the catchwords they 
are using to try to get around some of the FCC rules.
  In this Congress, earlier this year, Congressman Markey from 
Massachusetts and Congressman Tauzin from Louisiana drafted a bill that 
would tighten the FCC rules and also increase spending by as much as 60 
percent for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. They were--I 
should not say forced; they decided on their own, I am sure, but as a 
result of all the publicity that was engendered as a result of learning 
these public broadcasting organizations were selling their subscribers' 
lists, they backed off this legislation. They said they were going to 
go forward with it soon. There is a sentiment all over America that we 
have to have either public broadcasting or commercial broadcasting. 
This mix is not working because the mix is coming out as commercial 
broadcasting.
  It is not just lawmakers and listeners who are concerned and taking 
note of this advertising policy, but commercial radio stations are 
concerned. Public broadcasting is tax free. Commercial broadcasters 
believe it is unfair that public stations can air essentially the same 
advertising they do and not have to pay the same taxes. They are 
competing in a way that is unfair to commercial broadcasters. ``It's 
not an even playing field,'' says Jim Farley, the vice president for 
news at WTOP here in Washington.

[[Page S11683]]

  I listen to WTOP. It is a great news station. I think if we are going 
to have public broadcasting, it should be public broadcasting. People 
should not have to guess whether or not it is a commercial station or 
it is public broadcasting. I agree with Jim Farley. It is not an even 
playing field.
  The increased presence of corporate underwriters has led some 
listeners and even those within public radio to fear underwriters might 
influence the news coverage in segments they sponsor. There are not 
many other conclusions you can reach if, in fact, you are advertising 
some commercial product.
  The reason people can come to that conclusion without a lot of 
stretch is, for example, ``Marketplace,'' which is a public radio 
program, aired stories about General Electric being indicted for price 
fixing but ignored a 1990 boycott of the company by the people who 
objected to its participation in the nuclear weapons industry.
  Why did some people come to that conclusion? Because General Electric 
provides more than 25 percent of the funding for this program. There 
was no other conclusion one could reach. The show's general manager now 
calls the fact they did not run stories about this boycott a lapse, a 
mistake. I submit, we should not have these problems with public 
broadcasting.
  My amendment simply says if we are going to have public broadcasting, 
we should have public broadcasting. Even though this money I am 
suggesting we vote for is not enough to solve all the problems, it is a 
step in the right direction and will take some of the pressure off 
public broadcasting.
  This is money well spent. It is important we in America feel good 
about our public broadcasting. I submit that programs such as ``Prairie 
Home Companion,'' the series on the Civil War and baseball and New York 
and a multitude of other programs we have all enjoyed should continue 
without commercial interruption.
  I believe we should adequately fund this organization. Whether it is 
adequate funding or not is something we can all debate, but it is at 
least a step in the direction of giving public broadcasting a shot in 
the arm, funding which has been taken from them as a result of the 
activities of Congress since 1995.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania is 
recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no second-
degree amendment be in order prior to the vote on or in relation to the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered and argued 
by the Senator from Nevada because the subcommittee worked out a very 
carefully crafted set of priorities, joined in by the Senator from 
Iowa, Mr. Harkin, my distinguished ranking member. In structuring a 
bill of $91.7 billion, we had to take into account many programs, some 
300 programs. There is difficulty in having this bill accepted with 51 
votes considering the expenditures involved.
  We have given priority to items such as education where the bill is 
$500 million in excess of the President's request. We have given 
priority to programs for the National Institutes of Health and raised 
$2 billion. We have had to cut some programs which I, frankly, did not 
like to see cut. But we have established the priorities.
  With respect to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, we have 
increased their funding by $10 million, from $340 million to $350 
million. This year's allocation of $340 million was an increase from 
$300 million the year before and an increase from $250 million the year 
before that. It is true that back in 1992, the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting had an allocation of $327 million and it has gradually 
been built up. I have been supportive of public broadcasting. The 
question is on priorities, and it is my judgment that in a tight fiscal 
year with tight budget constraints that we have been reasonably 
generous with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
  On another matter I think ought to be commented upon, although it is 
not the reason for opposing the amendment by the Senator from Nevada, 
is the finding by the inspector general of the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting that 53 of the 591 public broadcasting grantees exchanged 
donor lists with or rented them to political organizations, which is a 
matter of some consequence. Earlier this year, the Boston Globe 
reported that the local public television station in Boston, WGBH, 
exchanged its donor list with the Democratic Party. There were other 
media reports about exchanges involving public broadcasting with WNET 
in New York, WETA in Washington, DC, and WHYY in Philadelphia.
  Steps have been taken by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to 
stop that practice, but I do think it is a factor which ought to be in 
the public record and ought to be commented upon at this time.
  It would be a curious reward if, in the face of a problem this year 
of this magnitude, we had a proportionately large increase in the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting. These factors were considered very 
carefully when our bill was crafted. I do listen to public broadcasting 
myself, and I do concur with Senator Reid that it is a very useful 
instrumentality, given the considerations on commercial broadcasting. 
But we have gone about as far as we can go in allocating a $10 million 
increase which brings the corporation up to $350 million.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the manager of this bill and the Senator 
from Iowa have done a good job in constructing this $91.7 billion bill, 
and they have included things regarding health and education. There is 
nothing more educational for the American public than to do a good job 
for public broadcasting.
  As I said earlier, the sales of the donor lists were brought about 
because of the financial pressure on these institutions. I do not 
condone that, and I agree with the language of the report which does 
not condone that.
  I suggest this is money well spent out of $91.7 billion. This money 
is a mere pittance and it would be very important to spend to help the 
American public.
  I ask unanimous consent that the actual vote on this amendment not 
take place until there is an agreement between the two leaders as to 
when it should take place.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Nevada for that observation. It 
is my hope we can stack the votes until late this afternoon. We find 
that the votes set for 15 minutes with a 5-minute leeway go much 
longer. We have an amendment lined up by the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. 
Hutchinson, to start in 10 minutes, and behind that--in sequencing we 
have had two amendments from that side of the aisle, so we are looking 
for another Republican amendment behind Senator Hutchinson. Then we 
will have Senator Graham of Florida.
  We wish to move this bill expeditiously giving ample time with time 
agreements. So we will be looking to stack the votes very late this 
afternoon. Then we have lined up an amendment on ergonomics to come 
late this afternoon. It is anticipated there will be considerable 
debate on that. But we want to move through the ``meat'' of the day, so 
to speak, getting as much done as we can. So I concur with what Senator 
Reid has had to say about stacking the votes later.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator's request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I also say, while we are waiting for Senator Hutchinson to 
come to the floor, that we have the 2 o'clock cutoff for the submission 
of amendments. We hope Members will come forward with amendments as 
quickly as possible, recognizing we are trying to move this bill along 
as quickly as we can. So we hope everyone, especially the staffs who 
are listening, will take that into consideration, as I am sure they 
are--that consideration will be given to the submission of amendments, 
working under the time constraints we have.

[[Page S11684]]

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, while not an enormous matter, while we 
are waiting for the next amendment to be offered, the issue has arisen 
as to whether the lists were made available to which political parties. 
I have been furnished, by staff, with a response by the inspector 
general of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to Congressman 
Dingell's questions in the House of Representatives.
  This is one question:

       When stations made donor lists available to Democratic 
     organizations either directly or through list brokers/
     managers, were the lists made available to Republican 
     organizations as well?

  Answer by the inspector general, as represented to me here:

       Although, none of the identified exchanges or rentals of 
     donor names from public broadcasting stations involved 
     Republican organizations, we could not conclude that such 
     names were not available to them. In this regard, we found no 
     indications or evidence that Republican organizations had 
     ever sought or been turned down for names requested from 
     public broadcasting stations. In addition in visiting two 
     stations, we were advised that when they learned that names 
     were being exchanged with or rented to Democratic 
     organizations, they had proposed exchanges with Republican 
     organizations to their direct mail consultant or list broker. 
     These stations were later advised that such exchanges were 
     turned down.

  I think it advisable, having read from part of these responses, that 
the full text of the responses to Congressman Dingell's questions be 
printed in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of 
the responses be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                      Corporation for Public     Broadcasting,

                               Washington, DC, September 24, 1999.
     Hon. John D. Dingell,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Commerce, Room 2125, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Dingell: The Office of Inspector General 
     appreciates the opportunity to clarify any questions Congress 
     has resulting from our recent report on Public Broadcasting 
     Stations exchange or rental of membership/donor names with 
     political organizations. We have accordingly prepared 
     Attachment 1 which contains the office's conclusions 
     regarding the questions raised in your September 20, 1999 
     letter.
       If your staff wishes to discuss these matters further, 
     please have them contact me at (202) 879-9660.
           Sincerely
                                                  Kenneth A. Konz,
     Inspector General.
                                  ____


                              Attachment 1


              Responses to Congressman Dingell's Questions

       1. Is there any evidence to suggest that any donor list 
     transactions between stations and Democratic organizations 
     were politically motivated?
       No. Stations across the country universally denied that any 
     decisions to exchange donor lists or rent names to any 
     outside organization were politically motivated. 
     Additionally, top management officials were not aware that 
     such exchanges were being made. Instead, such exchanges seem 
     to grow from the need to utilize direct mail solicitation as 
     a basis for raising membership revenue for the station. 
     Because dealing with political organizations was such a minor 
     part of their direct mail solicitation process, we concluded 
     that political motivations were not considered.
       2. When stations made donor lists available to Democratic 
     organizations either directly or through list brokers/
     managers, were the lists made available to Republican 
     organizations as well?
       Although none of the identified exchanges or rentals of 
     donor names from public broadcasting stations involved 
     Republican organizations, we could not conclude that such 
     names were not available to them. In this regard, we found no 
     indications or evidence that Republican organizations had 
     ever sought or been turned down for names requested from 
     public broadcasting stations. In addition in visiting two 
     stations, we were advised that when they learned that names 
     were being exchanged with or rented to Democratic 
     organizations, they had proposed exchanges with Republican 
     organizations to their direct mail consultant or list broker. 
     These stations were later advised that such exchanges were 
     turned down.
       3. Were any contacts with political organizations initiated 
     directly by station representatives? What role did list 
     brokers/managers play in these transactions?
       Based on the responses we got to the survey and our visits 
     to stations, we found that all arrangements with political 
     organizations were made by direct mail consultants or list 
     brokers. Generally, such consultants developed plans for 
     direct mail campaigns. Given the number of  solicitations 
     planned, the consultant proposed various lists from which 
     names could be exchanged or acquired based on the 
     demographics of the target audience and success in using, 
     such lists in previous direct mail solicitations. The 
     stations simply saw the names of the proposed lists and 
     were given the opportunity to eliminate those 
     organizations they did not want to exchange with. 
     Therefore, they usually went along with the lists 
     recommended. In cases where political organizations 
     desired exchanges, they would go to the list broker who 
     (in some cases) had authority to exchange names or who, if 
     they did not have authority, would get back to the 
     stations to obtain authorization or rejection.
       4. Is there any evidence of a station, or list broker/
     manager acting on behalf of a station, refusing a request for 
     a list exchange or rental from either a Republican 
     organization or a list broker/manager known to be acting on 
     behalf of a Republican organization?
       We saw no indication that exchanges or rentals from 
     Republican organizations were turned down. On the other hand, 
     we saw some exchanges with Democratic organizations were 
     turned down because the stations had a policy of not 
     exchanging with political organizations.
       As a general rule, we saw stations looking for names for 
     use in direct mail solicitations. In this regard, in 
     reviewing acquisition of names, stations obtained names not 
     only from apparent Democratic organizations, but also from 
     apparent Republican organizations. For the stations we 
     visited, more than one third of the stations got significant 
     portions (20 percent or more) of such names from apparent 
     Republican organizations. Thus, we have no basis to conclude 
     that exchanges sought by Republican organizations would have 
     received any different consideration from those sought by 
     Democratic ones.
       5. In your judgment, did any station violate any Federal of 
     State law or regulation in conducting these donor list 
     transactions?
       Our office did not find clear evidence of any violation of 
     Federal or State laws or regulations. CPB has the authority 
     for making grants to public broadcasters under section 396 of 
     the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. In examining the 
     provisions of the Act, as well as CPB grant terms and 
     conditions in affect at the time of grant award, we noted 
     that no specific restrictions existed related to direct mail 
     solicitations and the exchange of membership/donor lists with 
     other organizations. Since we were unable to find evidence 
     showing political motivation to support particular parties or 
     candidates, we did not identify any violations of existing 
     CPB statutes or regulations.
       Our office is not an expert in all the Federal or State 
     laws or regulations which might govern the exchange of rental 
     of membership/donor lists. we have in this instance heard 
     that questions have been raised regarding the possibility 
     that stations may have violated provisions of the Internal 
     Revenue Service (IRS) requirements concerning non profit 
     organizations. We understand the IRS was looking into the 
     situation. They would be the appropriate organization to 
     indicate whether there were any violations to that law.
       6. How did stations benefit from list exchanges or rentals 
     with political organizations?
       In our opinion, stations did not obtain any extraordinary 
     benefit from exchanges or rentals with political 
     organizations. While on one hand the stations did get names 
     from such organizations, they paid for them just like other 
     exchanges with or rentals from non profit organizations or 
     even commercial entities. In both cases, the cost of direct 
     mail solicitations was reduced when names were acquired 
     through exchanges, rather than rentals.
       In evaluating benefits to the station, we noted that 
     successful lists only averaged one contribution or membership 
     for every 100 direct mail solicitations (1 percent). 
     Furthermore, only a small proportion of the names used in 
     direct mail solicitations were derived from political 
     organizations. For the stations we visited names from 
     apparently political organizations, ranged from only .3 
     percent to 6.4 percent of the names acquired for direct mail 
     solicitations. Thus, we concluded that involvement with 
     political organizations in this process did not provide 
     material benefits to public broadcasting stations.

  Mr. SPECTER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator would withhold.
  Mr. SPECTER. I do.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I did not want to get into a ``who did this; 
who did not do that.'' I acknowledge, selling the lists was wrong. The 
fact is, though, that PBS stations made these lists available to both 
parties. Without getting too partisan, we know the Bush family has made 
their lists available to groups, also. These groups include the

[[Page S11685]]

Citizens for a Sound Economy and the Heritage Foundation. These are 
certainly if not Republican organizations, I would clearly say, 
Republican-leaning organizations.
  I also think it is important to note we are talking about the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting. And the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting has a policy----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time requested by the Senator has expired.
  Mr. REID. Yes. We are not on the Senator's time now. We are waiting 
for Senator Hutchinson to come. I got the floor on my own.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have a time agreement on the amendment. 
There is a current time agreement. If the Senator wishes to----
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield time from my side to the Senator from Nevada.
  I ask the Senator, how much time would you like?
  Mr. REID. Just a few minutes, a couple minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Two minutes. We only have about 4 minutes left. If you 
take 2 minutes, I will have 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 6 minutes 20 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. Take 3.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Nevada is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting now 
has a policy. We do not need to talk about what has gone on before. We 
all recognize it was wrong and is wrong.
  I again state I approve wholeheartedly with the language in the 
report that was submitted by the manager and the ranking member of this 
bill and which I understand had the full committee chairman's undying 
support; that is, the Senator from Alaska was also upset about the 
trading of lists, which we all agree is wrong.
  I support the present policy. If you want to sell your list to a 
political party, you are not going to get any funding from the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on the Senate floor we do not frequently 
have the quality of evidence which assures authenticity, unlike a 
courtroom where you have to have witnesses who saw, observed, or 
documentation which is authenticated.
  I have marveled, from time to time, during my tenure in the Senate 
how many representations of fact are made which have no authentication. 
We had a little time left over from the debate, so the Senator from 
Nevada and I have talked a little bit about these lists being made 
available to political parties.
  You have the inspector general's report which will be made a part of 
the Record which says what it says. I have already stated that. I am 
not going to repeat it. But what we say on this Senate floor is viewed 
by a lot of people. I am sure the Corporation for Public Broadcasting 
will be looking very closely at what Senator Reid and I have had to 
say. And other public institutions will be on notice, as well, that 
when there is public money involved, it is a public trust and not to be 
partisan for either Democrats or Republicans, and that we will take a 
look at it.

  Again, I repeat that, notwithstanding this concern, we did not seek 
to have that influence our determination as to what the funding should 
be. We added $10 million. We know the problem has been rectified, but 
we want the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and everyone else, to 
be on notice that the Congress will not tolerate partisanship or 
political activity of either party with public money, which is a 
Federal trust.
  Mr. President, I move to table the pending amendment and ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote will be postponed.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the hour of 12:30 has arrived. We expect 
the offerer of the next amendment to be here within a very short period 
of time. In the interim, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. 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. COVERDELL. Mr. President, in a moment, the next amendment will be 
offered in the queue by the Senator from Arkansas. I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be awarded one hour of debate, equally 
divided, with no second-degree amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tom Hlavacek, 
a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during 
consideration of this appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Arkansas is 
recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. A unanimous consent 
was asked. Was there approval that there be a time limit on this 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. The time limit is what?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One hour of debate equally divided with no 
second-degree amendments.
  Mr. HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 1812

              (Purpose: To transfer amounts appropriated.)

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), for himself, 
     Mr. DeWine, Mr. Allard, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Helms, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1812.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of title I, add the following:


         transfer of funds for the consolidated health centers

       Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     $25,472,000 of the amounts appropriated for the National 
     Labor Relations Board under this Act shall be transferred and 
     utilized to carry out projects for the consolidated health 
     centers under section 330 of the Public Health Service Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 254b).

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add 
Senators DeWine, Allard, Thomas, Crapo, and Helms as cosponsors of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment 
to the appropriations bill on Labor-HHS. I think it is one that should 
be easy for Members to support. Let me very basically explain it, and 
then I will go into more detail.
  This would shift $25.472 million from the National Labor Relations 
Board to the Consolidated Health Centers Program. The $25.472 million 
is the increase in spending that has been added to the budget of the 
NLRB. I will explain this in further detail, but this would take that 
expense and shift it to what is a critical program for underserved 
areas in health care in this country.
  The NLRB requested an increase of $25.472 million in funding for the 
fiscal year 2000. Their argument is they need that increase in funding 
to reduce their backlog in cases. However, when one looks at the 
situation at the NLRB and looks at their own statistics provided by the 
National Labor Relations Board, justification for an increase is simply 
not there.
  In its annual report, the NLRB stated the number of cases that were 
pending before the NLRB declined from 37,249 in fiscal year 1997 to 
34,664 in fiscal year

[[Page S11686]]

1998. The NLRB further reported the number of cases the NLRB is 
receiving declined from 39,618 in fiscal year 1997 to 36,657 in fiscal 
year 1998.
  From their own statistics, it is clear that the National Labor 
Relations Board can fulfill its statutory mandate to administer the 
National Labor Relations Acts without the better than $25 million 
increase in funding. In fact, the NLRB did not receive an increase last 
year and was not only able to fulfill their mandate but achieved these 
results which I have cited in seeing a decrease in the number of cases.
  How is that possible? When adjusted for inflation, from 1980 to 1998, 
while the NLRB budget declined by 21 percent, the number of charges 
received and processed has declined by 31 percent. While the NLRB can 
rightly say they have had a declining budget, if you look at the number 
of charges they have received and processed, it has had an even more 
dramatic decline.
  In his statement before the House Subcommittee on Labor-HHS, on March 
25, the NLRB general counsel, Fred Feinstein, stated that the NLRB has 
adopted a program called Impact Analysis through which the NLRB has 
moved beyond the first-in-first-out approach in an effort to assure 
that the cases it gets to first are those that are central to its core 
mission.
  He further stated that the Impact Analysis Program has allowed the 
NLRB to assure that its backlog consists of lower priority cases. Not 
only has the backlog decreased but the cases that are in their own 
system are not of a lower priority.
  The NLRB estimates that of the 35,000 total charges filed each year, 
only approximately one-third--or 10,500--are found to have merit. The 
NLRB further estimates that of the 10,500 charges each year that are 
found to be meritorious, 86 percent--or 9,030--are settled.
  Therefore, the NLRB adjudicates only approximately 4 percent--or 
1,470--of the charges it receives each year. So over 35,000 total 
charges, less than 4 percent, or about 4 percent, are ever adjudicated. 
So from the NLRB's own numbers, only 10,500 of the 35,000 charges have 
merit and 65 percent of all unfair labor practice charges are dismissed 
or withdrawn.

  Let me reiterate. Sixty-five percent of all unfair labor charges are 
dismissed or withdrawn because they are found to be without merit.
  Where does that leave us as a body? How do we justify funding their 
request at better than a $25 million increase at a time that the number 
of cases is decreasing and the number of adjudications is down 40 
percent? How do we justify that?
  I know. I simply can't justify that. I think many of my colleagues 
will agree.
  If a society can be judged by how it treats its less fortunate, if a 
society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members, then we 
must and the NLRB must make better use of resources and decide that we 
will tip the scales this time in favor of individuals, particularly 
children, who need health care.
  That is why my amendment will shift $25.472 million from the NLRB to 
the Consolidated Health Centers. It is not a cut in NLRB funding but a 
shifting of what would have been an increase in their funding to a 
critically urgent program, the Consolidated Health Centers.
  The Consolidated Health Centers Program is a Federal grant program 
funded under section 330 of the Public Health Service Act to provide 
for primary care health services in medically underserved areas 
throughout the United States.
  I suspect that the occupant of the chair, the Senator from Kansas, 
knows well about these kinds of underserved areas. In my home State of 
Arkansas--we have many in the Mississippi Delta region--they are 
desperately in need of these kinds of community health clinics. 
Specifically, this program makes grants to public and nonprofit private 
entities for the development and operation of community, migrant, and 
homeless health centers.
  Key to the mission of the Consolidated Health Centers Program is its 
recognition of the contours of our country and its diverse geography. 
Health care is needed in areas where economic, geographic, and cultural 
barriers limit access to primary health care for a substantial portion 
of the population. It might surprise a lot of folks, but today one-
fifth of Americans live in rural areas. And many are in desperate need 
of health care.
  I grew up in a little town of 894. It is now up to 1,300. It is in a 
rural part of Arkansas. I wouldn't trade that place for growing up for 
any place in the world. But I know that while we have serenity, we have 
low crime--we had wide open spaces to run on the farm, and it was a 
wonderful place to grow up--there are also a lot of amenities most 
people take for granted which we didn't have. Whether it is in Kansas 
or Arkansas or Iowa, people living in those rural areas may be willing 
for the benefits they receive not to have the metro system, not to have 
a nice theater, not have the grand malls, and some of the things we 
enjoy so much in the Nation's Capital.
  However, the tragedy is not only do they give up those amenities but 
too often in Iowa, Kansas, Arkansas, across the Mississippi Delta and 
other rural areas, they also give up opportunities because of the 
economic deprivation of some of the areas that have good quality health 
care. Indeed, some don't have adequate health care facilities at all, 
while we take for granted such areas as the Pentagon City Mall, Tysons 
Corner, full service hospitals, dental centers, podiatrists, 
chiropractors, virtually a doctor for every part of your body.
  But that does not happen in the Mississippi Delta, rural Kansas, or 
Iowa. These health centers provide access to basic yet essential health 
services, including preventive health and dental services, acute and 
chronic care services, appropriate hospitalization, and specialty 
referrals. These centers are the safety net providers for those who 
fall through the cracks in our current health insurance marketplace. We 
may fight and we may argue on the floor of this Senate as to what we 
should do about managed care reform, what we should do about providing 
health care for those uninsured, but we don't need to argue about the 
need to increase funding for these vital community health centers. They 
are the ultimate safety net in our society.
  Health centers provide health care to people regardless of their 
ability to pay. By law they serve anyone who walks in through their 
doors--rich or poor, insured or not. Of the clients received by 
community health centers, 44 percent are children, 66 percent have 
incomes below poverty level. That is the issue before the Senate in 
this amendment: Are we going to fund more bureaucracy at the NLRB at a 
time they have a declining number of cases or are we going to shift the 
increase for small rural communities desperately in need of greater 
health care? In Arkansas alone, 41 health centers currently serve 
80,000 Arkansans. Once again, 44 percent are children and two-thirds 
have incomes below the poverty level.
  Last month, during our August recess, I had the opportunity to visit 
13 counties in the delta region. They are the poorest of the poor. They 
don't need a handout, but they need a helping hand, especially in the 
area of health care. I recently visited a new health clinic in Parkin, 
AR, made possible through a grant in this program, Consolidated Health 
Centers Program. I commend all the dedicated public servants and health 
care professionals at the Parkin Medical Clinic and all of the health 
centers in Arkansas for the invaluable contributions they make to their 
communities and commitment to improving public health.
  At a time when the number of uninsured in our country is over 40 
million and growing, the community health centers play a pivotal role 
in providing care to those who need it most, the uninsured. By spending 
$25 million more for the health centers, we will enable them to serve 
83,000 more people. That won't cover the expected need, but it is a 
step in the right direction. They say they need $264 million more to 
maintain current levels of coverage and care. Last year, we increased 
funding by $100 million for the health centers. Senator Specter--and I 
applaud his efforts in this appropriations bill--increases funding for 
the health centers by $99 million in addition. That is a good start, 
but they say in order to maintain current service they need $264 
million.
  I believe this is a good investment and it is an easy choice. The 
choice is funding more bureaucracy at the NLRB

[[Page S11687]]

at a time caseload is falling or shifting that increase to the 
communities, to the deprived and neglected communities of this country 
in which there is a high percentage of uninsured and a high percentage 
of children who don't have access to health care. We can help that 
situation and provide tens of thousands of people health care by the 
simple passage of this amendment.

  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has 17 minutes 51 
seconds.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make a unanimous-
consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, I didn't hear.
  Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent, without it being taken off of the 
Senator's time.
  Mr. HARKIN. I object. If the Senator wants to speak, why not have the 
Senator yield time?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator 
from Wyoming whatever time he desires.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment by the 
Senator from Arkansas. I am Chair of the Senate Subcommittee on 
Employment, Safety and Training. I have worked closely with Senator 
Hutchinson to assure small businesses are treated fairly by the NLRB. I 
have numbers as well that show there is difficulty with that.
  I held a hearing in July that clearly illustrated how small business 
owners that win against the NLRB on an action against the employer get 
left with thousands of dollars of legal bills. Aggressive actions 
continue to be brought against the small business owners with no relief 
in sight. That has to be solved.
  Regarding this movement for community health centers, regardless of 
how much it takes to take care of the present situation, Wyoming 
doesn't have a community health center. We have a need for it equally. 
I hope that is included in the suggestions for where this money will be 
going. I understand the need to raise enough funds to be able to 
support the current efforts.
  I ask people to take a look at the record of the hearings we held on 
this subject of the National Labor Relations Board and the unfairness 
with which they have treated some of the employers, the huge bills 
employers have been left with, in spite of some of them representing 
themselves before the committee. Such practices are wrong and need to 
be stopped.
  We shouldn't have additional funds for a function that is actually 
decreasing the load. We also find there is a decrease in cases going 
before those people.
  Earlier this year at a field hearing about the National Labor 
Relation Board's treatment of small businesses by the safety 
subcommittee, a small business employer named Randall Truckenbrodt 
testifies that in one year alone, over 36 unfair labor practice charges 
were filed against his company. After a prolonged legal battle, Randall 
won all 36 charges. The cost of defending himself, however, totaled a 
whopping $80,000, a sum which he testified, ``could have been triple 
had I not represented myself.'' As a former small business owner, I 
shudder to think that such a practice could ever occur--much less to a 
small business--and I am dumbstruck by reports that what happened to 
Randall happens all the time. Such practices are more than wrong, they 
should be stopped. I support this amendment, which would allow NLRB to 
focus on their existing responsibilities and not allow additional funds 
for random, meritless claims brought against small businesses by the 
NLRB--an intimidating bureaucracy that can sometimes strong-arm the 
little guy who doesn't have the resources to defend himself.
  I have great concerns over the actions of the NLRB against small 
businesses, and before we give it 25 million additional dollars, I 
think we need to get to the bottom of NLRB's treatment of these 
smallest of businesses. I support Senator Hutchinson's amendment which 
would transfer the $25.7 million increase for the National Labor 
Relations Board to Consolidated Health Centers under the Public Health 
Service Act.
  Community health centers play a vital role in providing primary care 
services to underserved areas. The Labor HHS bill provides a $99 
million increase for CHCs--Consolidated Community Health Centers 
Program--for poor, rural areas. HRSA, however, testified and requested 
$264 million just to maintain levels of coverage and care.
  Health centers serve over 10 million people nationwide, over 4 
million of which are uninsured. By spending $25 million more for health 
centers, health centers estimate that they will be able to serve over 
83,000 more people.
  Bottom line, this amendment will bring better health care to millions 
of Americans, rather than harming more small businesses by allowing the 
NLRB to run wild in filing meritless claims against them, and therefore 
I rise to strongly support it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, when this bill was crafted with some 300 
items, great care was exercised on the establishment of priorities. 
That is always a difficult matter. Where is the $1.800 trillion in 
Federal money to be spent? We have a bill of $91.7 billion. We have had 
a series of amendments to change the allocations and assessments of 
priorities which the ranking member and I came to initially with staff, 
and then the subcommittee and then the full committee.
  I am inclined to agree with my colleague from Arkansas about the 
desirability of having more money in the consolidated health centers. 
He came from a small town, as he recited, of several hundred that has 
grown to more than 1,000. The town where I went to high school was a 
big city by comparison. It had several thousand people. Russell, KS, 
has now 4,998 people. It used to have 5,000 until Dole and I left town.
  I appreciate what the Senator from Arkansas has had to say about the 
virtues of living in a small town. I have appreciated the virtues of 
living in a small town even more since I moved to a big city. I knew 
Russell, KS, was a great place to live, but after I moved to 
Philadelphia I concluded Russell, KS, was a greater place to live.
  When the Senator from Arkansas talks about smalltown life and the 
need for health centers, he is right. They are needed not only in 
Arkansas but in Pennsylvania, in Kansas, and everywhere.
  When we made the allocations, as has already been noted by the 
Senator from Arkansas, we paid a very substantial increase to 
consolidated health centers. Consolidated health centers were a little 
over $900 million and we added $99.3 million to bring them to $1.24 
billion. That is, I am advised, $79 million over the President's 
request.
  But, even so, when the Senator from Arkansas says he would like to 
have more money, I would not disagree with him. But then it is a 
question of establishing priorities, as to what we do. I listened 
closely to the statistics which were cited by the Senator from Arkansas 
on the decrease in the backlog. But even after the backlog has 
decreased--and I am searching for those exact statistics myself--there 
still is an enormous backlog which is pending before the National Labor 
Relations Board.
  When the Senator from Arkansas makes a comment about the board 
establishing priorities, I think that is to the board's credit. They 
are not going to be able to take all the cases, so they ought to 
establish priorities. I hope their priorities are not subject to as 
much challenge as mine are on the floor. I am not really too serious 
about that, there haven't been too many challenges. But then the day is 
not over yet, either. We are waiting for all the amendments to be filed 
by 2 o'clock this afternoon.
  But I compliment the National Labor Relations Board for establishing 
priorities, to take up the most important cases first. The fact that 
there are a great many unmeritorious claims filed is not surprising. 
There are sometimes unmeritorious amendments filed--not this one. But 
there are lots of cases filed in court or any adjudicatory process 
where there are unmeritorious matters. But I do not think that can be 
the basis of judgment. My analysis of the caseload of the National 
Labor Relations Board, and I am going to put these figures into shape 
during the

[[Page S11688]]

course of this debate, to be specific and put them into the 
Congressional Record, is that this funding is needed.
  The National Labor Relations Board, by word of just a little 
explanation for those who may be watching on C-SPAN2, is a board 
created to take into consideration complaints, either by labor or by 
management, as to what is happening in a labor practice and to identify 
unfair labor practices and to produce labor peace by having an 
administrative remedy which would stop people from going into court.
  I know there are others who wish to speak who are waiting now, but I 
think a careful analysis of the backlog, of the procedures of the 
National Labor Relations Board, and the entire picture, will show that 
this kind of increase is warranted and certainly in consideration of 
the significant increase accorded to the consolidated health centers, 
which I have already noted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER. How much time would my colleague from Iowa like?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Might I ask my colleague from Iowa a question?
  Mr. HARKIN. I do not have the floor yet.
  Mr. SPECTER. There is a question pending of the Senator from Iowa, 
how much time does he want?
  Mr. HARKIN. Just 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before I leave the floor, might I ask 
my colleagues from Iowa and Pennsylvania a question? I want to know the 
parliamentary situation. Do we have an agreement for no second-degree 
amendments and this would only be debated for an hour? Could I get some 
information about this?
  Mr. SPECTER. If I may respond to the question, I was off the floor 
for a moment, actually, in the lunchroom. I came back to the floor. A 
unanimous consent request had been propounded for an hour time 
agreement, equally divided, with no second-degree amendments. It was 
later determined that was not really acceptable to the Democratic side 
of the aisle. I said to the Senator from Iowa, when I came back in: If 
it causes you heartburn, we will eliminate it.
  I now ask unanimous consent that the part as to ``no second-degree 
amendments'' be rescinded, but the time as to 1 hour equally divided 
remain in effect.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I could make it clear to the Senator 
from Iowa, if there is an objection--I thank the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. I think his unanimous consent request is very much in the 
spirit of fairness.

  I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if that is not 
acceptable, kind of sneaking a unanimous consent request in--this is a 
very important amendment. There ought to be second-degree amendments on 
every single amendment introduced to this bill forthwith with no time 
agreement if we are going to play that way. That is just not 
acceptable. We need much more time and we certainly should have the 
right to second-degree amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized. I think 
he was yielded time.
  Mr. HARKIN. I assume I have some of my 5 minutes left--I hope?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first, I say I thank the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. He is a true gentleman, I think, in the spirit of comity 
on the Senate floor, to recognize the unanimous consent request that 
was proffered earlier was not acceptable to this side. I bear some 
responsibility for that. I was engaged in a conversation with my staff 
and did not even hear the unanimous consent request propounded, so I 
bear some responsibility for that.
  As I said, in the spirit of comity and the smooth functioning of the 
Senate, my friend from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the appropriations 
subcommittee, came back on the floor and said he would move to vitiate 
that unanimous consent agreement, which he did, I think, again, in the 
true spirit of comity and smooth functioning of the Senate. That then 
was objected to, I guess, by the Senator from Arkansas?
  Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. I will yield the floor back to the Senator.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, when I heard there was a problem--we work 
together on too many matters over too long a period of time. If it was 
inadvertently entered into, we are prepared not to hold anybody to it. 
We have a lot of work to do. If we did not have a lot of work to do, we 
still would not hold them to it if it was inadvertently entered into.
  I have just discussed that with my colleague from Arkansas. I think 
we can work this out in the course of the next few minutes, if the 
Senator from Iowa will take his 5 minutes to argue on the merits.
  Mr. HARKIN. If I can have another 5 minutes to talk about the 
amendment itself?
  Mr. SPECTER. I allocate 10 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the amendment propounded by the 
distinguished Senator from Arkansas really would harm the NLRB 
drastically. The Senator from Arkansas said the caseload had gone down. 
That is true, the caseload did go down, I assume because we increased 
some of the funding and they were able to, then, hire some more staff 
and decrease the caseload.
  If now, however, we cut the funding, they are going to have to 
release those people and fire people who were hired; therefore we will 
be right back where we started from.
  We keep hearing about the backlog. What is the backlog? The NLRB, at 
the end of last fiscal year, had 6,198 cases pending at the end of the 
last fiscal year. I understand some of those were reduced last year, 
but we are still in the neighborhood of about a 5,500-case backlog. So 
I do not know how the Senator from Arkansas can argue we are making 
great progress. We are making a little bit of progress. But to take the 
$25 million out of the NLRB would put us right back where we were 
before, and you would see the backlog start going back up again. That 
may not be his intention, but that is exactly what would happen.
  At this funding level, the staffing, I am told, would have to be 
reduced by at least 100 people below the current level. That would be 
about a 5-percent reduction. Again, that would mean the backlogs would 
continue to go up. The time to process the claims would grow 
significantly, and that would hurt not just the employees but also the 
employers. Both sides are harmed when they get this kind of backlog at 
the NLRB. Again, they are most effective when they can get at this in a 
hurry. Workers who are fired for union organizing must sometimes wait 
weeks or months for cases to be processed. Then when the remedy does 
come through it is too late. People have to move on with their lives. 
They have found other jobs, they get the remedy, but it is too late to 
make any kind of difference at all.
  Employers are hurt because a delay causes back pay to add up until 
the case is resolved. This creates uncertainty. It destabilizes the 
workplace. I have had employers who have contacted my office and said: 
Can't you do something about NLRB? There is a case pending. It is 
causing us a lot of headaches. So it is not just labor, but it is also 
management that is hurt when you have this kind of backlog.
  If this amendment goes through the funding level right now would put 
us, as I understand it, below the 1993 inflation-adjusted level for the 
NLRB. During that period of time, the number of cases has gone up. So 
you can see the number of cases has gone up. We took a little bit out 
last year because of some additional staffing we gave them. This budget 
cut would put us back where we were in 1993.
  Of course, not only would the present backlog of cases take more 
time, we could see actually more cases piling up behind the ones that 
are there.
  Again, there is some thought that the NLRB is a kind of a prolabor 
organization. The NLRB is effective because it is a nonmanagement, 
nonlabor, independent board. It promotes stable and productive labor 
relations. If they are not able to do their job, our whole society 
breaks down.
  Let me get to the point. The Senator from Arkansas wants to take $25 
million out of this and put it into community health centers. I take a 
back seat to no one in supporting community

[[Page S11689]]

health centers--consolidated health centers I guess they are now 
called--and have worked over the years with Senator Specter, as a 
matter of fact, to increase funding for our community health centers. 
They do a great job. In many cases, they are really the only source for 
a lot of low-income people who have no health care insurance.
  We worked very hard--Senator Specter, I, and our staffs--to get a 
$100 million increase. We are up to slightly over $1 billion now for 
community health centers, and they need the money. But I do not think 
they need the money at the expense of taking it out of the NLRB. We 
gave them a $100 million increase. I believe this will be more than 
sufficient to help get new community health centers started next year 
and to adequately fund the ones in existence.
  While I support community health centers, this is not the way to get 
money for them, by taking it out of the NLRB and taking it out of the 
more rapid resolution of the backlog of cases. Many times, the workers 
who are waiting to get a case heard are the same ones who are low 
income and need to have their cases resolved so they can get on with 
their jobs and their lives.
  I yield back whatever remaining time I have.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Who yields time?
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Patrick 
Thompson from the HELP Committee staff and Mark Battaglini, who is a 
fellow, be granted the privilege of the floor during the debate on S. 
1650, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
Appropriations Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to respond to some of the numbers 
used a minute ago in talking about the number of cases filed and the 
number of cases disposed of in this seemingly inverted pyramid of 
backlog of cases. It did not happen that way.
  In 1997, there were 37,000 cases pending. In 1998, there were 34,000 
cases pending. That is a decrease in the number of cases pending. That 
is not the same as the number of cases filed. There were 39,000 cases 
filed in 1997; there were 36,000 cases filed in 1998. Both of those 
numbers show a decrease in cases--a decrease in the number that were 
pending and a decrease in the number that were filed. The Senator from 
Iowa mentioned there was a decrease in the backlog, that they were 
working that down.
  Let me tell you how part of that backlog happens. In my previous 
life, before I came to the Senate, I was an accountant. One of the 
people I did accounting for received one of these notices of audit from 
the National Labor Relations Board. They came in--it was about 10 days 
work for me--and they looked over all of the accounts and decided at 
the conclusion of that time verbally, not in writing, that there was no 
violation. We said: Great; we will wait for your letter. It is 
my understanding they are still waiting for that letter.

  As far as they know, that is still a case pending. All of the work 
was done, a decision was rendered verbally, and that ought to dispose 
of it. I know for that year it was still a case pending. For an 
employer, sometimes this gray cloud hangs over, even after they have 
been assured there is no problem. That shows up in these statistics of 
the backlog.
  The other number presented, the number they worked, actually 
increased; the number pending evidently was not pending in the next 
year. So they were working a full 37,000 cases in 1997, plus a few more 
to work that backlog down.
  This agency has been working the cases. They have been eliminating 
extra cases, some of which I do not think should have been part of the 
backlog anyway. Now we are talking about significantly increasing the 
amount of dollars. There would be an appropriate time to do that.
  One of the things we talked about in a hearing in the subcommittee 
was the legal fees these businesses have to put up when cases are 
brought, and the cases, in some instances, are frivolous. At any rate, 
the decision ought to be on whether the small business wins or not, and 
if they win, they ought to get back the costs they have expended on 
this.
  Part of the testimony in that hearing was from some other employers 
who would never take a case to the NLRB because they know it is going 
to be more expensive to fight it than to pay it. That is not the way 
the American Government is supposed to work. Businesses are not 
supposed to live in fear of expensive litigation by their Federal 
Government with their tax money.
  Perhaps an increase ought to accompany making a change where there is 
some reimbursement for these small business employers who win--only 
when they win. But there could be a degree of fairness built in this at 
the same time there is an increase. Until that happens, the community 
health centers are the place to put the money.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first I will speak to procedure and 
then to substance.
  I apologize to my friend from Arkansas, for whom I have a lot of 
respect even though we do not agree on all issues. I used the words 
``sneak through,'' and I should not have said that. He is above board, 
and I know that. However, I do want to make it clear, my very good 
friend, Senator Harkin, was talking to someone when that happened and 
therefore was not fully aware of this agreement.
  The fact is, on our side we believe this goes against our 
understanding of the way we operate. There was no intention of going 
forward with a unanimous consent agreement that would limit this to 1 
hour with no second-degree amendments.
  I say one more time, I certainly hope my colleague from Arkansas will 
understand that. I hope he will understand this is above and beyond the 
debate. We can always debate issues. This is generating a lot of anger 
and indignation.
  For my own part, I am committed to doing a second-degree amendment on 
every amendment that comes to the floor forthwith, with no time limit 
at all, because I believe this should not have gone this way as a 
unanimous consent agreement.
  The reason I feel strongly about the procedure is because of the 
substance of what this is about. To me, it is a matter of justice 
delayed is justice denied. I tell you, what is real important in our 
country is that people have the right to organize and bargain 
collectively, to earn a decent living, to give their children the care 
they know they need and deserve.
  Frankly, we ought to be doing much more by way of labor law reform. 
But when you cut into the NLRB's budget, and you are going to reduce 
staff by an additional 100 women and men, the only thing you are doing 
is you are making it impossible for many working people to have 
justice.
  I do not even know the figures because I came rushing to the floor 
when I heard about this, but there are well over 10,000 people who are 
illegally fired. And quite often----
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield for a question.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Is the Senator aware that the amendment does not cut 
the budget for the NLRB, that it only flat-lines, it only eliminates 
the increase in funding at a time when only 4 percent are being 
adjudicated and the number of cases is falling?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Arkansas, I am well aware 
that it flat-lines, but it is similar to what we talk about with the 
veterans' health care budget. When you flat-line, and you do not take 
into account additional inflation, then basically the effect of it is a 
reduction.
  My understanding is that you have a reduction of about 5 percent. If 
that is the effect, and if we cut into the man and woman power 
requirements of the

[[Page S11690]]

National Labor Relations Board, I am unalterably opposed to this 
because working people in this country have a right to be able to make 
an appeal. It should not be profitable for companies to illegally fire 
people. It should not be easy for companies to break the law. When we 
try to go after the NLRB, what we are doing is going after the rights 
of working people.
  So I say to my colleagues, an awful lot is at stake here. The 
National Labor Relations Board is all about a framework of laws we have 
set up in our country. It is all about making sure working people have 
certain rights. I think this amendment guts some of those rights by 
basically stripping away some of our enforcement power.
  So I say to my colleague on the other side of the aisle that I do not 
accept this choice he presents to us. I think my colleague from Iowa 
probably will be talking about what he has heard from the community 
health care clinics. But to pit one group of low-income citizens 
against another group of low- and moderate-income people, working-
income people, I think is simply outrageous.
  Knowing the people I have met who work at the community health care 
clinics, I doubt the people who work at our community health care 
clinics are interested in some additional funding for them if that 
means taking away from the rights of working people. We are basically 
talking about the same group of citizens--hard working, not necessarily 
making a lot of money, hoping that they will get a fair shake, hoping 
that they will get decent health care, or hoping that their rights will 
be respected.
  I again say to my colleagues that when you flat-line the budget, you 
effectively cut the budget. You cut into the NLRB's capacity and 
ability to represent working people. There will be more and more and 
more delay. As my colleague from Pennsylvania said, justice delayed is 
justice denied. That is what this amendment is--it is a justice 
delayed/justice denied amendment as it affects working people in this 
country.

  Therefore, I would like to have the opportunity--we would like to 
have the opportunity to offer a second-degree amendment. I hope my 
colleague from Arkansas will reconsider, given the fact that there is, 
at best, confusion about what happened; and we are hoping we can go on 
together in good faith. If not, I say, one more time, that for my own 
part, I will just offer second-degree amendments to every single 
amendment offered on the other side of the aisle, with no time limit 
whatsoever.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time does the Senator from Pennsylvania have 
left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. If I could have 3 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield 3 minutes to Senator Harkin.
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate the Senator yielding.
  I hope I can have the attention of Senators and the Senator from 
Arkansas, the proponent of the amendment.
  I just spoke with the National Association of Community Health 
Centers on the phone. They said to me that I could say the following 
things publicly:
  No. 1, they did not ask for nor seek this amendment.
  No. 2, they are quite happy with the Specter-Harkin increases that 
came in the appropriations bill and hope that we can keep it in 
conference--which I publicly assure them and others that we will do 
everything we can to keep the $100 million increase.
  And, No. 3, while they appreciate the intention of the Senator from 
Arkansas to get more funding for community health centers, they do not 
want it to happen at the expense of the NLRB.
  So I just spoke with the National Association of Community Health 
Centers. I wanted to make that point; that they would not want this to 
happen at the expense of the NLRB.
  I yield back my time, I guess.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. If I might just respond to the Senator from Iowa.
  I do not know who he spoke to at the health centers. I suppose 
whoever it was is a spokesman for all of them. But the ones I would 
like to speak for are the 83,000 people who could be served if this 
amendment were adopted. The $25 million, it is estimated, would allow 
these health centers to be able to serve 83,000 more people. Those are 
the ones I am concerned about. I am not so much concerned about whoever 
in Washington, DC, decided that the NLRB needed a big increase.
  The fact is, the NLRB has said with this increased funding they will 
hire 122 more people, and they will buy an $11 million computer system. 
So I would say to the Senator from Minnesota, that is the issue. Do you 
want an $11 million computer system for the NLRB and 122 more employees 
or do you want to help 83,000 more people to get health care in the 
delta and the poor areas of this country who are currently not 
receiving it?
  It is a pretty simple issue. We can try to cloud it with 
parliamentary questions. We can try to cloud it with questions about a 
UC that was adopted. But there is a very fundamental question in which 
I believe very strongly.
  I oftentimes hear the Senator from Minnesota speak with great passion 
and the Senator from Iowa speak with great passion as to how they are 
prepared to create a problem in the Senate in order to further their 
goals. I admire them. I respect them for their commitment.
  I just say, I have a deep belief about those who are being served by 
these community health centers. I have visited them. I see the good 
work they do. I see the fact that poor people can walk in and not have 
to worry about presenting an insurance policy in order to get help. I 
know the value of helping those little children in the delta when they 
get preventive health care services now and what that is going to save 
us down the line, not only in terms of our budget but in terms of the 
quality of life that they are going to be able to live.
  Once again, I reiterate the numbers concerning the NLRB. We have 
seen, over the last 25 years, their budget cut by 21 percent, while the 
caseloads have dropped 31 percent. This isn't a new thing. Last year, 
we flat-lined their budget, and the result was they had fewer cases 
filed and a smaller backlog with a flat-line budget.
  I think anybody who will listen to the arguments and look at the 
numbers will have a difficult time accepting the logic that they need 
to hire 122 more people and buy an $11 million computer system, having 
a $25 million increase in their budget at a time we could be helping 
poor people get health care around this country.
  So it is a very clear question. I think clouding it is not the answer 
as to how we resolve it.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. SPECTER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. 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. SPECTER. I think we have just reached an agreement informally, 
which I would like to propound now as a unanimous consent request.
  The earlier unanimous consent request prohibiting a second-degree 
amendment is vitiated. We will now proceed to have the Senator from 
Arkansas offer a second-degree amendment to his first-degree amendment. 
We will have 30 minutes of debate.
  It has now been reduced to writing. I will begin again. I ask 
unanimous consent that the previous consent agreement relating to the 
pending Hutchinson amendment be vitiated. I ask consent that prior to a 
motion to table the second-degree amendment to be presented forthwith 
by the Senator from Arkansas, the time be limited to 30 minutes equally 
divided, and following the disposition of the Hutchinson second-degree 
amendment, Senator Wellstone will be recognized to offer a second-
degree amendment.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Reserving the right to object--and I don't intend to 
object--should the motion on my second degree be a motion to table and 
the

[[Page S11691]]

tabling motion failed, would my second degree still be the pending 
business? I need an up-or-down vote.
  Mr. SPECTER. If it fails, then Senator Wellstone will be recognized 
for offering a second degree.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Should the motion to table fail, I would assume by 
voice vote my second-degree amendment would be adopted, and then at 
that point Senator Wellstone would be recognized to offer a second 
degree. Is that the understanding?
  Mr. HARKIN. I could not hear all of this.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. My question is, at the end of the 30 minutes of 
debate on my second-degree amendment, should there be a motion to table 
my second degree, and if the motion to table were to fail, my 
assumption is that we would at that point adopt my second degree by 
voice vote, at which point Senator Wellstone would be recognized to 
offer his second degree. I just wanted that clarified.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Reserving the right to object, a question to the 
manager: Wasn't there a time limit agreed to, if there is a Wellstone 
second degree. I thought we were at 30 or 45 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator from Minnesota be willing to stipulate 
now to a time agreement, if he is to offer a second-degree amendment, 
say, to 30 minutes equally divided?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me say, in good faith, that I am 
not going to make it open-ended. I am now waiting word from other 
offices as to who will be down here, so I can't agree to a time limit, 
although I don't intend to extend it for hours. I have to wait and see 
how many people want to speak. For right now, I think we should leave 
it as it was and hope my colleagues will trust me that I am not trying 
to drag it on and on. I can't agree to that right now.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, a question to the Senator from 
Minnesota, it is your anticipation that it would be relevant to the 
first degree?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the request of the 
Senator from Pennsylvania? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. No objection to the unanimous-consent agreement which we 
have propounded with modifications.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The request is agreed to.
  The Senator from Arkansas.


                Amendment No. 1834 To Amendment No. 1812

              (Purpose: To transfer amounts appropriated)

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1834 to amendment No. 1812.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the first word and insert the following:


             ``of funds for the consolidated health centers

       ``Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     $25,471,000 of the amounts appropriated for the National 
     Labor Relations Board under this Act shall be transferred and 
     utilized to carry out projects for the consolidated health 
     centers under section 330 of the Public Health Service Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 254b).''

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, under the UC, it is my understanding 
that there is no time limit currently on the second-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 30 minutes under the unanimous 
consent, equally divided on the Senator's second-degree amendment.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is fine.
  I yield to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me a couple 
minutes?
  Mr. SPECTER. I do.
  Mr. HARKIN. I don't mean to take any more time of the Senator from 
Arkansas. I can't help poking a little bit at him before the vote.
  It is interesting that the Senator from Arkansas is trying to take 
$25 million out of the NLRB for the community health centers. Why 
didn't the Senator from Arkansas try to take $25 million out of the 
defense appropriations to help the community health centers? Why didn't 
he try to take $25 million out of energy and water or all the other 12 
appropriations bills that came down here? Why go after the NLRB?
  As I pointed out, I just spoke with the Association of Community 
Health Centers. They said that while they appreciate his intentions of 
giving them more money, they don't want to do it at the expense of the 
NLRB. I hope the amendment will be defeated.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, my staff talked to the community 
health centers, and they clarified that they do not oppose this 
amendment. In fact, while they may have concerns about how they are 
getting involved in a political fight before the Senate that may affect 
their relationship with the appropriators, in fact I think they would 
very much welcome the additional $25 million for health care in rural 
areas. That is where their heart is. They want to help people. They are 
not going to turn away $25 million to help.
  The Senator from Iowa is concerned about why I didn't take this from 
the Department of Defense bill or shift it from something else, and why 
we chose the NLRB. I think I made that case very convincingly. They 
have done an excellent job. They ought to be commended for their 
priorities and their impact analysis system by which the most critical 
cases are taken first.
  They have seen a decrease in the backlog. They have seen a decrease 
in the number of cases being filed--all the time not seeing an increase 
in their budget. To increase it by $25 million so they can buy an $11 
million computer and hire 122 more people at a time when there are tens 
of thousands of people in the poor areas of this country being left 
uninsured and without access to basic health care, I think, is a pretty 
easy call.
  While I think I can make a strong case for why we need to increase 
defense spending, when we have treatment goals failing in virtually 
every branch of the military, with the exception of the Marines, and 
when we see tens of thousands of our men and women in uniform on food 
stamps, I can tell you why I didn't take it from defense. But the more 
important question is why NLRB? Because it is a Washington bureaucracy 
that is going to get bigger under that plan to buy a computer and hire 
122 more people at a time when they have seen a decrease in the 
workload. That is why. It is very simple.
  I know there is a need in the community health centers, and I want to 
help them. This is a little bit of help. It is enough help to provide 
health care for an additional 83,000 people nationwide. And some of 
those folks are going to be in the delta of Arkansas.
  This is not a difficult amendment to vote for. It is a pretty easy 
case. I have had to come down and defend a lot of amendments on this 
floor, but I don't think I have ever had one that I felt more strongly 
about personally or for which it was easier to make the case.
  The budget for the NLRB has been cut over the years. From 1980 to 
1998--over that 18-year period--their budget declined 21 percent. That 
sounds pretty bad until you realize the number of charges received and 
processed declined 10 percent more than that--31 percent.
  To stand on the floor of the Senate and say we are disenfranchising, 
that we are denying justice by not increasing by $25 million the budget 
for a Washington bureaucracy, I am sorry; I don't think that sells. And 
I don't think it is too convincing to those who are going to be denied 
health care by the defeat of this amendment.
  They have done a good job in reducing the backlog. They have done a 
good job in seeing a fewer number of charges. And they have done so 
with lower budgets over the last 18 years. It doesn't make any sense 
now to increase it dramatically by $25 million so they can hire 122 
more people and buy an $11 million computer system.
  I suggest that money would be better used by people in the poor 
communities, in the rural areas of this country, to ensure that they 
can walk in--44 percent of them are children--and not have to worry 
about presenting insurance documentation when they go

[[Page S11692]]

into these health centers; that they can get treatment. Eighty-three 
thousand more people would be served. I ask my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I commented earlier that I would defer to 
the statistics. I am about to put a detailed chart into the Record. It 
is true that the backlog went down from about 6,200 to about 5,500 
because we added $10 million to the budget. We are now proposing to add 
approximately $24 million to the budget, which will buy a computer, 
which is not inexpensive. Computers are expensive. That will enable the 
NLRB to move part way into the latter part of the 20th century, if not 
the 21st century.
  The projection is that the backlog would then be reduced to about 
1,960 cases. If this is not done, there are many employees who are now 
at the NLRB who would be lost. I think it is plain that for the NLRB to 
keep up with the backlog and do its job, they need these additional 
employees.
  I ask unanimous consent that this chart be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     MAJOR WORKLOAD AND OUTPUT DATA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          FY 1998    FY 1999    FY 2000
                                           actual    estimate   request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Regional Offices:
  Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) Cases:
    Situations Pending Preliminary           7,434      6,198      5,487
     Investigation at Start of Year....
    Case Intake During Year............  \1\ 30,42     30,200     32,000
                                                 2
    Consolidation of Dispositions......  \1\ 2,327      2,880      2,880
    Total ULP Proceedings..............     29,331     29,831     32,647
    Situations Pending Preliminary           6,198      5,487      1,960
     Investigation at End of Year......
  Representation Cases:
    Case Intake During Year............  \1\ 6,215      6,179      6,179
    Dispositions.......................      3,091      3,012      3,218
    Regional Directors Decisions.......        769        704        722
(2) Administrative Law Judges:
  Hearings Pending at Start of Year....      1,210      1,106      1,046
  Hearings Closed......................        444        521        573
  Hearings Pending at End of Year......      1,106      1,046        958
  Adjustments After Hearings Closed....          0          1          1
  Decisions Pending at Start of Year...        216        134        120
  Decisions Issued.....................        528        538        590
  Decisions Pending at End of Year.....        134        120        107
(3) Board Adjudication:
  Contested Board Decisions Issued.....        426        532        556
  Representation Election Cases:
    Decisions Issued...................        275        237        248
    Objection Rulings..................        214        171        187
(4) General Counsel--Washington:
  Advice Pending at Start of Year......         58        129        172
  Advice Cases Received During Year....        762        716        760
  Advice Disposed......................        691        673        785
  Advice Pending at End of Year........        129        172        147
  Appeals Pending at Start of Year.....        980        910      1,077
  Appeals Received During Year.........      3,316      3,313      3,401
  Appeals Disposed.....................      3,386      3,146      3,828
  Appeals Pending at End of Year.......        910      1,077        650
  Enforcement Cases Received During            271        287        304
   Year................................
  Enforcement Briefs Filed.............        145        152        161
  Enforcement Cases Dropped or Settled.         63         64         68
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Actual figures for FY 1998 are preliminary and still being
  reconciled.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had announced earlier my hope to stack 
the votes. But in light of the procedural context that we are in now, I 
am advised that there will not be an agreement to set this amendment 
aside. It is my hope that we can vote as promptly as possible.
  I move to table the Hutchinson second-degree amendment, and I ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Arkansas for his 
amendment.
  I have followed the activities of the NLRB for many years--since I 
came to the Senate, in fact. It is certainly not clear to me that this 
agency needs a $25 million increase over last year's level--
particularly when the subcommittee was forced to be so frugal with a 
number of other high priority programs.
  I support the reallocation of these funds to the Consolidated Health 
Services account for the Community Health Centers. We have long worried 
about access to primary health care for low-income families. This 
amendment is a way that we can provide such care for 83,000 more 
Americans.
  The Senator from Iowa said that he was told the association 
representing community health centers did not request this amendment. I 
cam appreciate the rationale of the association. They, of course, 
recognize the hard work done by the subcommittee in putting together 
this bill and wish to support that by taking a neutral position on the 
Hutchinson amendment.
  However, let's put the amendment in perspective. The NLRB is getting 
a $25 million increase--an unprecedented increase--over 10 percent. 
There has been no justification offered for this increase. The caseload 
has consistently declined over the decade.
  Now, the appropriations committee has provided an increase for the 
community health centers of $99.3 million. This is badly needed, 
comparison with the NLRB notwithstanding.
  The additional funds provided by the Hutchinson amendment would 
permit health centers to serve 83,000 more people. That is the most 
important point, to me.
  Mr. President, let's compare: $25 million for 122 more federal 
employees and new computers versus health care for 83,000 Americans. 
This is a no brainer for me.
  I hope it is for my colleagues as well. I urge Senators to support 
the Hutchinson amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the amendment?
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, is there still time remaining on the 
Hutchinson amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is.
  Mr. DURBIN. If that time is allocated to each side, if I might yield 
to the chairman of the subcommittee at this point, I don't want to 
delay the proceedings, if he wants to move to a vote. It is my 
understanding there is time remaining on the debate.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as manager of the bill, I do wish to move 
to a vote. I would be delighted to hear how much time the Senator from 
Illinois wants, to hear his closing argument, and then to proceed to a 
vote on the tabling motion.
  How much time would he like?
  Mr. DURBIN. Ten minutes would be more than enough.
  Mr. SPECTER. I agree. There is another unanimous consent agreement on 
top of that. I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from 
Illinois speaks for up to 10 minutes, we move to a vote on the tabling 
motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SPECTER. With 2 minutes for Senator Hutchinson to close.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  This is a difficult choice which is offered to us by the Senator from 
Arkansas in terms of transferring money because hardly any Member of 
the Senate will argue that community health centers should have more 
resources. We opened a new one in my hometown. It is very important in 
many rural areas. In smalltown America, these community health centers 
provide health care that is not otherwise available. So in that regard 
I applaud his effort. I only take exception to his source.
  The National Labor Relations Board has been a pain in the side of big 
business for over 60 years because it is a mechanism for dealing with 
disputes between employers and employees and employees and labor 
unions.
  There has been an effort by those who cannot repeal the law creating 
this agency to reduce the resources of the agency and make the delays 
in the backlog so insufferable that the agency virtually was stopped in 
its tracks. Not that many years ago there was a hard freeze on this 
agency which resulted in slowing down the process for years.
  As I travel around the State of Illinois, and I listen to my 
colleagues from other parts of the Nation, I find that if you are 
trying to organize a plant, for example, to bring in a labor union, and 
there is some dispute about whether both sides are following the law, 
it is almost impossible to turn to the NLRB and expect a timely 
decision on violations of the law. As a consequence, the whole effort 
of collective bargaining, which has been a recognized legal right in 
this country for decades, is jeopardized because of efforts to strangle 
this agency.
  This is not a voluntary reduction in NLRB funds. This is an effort to 
stop its mission. Frankly, I think that is a serious mistake because we 
understand as well that some of the rights that are protected by the 
National Labor Relations Board were rights that were fought for over 
the years by many people who gave their blood and their lives to make 
certain that the concept principle of collective bargaining would be 
recognized.
  Listen to this about the agency backlog currently facing the NLRB. 
Despite

[[Page S11693]]

the agency's success in screening out tens of thousands of public 
inquiries and voluntarily resolving the vast majority of its 
representation in unfair labor practice, backlogs continue to grow with 
no concomitant increases in staffing.
  I salute the chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, and his counterpart on the Democratic side, the Senator 
from Iowa. They have recognized it and put $25 million into the NLRB.
  When you look to where this money is being spent, it is for things 
that are absolutely essential--training the people who work there, the 
attorneys, the hearing officers, and the like to make sure people get a 
fair chance and their day in court.
  The Senator from Arkansas closes out that possibility. He takes the 
$25 million away.
  Some of the funds here are used to modernize computer equipment to 
deal with the Y2K problem. The Senator from Arkansas, by cutting $25 
million, makes that more difficult to achieve. A lot of the money is 
used for basic administration of the agency, relocating people where 
they are needed, where the workload is growing. The Senator from 
Arkansas steps in the path of that. I suggest to those listening to the 
debate on this amendment, don't just dwell on where the money is going. 
Look to the source of the money.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania very eloquently has presented the fact 
that the backlogs are still a problem and, if we adopt the approach of 
the Senator from Arkansas, we are going to be, if not turning out the 
lights, dimming the lights in a very important agency where justice is 
part of the agenda; in fact, it is the reason for the existence of the 
agency.
  Looking at what the NLRB has accomplished in a very short period of 
time, one understands why they need to be in business and fully 
staffed. Last year, the National Labor Relations Board cases resulted 
in reinstatement offers to 4,500 American employees who alleged 
unlawful firing or layoff. They also had cases that resulted in back 
pay and other monetary recovery to more than 24,000 American workers 
totaling more than $92 million. They also held nearly 3,800 
representation elections affecting a quarter million American workers.
  What the Senator from Arkansas does with his amendment is restrict 
the power of this agency to do its job, to say to America's workers 
from one coast to the other, they are not going to be able to call this 
agency and expect it to be there and be responsive.
  If you decide in a democratic election by majority vote at your 
business to bargain collectively and to seek representation of a union, 
the Senator from Arkansas makes sure your telephone call goes 
unanswered at NLRB when you need a helping hand to resolve a dispute 
between employer and employee. If you are someone fired and fired 
illegally or unlawfully, who turns to the Federal legal network, the 
National Labor Relations Board, and says, I was discriminated against, 
I was unlawfully fired, the Senator from Arkansas makes certain your 
telephone call is not likely to be answered.
  Mr. President, $25 million is taken out of the agency, including 
money for computer modernization. On the whole question of whether or 
not you are going to have union representation in a free and democratic 
process and whether you have the National Labor Relations Board to make 
sure both sides follow the rules, the Senator from Arkansas, with his 
amendment, takes the $25 million out of this agency which is necessary 
for them to keep up with their workload.
  I say those who oppose the National Labor Relations Board and want to 
close it down should do it in a clean vote. Put your amendment on the 
floor to close it down, have it up or down, and decide whether American 
workers will have this forum for protection or not. But to bleed off 
from this agency $25 million they need to protect workers across the 
United States in the name of helping community health centers is a 
tactic that should be exposed for what it is. It is an effort to take 
away from a very important agency the resources they need to respond to 
the requests of American workers across the Nation.
  I might add for those who think this is another labor amendment or 
antilabor amendment, those who dispute the treatment under their labor 
agreements, employees who believe labor organizations are not treating 
them fairly, have the National Labor Relations Board to turn to as 
well; it is not just the private sector companies.
  American workers' rights are at stake here. This is not just a 
question of health care in rural areas, which I support; it is a 
question of whether or not we will protect the hard-fought-for rights 
of American workers across the Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to support the efforts of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, to table this motion, to stand by this 
subcommittee, and make sure the National Labor Relations Board has the 
resources it needs to do the job that is very important to American 
workers.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I regret that the Senator from 
Illinois implies that I deny the employees of this country their right 
under the National Labor Relations Act. I certainly would not imply by 
his position that he supports denying 83,000 Americans health care 
served under the $25 million added to the budget of the health centers. 
I wouldn't make such a suggestion. I regret he made such a suggestion 
before the Senate.
  If we were denying justice for employees, I would not offer this 
amendment. The reality is, we are not cutting a dime from the NLRB. We 
are only eliminating the $25 million increase so they can hire 122 more 
employees and a computer system at a time when the caseload is 
decreasing. Mr. President, a 31-percent decrease in caseload I don't 
think justifies a $25 million increase in funding.
  It is not hard to understand. Make that case to the American people. 
I will go out and say this is what we should do, flat-line their budget 
at a time they have decreasing workload and put more money into 
community health centers. That is what this amendment does.
  If Members want to vote against community health centers and vote for 
more bureaucracy, Members have their opportunity. I want to serve those 
83,000 people who will receive health care because of this $25 million 
infusion into this very worthwhile program. It is bureaucrats at the 
NLRB--122 more employees--or serving people who need health care, 
primarily children.
  I ask my colleagues to support the children of this country, not the 
bureaucrats in Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Under a previous order, the question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 1834. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 300 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Stevens
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The motion was agreed to.

[[Page S11694]]

  Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 1812

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the underlying 
first-degree amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1812) was rejected.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, under our sequencing arrangement, Mr. 
Enzi, the Senator from Wyoming, is next on the list. We are then going 
to move to the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham. We are trying to get 
time agreements here to move the bill along. We have a long list of 
proposed amendments which were filed as of 2 o'clock which we are going 
to try to window here.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Could we have order in the Chamber, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please come to order.
  Mr. SPECTER. May I yield to the Senator from Wyoming for a brief 
statement as to his amendment? He has already stated a willingness to 
have 30 minutes equally divided. Let's see if we can get a time 
agreement.
  Mr. REID. We object. We have objections on our side. There is no 
chance for a time agreement. This deals with OSHA? Objection.
  Mr. ENZI. If I could briefly comment, this is a change in the OSHA 
budget. But what it does is allocate a portion of the ----
  Mr. HARKIN. Regular order, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Please, the Senate will come to order.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. I also ask for 
the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania was last 
recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. May I just suggest then that the Senator from Wyoming 
send his amendment to the desk and proceed since we have had an 
indication of the unwillingness to have a time agreement.


                           Amendment No. 1846

    (Purpose: To clarify provisions relating to expenditures by the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration by authorizing 50 percent 
of the amount appropriated that is in excess of the amount appropriated 
    for such purpose for fiscal year 1999 to be used for compliance 
  assistance and 50 percent of such amount for enforcement and other 
                               purposes)

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1846.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1846.

  Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 13, line 14, insert after ``1970;'' the following: 
     ``Provided, That of the amount appropriated under this 
     heading that is in excess of the amount appropriated for such 
     purposes for fiscal year 1999, $16,883,500 shall be used to 
     carry out the activities described in paragraph (1) and 
     $16,883,500 shall be used to carry out paragraphs (2) through 
     (6);''.

  Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent to have a technical correction from 
what the legislative service drafters had, to change ``line 18'' to 
``line 14.''
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I would like to object until I look at the change in 
the language.
  The wrong page number. I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today as Americans head off to work, 17 of 
them will die and 18,600 of them will be injured on the job. All of us 
on the Labor Committee have worked very hard to make sure those numbers 
come down--not go up. We do not want an increase; we want a dramatic 
decrease in deaths. We want a dramatic decrease in the number who are 
injured. I repeat: 17 working Americans will not be returning home 
tonight because they will die on the job.
  As chairman of the Worker Safety Subcommittee, I feel responsible to 
those families for making sure we are doing all we can to prevent those 
horrible accidents from occurring in the first place. I feel 
responsible for finding solutions that will help protect more workers 
from harm.
  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, is the 
Government agency responsible for regulating safety laws in America. 
The way OSHA is supposed to work is that it should be providing helpful 
assistance to the overwhelming number of employers who are actively 
pursuing safer workplaces. And I can tell you that according to OSHA:

       . . . 95 percent of the employers do their level best to 
     try to voluntarily comply with OSHA.

  ``Voluntarily comply with OSHA''--that was stated by Frank Strasheim, 
the Deputy Assistant Secretary of OSHA.
  Simultaneously, OSHA should be effectively targeting those employers 
who are willfully disregarding safety laws. They should be inspecting 
them. They should be fining them. And they should follow up to ensure 
the bad practices are stopped before accidents occur.
  But everyone knows that is not what is actually happening. What is 
happening is that OSHA lumps all employers together--both the good and 
the bad--treats them the same, and tries to inspect and fine them all, 
no matter how small or ridiculous the violation. Meanwhile, serious and 
potentially deadly practices go uninspected and unstopped. The result 
is disastrous and, unfortunately, often fatal.
  I am not trying to decrease any funding for OSHA. What this amendment 
does is shift the emphasis so that there is some money being spent on 
consultation. We have had a lot of hearings. We have had a lot of 
discussion. We have said that prevention is where we want to be, 
prevention of an accident, not persecution after a death. That is not 
how this is supposed to work.

  As reported in the Associated Press, three-quarters of the worksites 
in the United States that had serious accidents in 1994 and 1995 had 
never been inspected by OSHA during this decade. The report also showed 
that even OSHA officials acknowledge that their inspectors do not get 
to a lion's share of lethal sites until after accidents occur because 
it takes OSHA, according to the AFL-CIO, over 167 years to reach every 
worksite in this country. We want them to be able to serve everyone, 
but 167 years? That means the budget would have to be increased 167 
times to do that. The fact is that OSHA neither helps those good-faith 
employers who want to achieve compliance with the safety laws, nor 
effectively deters bad employers from breaking the law.
  How long does it take to get an inspection? That varies quite a bit 
by State. Those that are State plan States get a little bit more 
frequent visits than those that are not State plan States. So the 
Federal ones, some of them, it will be more than 200 years that they 
have the odds of not getting an inspection.
  This point is so important, I will say again, because it takes OSHA 
over 167 years to reach every worksite in this country. The fact is 
that OSHA neither helps those good-faith employers who want to achieve 
compliance with safety laws, nor effectively deters bad employers from 
breaking the law. OSHA's response has been to ask Congress for more and 
more enforcement dollars. I say that response is no response. I say 
that response only begs the question. Using OSHA's framework, the 
scenario would be as follows: Since it takes 167 years for OSHA to 
investigate every worksite in the country, we would need to increase 
OSHA's enforcement budget 167 times in order for OSHA to inspect every 
worksite every year. It doesn't take as long when they are doing 
consultation, and it reduces accidents.
  Increasing it 167 times would be a reckless, unrealistic suggestion 
that doesn't even get to the heart of the problem. That is not even the 
worst part. The worst part is what OSHA's response for more enforcement 
dollars

[[Page S11695]]

says to those 95 percent of employers who are doing their level best to 
comply. It says: Hey, Mr. Good-Faith Employer, we know you are trying 
to comply, but you are out of luck because even if you are trying to be 
safe, if you don't know what you are doing, or if you make a wrong 
interpretation of the statute, we are going to fine you. We are going 
to fine you big.
  Here are the facts: Employers have to read through, try to understand 
and interpret, and implement over 1,200 pages of highly technical 
safety regulations--1,200 pages. That is what I have right here. Do you 
know how big numbers like that are in Washington? I want to make this 
clear as possible so I brought a little show and tell.
  Before I do that, I yield to the Senator from Georgia.


                Amendment No. 1885 To Amendment No. 1846

    (Purpose: To clarify provisions relating to expenditures by the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration by authorizing 50 percent 
of the amount appropriated that is in excess of the amount appropriated 
    for such purpose for fiscal year 1999 to be used for compliance 
  assistance and 50 percent of such amount for enforcement and other 
                               purposes)

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I offer a second-degree amendment and 
send it to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1885 to amendment No. 1846.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the first word and insert the following: 
     ``That of the amount appropriated under this heading that is 
     in excess of the amount appropriated for such purposes for 
     fiscal year 1999, $16,883,000 shall be used to carry out the 
     activities described in paragraph (1) and $16,883,000 shall 
     be used to carry out paragraphs (2) through (6);''.

  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield the floor.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I was mentioning these regulations, these 
1,200 pages of regulations. That is what we expect the businessman to 
know, understand, and implement. Just imagine, Dodd's Bootery in 
Laramie or Corral West Ranchware in Cheyenne or Bubba's Barbeque in 
Jackson. They are supposed to have understood all five of these huge 
volumes. There are more pages in these OSHA regulations than ``Gone 
with the Wind'' or ``The Canterbury Tales'' or even the Old Testament 
and the New Testament combined. Adding insult to injury, in many cases 
OSHA's regulations are so complicated and so complex that even if you 
read through it all, deciding one correct interpretation of a rule is 
nearly impossible.
  Take OSHA's draft safety and health rule, for example. This is the 
draft one. This is one I have a lot of concern about. What this draft 
rule would require is for almost all employers, regardless of their 
size or type, to put in place a written safety plan. Now, I am in favor 
of safety plans. I know that safety plans make a difference in safety 
in the workplace. I have watched that. But this is a draft rule. It 
sounds right. This is not only mandatory, but the elements of the rule 
are completely subjective to human nature.
  For example, the rule requires the program, and I quote, to be 
``appropriate'' to conditions in the workplace and an employer to 
evaluate the effectiveness of the program. He is supposed to evaluate 
the effectiveness as often as necessary, and where appropriate, to 
initiate corrective action. So I throw out this question to the Senate: 
How often is as often as necessary? Is it once a month? Once a week? 
Every day? I can envision 1,000 different responses from 1,000 
different angles. So how on Earth do we expect small businesses to 
cope, not only with reading these five volumes but also to understand 
what is meant by them, how OSHA would interpret them, and then to draw 
up a safety plan?
  That, however, is exactly what the draft rule expects every small 
business in this country to do. The safety subcommittee, which I chair, 
has had two hearings examining the effects of OSHA. The first was a 
hearing to highlight how so many good-faith employers want safe 
workplaces but are drowning in these 1,200 pages of highly technical 
safety regulations. Every single one of the employers who came to the 
hearing agreed that they were left to their own to comply with every 
one of the thousands of rules without helpful assistance from OSHA.
  The second hearing we held was about the flip side of that coin, how 
OSHA is not deterring the bad employers from willfully violating safety 
laws either. The subcommittee heard from family members who lost loved 
ones in workplace accidents and how OSHA neither helped prevent those 
accidents from occurring nor adequately responded after the accidents 
took place.
  To those people who have told me that the new OSHA is on the right 
track and that ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it,'' I ask them to read 
through our hearing transcript and see if it will change their minds. 
Since I don't have much time, I would like to tell my colleagues about 
one of the witnesses who testified before our subcommittee whose name 
is Ron Hayes.
  In 1993, Ron and his family didn't know much about OSHA and were not 
all that active in the worker safety scene. But in 1993, Ron's 19-year-
old son, Patrick, was killed at his job in a grain elevator in Florida 
after being pulled under the grain and suffocated. Losing his son 
changed Ron's entire life. Since that time, Ron has worked day in and 
day out to get answers about how to make employees safer and healthier.

  Ron and his wife, Dot, struggled to understand why more hadn't been 
done on behalf of their son and what could be done in the future to 
change the tide of workers' injuries and deaths.
  Ron and Dot founded Families In Grief Holding Together, called FIGHT. 
It is a project to help other families enact changes in the arena of 
workplace safety and to work through grief. Ron Hayes is one of the 
most courageous and honest people I have ever met in my life, not to 
mention the fact that he has become one of the most proficient OSHA 
experts in the country. His story continues to inspire me and push me 
forward.
  Reading an excerpt from Ron's testimony:

       Each year over 10,000 people are killed on the job. In 
     1993, one of those who died was our beloved son, Patrick 
     Hayes. I did not come here today to rebuke or chastise 
     anyone. I am simply here to plead--no, to beg you great 
     statesmen to work together to come up with positive solutions 
     for a better agency. No one wants to get rid of OSHA, we just 
     want the agency to do its job, protect workers, help train 
     and support business. I ask you great statesmen to lay down 
     your party affiliations and work toward a common goal.
       I often wonder why the good businesses in our country 
     continue to stay safe. Sometimes they are at a disadvantage 
     by their own good deeds. These good businesses build into 
     their product or bids safety measures and are sometimes 
     undercut or underbid by other uncaring business owners, so 
     under our present OSHA system, where is their benefit? The 
     bad companies know OSHA is ineffective and because of the 
     length of time it will take OSHA to inspect every work site 
     or get around to inspecting them, the odds are on their side 
     and even if caught, they know OSHA will not do much.
       OSHA's reactive enforcement methodology has not and is not 
     working. Letting OSHA continue in this manner and giving them 
     more and more money each year for enforcement and getting 
     less and less each year is just crazy. Someone has to take a 
     stand and make some hard decisions for our very future.

  Ron's strong, unwavering stand is that OSHA consultation, rather than 
reactive ``find and fine'' enforcement, is the answer that will save 
workers like Patrick from being killed on the job.
  I agree with Ron. That is why I am here today with this amendment.
  The amendment isn't to decrease the enforcement of OSHA. The 
amendment is to make sure there is an increase in consultation, an 
increase in the people who go to the places to look for the problem, 
interpret the problem, suggest the solution, and also make it a bigger 
penalty if they come back later and it hasn't been solved.
  My amendment is simple. It puts half of the $33 million increase into 
OSHA's budget, into a consultation group program that helps employers 
know how to comply. The other half is still an increase directed 
towards OSHA enforcement.
  What is OSHA consultation? OSHA consultation is the effective 
alternative to OSHA enforcement. It is what is currently working well 
and is highly praised by employees and employers. It is praised by the 
agency,

[[Page S11696]]

and it has been praised by this Congress.
  It allows employers to call OSHA and ask them to come in and help 
them read through the five volumes of OSHA regulations to see what 
applies to them and how to turn the regulations into tangible safety 
solutions. It allows employers to ask questions, to get help from the 
inside, and partner with the agency, all without threat of fines or 
citations. It makes it a little safer for them to ask OSHA questions. 
That can be as intimidating as it would be for a person to ask the IRS 
questions. But the consultation function gives them that opportunity. 
They are expected to fix what is found.
  Consultation works. The fact is that you cannot force an employer to 
comply with regulations he doesn't understand or does not know how to 
implement. It doesn't do any good to threaten employers to comply when 
they do not know how. If an employer isn't getting the help he needs, 
an inspection won't make the difference. The key is helping employers 
to understand what the regulations mean and how they work.
  Consultation is the answer because it puts the emphasis on 
partnership, cooperation, and information sharing. And if, as OSHA 
estimates, 95 percent of American employers are trying to do the right 
thing, spending money on consultation is money well spent because the 
vast majority of employers will take OSHA's suggestions to heart and 
become safer without the threat of fines and coercion.
  That allows OSHA to concentrate on the bad employers, to put some 
special emphasis there, to go after the people who don't make the 
correction, the people who aren't interested in safety and are relying 
on getting away on that 167-year inspection schedule.
  You don't have to take my word for it. Look at what Vice President 
Gore has said about the virtues of consultation:

       No army of federal auditors descends upon American 
     businesses to audit their books; the Government forces them 
     to have the job done themselves. In the same way, no army of 
     OSHA inspectors need descend upon corporate America.

  In his Report on Reinventing Government, the Vice President concluded 
that employers should be encouraged by OSHA to use private safety 
professionals as a way to vastly improve the health and safety of 
American workers ``without bankrupting the federal treasury.'' Such an 
approach would ``ensure that all workplaces are regularly inspected, 
without hiring thousands of new employees.'' By establishing incentives 
designed to encourage workplaces to comply, ``[w]orksites with good 
health, safety, and compliance records would be allowed to report less 
frequently to the Labor Department, to undergo fewer audits, and to 
submit to less paperwork.'' He concluded by saying that ``No army of 
federal auditors descends upon American businesses to audit their 
books; the government forces them to have the job done themselves. In 
the same way, no army of OSHA inspectors need descend upon corporate 
America.''
  I agree with the Vice President's praise for consultation. This 
amendment simply puts the money where our mouths are.
  A few final remarks to remind everyone what a balanced approach this 
amendment really is. Does this amendment tie OSHA's hands on the 
enforcement front? No. It gives OSHA a 50 percent increase over its 
1999 budget to use for enforcement. That is a lot of additional people 
to hire and train. Does this amendment strip OSHA's ability to go after 
that thin layer of bad work sites? No. They have more money to go after 
those work sites than they did last year. What it does do is help those 
95 percent of employers who OSHA estimates are doing their best to 
comply with OSHA and to find safety solutions that work.
  It helps them out, too.
  This amendment is more of a statement than it is an actual change 
within the department. Oversight capability of seeing where the money 
really winds up is pretty limited, but our ability to assign it there 
in the first place is not.
  I am pleased that there is an increase in the budget for OSHA. I am 
disappointed they didn't designate part of that for consultation as 
well. Beefing up OSHA's proactive consultation approach empowers both 
OSHA and the employer to achieve safer worksites.
  I have seen these consultation programs work. I have seen people 
clamoring to have the consultation, and I have seen them get in long 
waiting lines for it. These are the people who want to comply, who 
understand that there are 1,200 pages, and who want to do the right 
thing. But there isn't enough consultation money out there to help them 
get the consultation in a timely fashion. All we are doing is saying, 
please earmark some of that money for consultation; don't put all of it 
into enforcement and persecution.
  By voting in favor of this amendment, OSHA's own consultation 
programs will be extended to even more employers who are seeking safety 
and health solutions. The result will mean vastly improved safety for 
America's worksites.
  This is something I have been talking about to all of the Members on 
the committee since I came to Washington. This is an approach that 
needs to be stated in our appropriations as well. Again, it is not an 
elimination of safety and not an elimination of inspection but a 50-
percent increase in the money going to enforcement. That is what we 
need to have. But we also need to be sure the consultation programs are 
improving and increasing and are more accessible in a timely manner. If 
people have to wait a year for a consultation, accidents can happen. 
They are interested in doing it. They are ready to budget the money to 
fix it because if they don't, it doesn't do them any good.
  This is an amendment that just places some priority. It doesn't say 
all we are going to do is enforce and that all we are going to do is 
find and beat you up and fine you. It says if you will ask the 
questions, if you are serious about safety, if you want to help, we are 
going to help.
  I hope you will support me on this allocation of money to 
consultation as well as an increase in enforcement.
  I yield the floor. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, first of all, let me point out to all of my colleagues 
that I think the approach we want to take here if we want to have more 
funding for consultation is to just simply advance that by the $9 
million. But the last thing in the world I want to do is take resources 
away from enforcement, which is the backbone of worker safety. That is 
really a flaw of this amendment introduced by my colleague from 
Wyoming.
  As a matter of fact, at our March 4 hearing, a majority of witnesses 
were asked why more small businesses do not take advantage of free 
consultation services available in all 50 States. The majority of the 
witnesses said--this is not a direct quote, but I will paraphrase--that 
many small businesses don't think they will get inspected, so it is not 
economical for them to take advantage of these consultations. They feel 
no need to. The two are interrelated. When businesses really worry 
about this and know that in fact there are some enforcement laws we can 
implement, then they are more likely to go to a consultative service.
  Again, I really do not understand. It is a little bit similar to the 
amendment we just had where, on the one hand, you say you have more 
money for the community health centers and you will take it out of 
NLRB, which has everything to do with workers' rights to organize, and 
making sure equally that people who are fired are going to be able to 
have their day in court and make their appeal, and there isn't going to 
be a long delay. In that case, justice delayed is justice denied.
  In this case we have an amendment introduced by my colleague from 
Wyoming that basically takes resources away from enforcement. Standards 
and regulations are no more than suggestions. They don't mean anything 
for working people in this country if there is not sufficient 
enforcement to back them up. Let me repeat that we can have standards 
and regulations but it is empty, it doesn't mean anything to someone if 
they can't be backed up through enforcement.
  Even with the additions to the President's budget request, OSHA's 
Federal enforcement funding will fall $3 million below the level it was 
in 1995. By contrast, during the same period, 1995 to

[[Page S11697]]

2000, OSHA's State consultation program has grown from $31.5 million to 
$40.9 million, an increase of 30 percent.
  So I question the priorities of this amendment. The very area where 
we have not kept up and have not made adequate investment in inspection 
is the very area from which my colleague from Wyoming takes funds and 
puts them into the consultation program where we have been making the 
investment.
  Of the 12,500 most dangerous workplaces in the Nation, OSHA is able 
to inspect only about 3,000 a year. The other 9,500 will go uninspected 
unless there is a fatality or catastrophic accident. We need more 
enforcement resources, not less. I will repeat, we need more 
enforcement resources, not less.
  If my colleagues think about the number of people who are killed at 
the workplace because of an unsafe workplace and the number of people 
who work with carcinogenic substances which take years off their life 
or the number of workers who go deaf or suffer other disabling injuries 
because of an unsafe workplace, I find it almost impossible to believe 
they are going to take funding away from enforcement.

  I hope I don't get myself in trouble for saying this, but this is in 
some ways a class issue. This is in many ways a class issue. Actually, 
we are not talking about us and we are probably not talking about most 
of our sons and daughters. But we are talking about blue-collar 
workers. We are talking about working-class people. The whole idea of 
OSHA and the whole idea of NIOSH was to make sure that we followed 
through on our commitment for a safe workplace. The way to make sure 
that happens is to make sure we have the enforcement resources--not to 
have less.
  Let me point out that in 1995 and 1996, when OSHA's inspection 
activity declined dramatically, so did requests for consultation 
services. Business for private safety consultants also fell and even 
vendor sales of safety and health equipment declined as well.
  I go back again to our hearing that we had March 4. My colleague from 
Wyoming conducted that hearing where the majority of witnesses said one 
of the reasons small businesses don't take advantage of the free 
consultation services is because small businesses don't think they will 
get inspected.
  As I hear my colleague speak about inspection, I hear him making the 
argument that it takes too long. In fact, I agree with him. But if my 
colleagues are worried about the delay in inspection, the last thing 
they want to do is cut the budget that deals with inspection. That is 
illogical. If colleagues are worried about the delay, the last thing in 
the world they want to do is reduce enforcement resources.
  I point out to my colleagues this is an important vote. Think about 
the people you represent in your States: 55 percent of all OSHA 
inspections are in construction, which continues to be extremely 
dangerous. In 1998, 1,171 construction workers died on the job. 
Construction workers are about 6 percent of the workforce, but they 
comprise about 19 percent of workplace deaths. If we think that is too 
many workers dying on the job, and if the evidence is overwhelming 
there are still too many unsafe workplaces, and if Members are 
concerned about workplace safety, then I do not believe Senators can 
vote to reduce the resources for OSHA inspectors.
  Again, I say to both of my colleagues, including my colleague from 
Arkansas, I don't know why we make this a zero sum game. Why don't we 
say, yes, let's do even better for consultation.
  The second-degree amendment I will introduce will say we don't cut 
enforcement. I don't think we should. I think that just means we will 
have fewer inspectors, less inspections, and more workers will die. I 
don't think we should do that. What we could do is maintain the funding 
for the inspection, which is so key to worker safety, and add the 
additional money, forward fund the additional money or advance fund the 
additional money, it is only $9 million, for consultation. Why continue 
to play off one good idea versus another or help some business or some 
workers over here but end up hurting other workers over here?
  I don't understand the premise of this amendment. I think it is 
flawed. I think enforcement is the backbone of worker safety, and this 
amendment which takes resources away from enforcement also means there 
will be less safety for workers. That is why I am opposed to this 
amendment. That is why I hope this amendment will be defeated.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry as to how many more speakers the 
Senator anticipates on his side.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think Senator Kennedy may want to 
speak. I am not sure that we will have anyone else. I don't know that 
we will need to spend a lot more time. I think the Senator will be back 
soon. I have not heard from other Senators.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, would it be in order to entertain a 
request for a consent agreement? Talk to your colleagues to see if we 
could fix a time. We have a great number of other amendments pending. 
We want to move to the Graham of Florida amendment, Senator Dodd has an 
amendment, and we have amendments here. If we could make an agreement 
to 30 more minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to do so; I will let the Senator know.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise to support the Enzi amendment. 
I compliment the Senator. He has been a tireless worker and leader in 
the area of OSHA reform. I think on both sides of the aisle no one 
would dispute Senator Enzi has been the foremost student of OSHA, the 
way it works, where its failings are. The legislation he has brought 
forward and his efforts to reform this agency deserve the praise and 
the appreciation of the American people. I appreciate very much his 
willingness to offer this amendment.
  I think a few things need to be clarified. It does not cut 
enforcement. The Senator from Minnesota said this cuts enforcement. No, 
it doesn't. It takes the $33 million increased spending and says half 
of that will be used for compliance. Over last year's level, there is 
no cut in what will be available for enforcement. In fact, half of the 
$33 million increase will continue to go into the enforcement area.
  The Senator from Minnesota said the amendment was flawed. It is not 
this amendment that is flawed. It is the ``find and fine'' approach of 
OSHA that is flawed and that needs reform. This is a small step, but a 
significant step that the Senator from Wyoming has offered that will 
help move away from the ``find and fine'' approach, the enforcement-
only approach, the punitive approach to a program and a system that 
will assist small businesspeople who want to do the right thing, who 
want to have a healthy workplace, who want a safe workplace and want to 
comply with OSHA but they need help. Anybody who has ever worked with 
OSHA, anyone who has ever looked at the OSHA regulation book, knows a 
small businessman, if he is to comply, needs assistance. So I think 
this is a very well thought out and a very important amendment.

  The Senator from Minnesota, as so many others do, likes to put 
everything in terms of class warfare. This is not a class issue. It is 
not in any way an inference that blue-collar workers should not have 
protection and should not be assured they are going to work in a 
healthy workplace and a safe workplace. It is a difference on what is 
the best approach, on how we best achieve that common goal. It is not a 
class issue. It is not a class warfare issue, as some would like to 
make it.
  OSHA itself has estimated that 95 percent of small businesses--95 
percent of the workplace, employers--want to comply, that they are good 
actors who want to be in compliance. It is among those 95 percent so 
many accidents are happening and that is where this kind of amendment 
increasing employer assistance is going to help. It is going to assist 
that small businessperson who wants to comply with OSHA but needs help 
in doing so. It is going to assure them that they are going to have the 
resources to be good actors and to have a safe workplace.
  I do not know what the experience of the Senator from Minnesota has 
been, or that of others who may be voting on this, but I do know my 
experience. I was a small businessperson. I know it is 
unconstitutional, but I almost wish it were a requirement, before 
serving in the Senate, to be an employer; that you had to deal with 
Federal agencies

[[Page S11698]]

and you had to deal with this Tax Code and you had to deal with the 
regulatory agencies like OSHA. My brother and I owned a radio station 
and we did just that.
  From my experience, let me tell you, we wanted to comply with every 
OSHA rule, all 1,275 pages. We wanted to comply. But we were a small 
business that had just a handful of employees, less than a dozen. 
Frankly, we did not understand. We understood radio, but we did not 
understand every minute, highly technical safety regulation that OSHA 
put forward. That is where this amendment would help. It doesn't cut 
OSHA's funding; it just says let's put half of the increase into 
compliance, into consultation service for small businesspeople.
  It is hard for me to imagine why anybody would oppose this. The 
Senator from Wyoming has hit upon something. It is very logical. It is 
very much common sense. The American people out there understand this 
amendment. Those who may have the opportunity to see this debate and 
hear this debate, they will understand the difficulty that good actors, 
people who want to be in compliance, law-abiding businesspeople have in 
complying with an OSHA regulation book over 1,200 pages long.
  We are not saying decrease enforcement. But I will tell you this: 
OSHA could send an army, we could quadruple the enforcement budget, let 
OSHA send an army of inspectors out across this country; they still 
could not get into every workplace in the country. That is simply the 
wrong approach if we want a safe workplace. The right approach is to 
put more into consultation services, work with the 95 percent of 
businesspeople who want to have a good workplace, assist them in 
ensuring they have it, and we will do more to save lives than under the 
``find and fine,'' punitive, enforcement-oriented approach that OSHA 
has had in the past.
  Again, I commend Senator Enzi for remarkable leadership, leadership 
that has been praised on both sides of the aisle in his tireless 
efforts to improve the way OSHA operates. I commend him and am glad to 
be supportive of his amendment today.

  I have a chart I will just point to briefly. It shows 61.5 percent of 
the current budget is going to enforcement; less than a quarter of 
their budget going to compliance assistance. Senator Enzi has taken the 
approach that at least half of what we are putting into OSHA's budget 
ought to go into assistance, not taking a hammer and beating up on the 
small businessperson who is trying to comply with OSHA's thousands of 
regulations.
  Once again, I am glad to be a supporter of this amendment and ask my 
colleagues to support Senator Enzi and his continued efforts to make 
OSHA a better agency and to make the workplace in this country a safer 
place for American workers.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I, first of all, acknowledge the strong 
interest that my friend and colleague from Wyoming has in the whole 
area of OSHA. He spends a great deal of time on this issue. Although I 
have areas of difference with him, he is someone who has involved 
himself in this issue to a very significant extent. We certainly take 
note of his longstanding and continuing and ongoing interest in trying 
to make the workplace safer.
  Having said that, I do hope his position will not be sustained on 
this particular issue this afternoon. I hope eventually we will have 
the opportunity to support the Wellstone amendment that, instead of 
taking the money from inspections for consultation, would just add 
additional funding for consultations rather than denying the money for 
inspections.
  The way that would ordinarily be done is Senator Enzi would have 
offered his amendment to transfer, and then Senator Wellstone would 
have come on and offered a second-degree amendment and said: All right, 
let us have the increased money from forward funding for the $9 million 
for compliance. We would have gone to the Senate, I think, with the 
support of the Senator from Wyoming. I think we would have resolved 
this issue and we would be further down the road in moving ahead on the 
whole question of the appropriation.
  But we will go through, I guess, the vote on Coverdell, which is 
basically a repeat of the Enzi amendment. The Senator is entitled to 
offer that, to effectively cut off, at least at this time, the 
Wellstone amendment. Then we will have to come back in on top of that, 
after the Senate makes a resolution of that particular question.
  Just to put the facts straight, there are very few of us--I do not 
know any of us--who do not believe there should be an expansion of 
both: Consultation, and I think there has to be a very extensive 
inspection program. They go hand in hand. Why do we say they go hand in 
hand? We have some very direct and powerful evidence. In 1995 and 1996, 
when the Congress cut dramatically the funding for inspections, then 
the number of consultations went down correspondingly, dramatically. 
The reason for that has been very clear from the record. If there is a 
reduction in inspections, and there is a sense the companies are not 
going to be inspected, there is less of an incentive to move ahead with 
consultations.
  So these have gone hand in hand. What the Senator from Wyoming wants 
to do is put a greater emphasis on consultation and reduce the number 
of inspections. I do not think that is wise, given the fact that we 
have seen the dramatic increase in the workforce. We have 15 million 
more people working now than we had 6 years ago, as we saw, as Mr. 
Ralph Nader, interestingly, reminded us last Labor Day, indicating that 
and indicting the OSHA department for not having enough inspections in 
order to provide the kinds of protections for an expanded workforce.
  Under the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming, he wants to reduce 
them further. It will be about a 10-percent reduction in the number of 
inspections. We have about 88,000 or so inspections. This would amount 
to about a 10-percent reduction in the total number of inspections, 
which is not insignificant.
  It is particularly important in the areas of the construction trades, 
as my friend and colleague has pointed out, the Senator from Minnesota. 
Even though those in construction are only about 6 percent of the 
workforce, we find close to 20 percent of all the deaths in the 
workplace are in construction. This is a dangerous, dangerous industry 
to work in. We are fortunate in this country to have dramatic 
escalations of construction projects. We have them in our own city of 
Boston, and we have them all over this country, dramatic escalation in 
construction. We find these attendant accidents which happen, and also 
deaths which occur as well.
  So if we look at the history, we find very important and powerful 
evidence.
  We can represent what we think will happen. We can say what we would 
like to happen. But the fact is, in this particular situation, we know 
on the basis of evidence what does happen, and that is, reduction in 
inspections is reduction in consultations.
  With all respect to my friend from Wyoming, if we want to see an 
expansion of the consultations, we ought to increase the number of 
inspections instead of reducing them. But that is not where we are this 
afternoon.
  Finally, the administration and the Congress have seen a significant 
increase in consultations over the last 4 years, about a 30-percent 
increase. There has been important work done in the area of 
consultation. We certainly support--I do--that program and think it is 
very important.
  It is interesting that the association which represents those who are 
involved in consultation is resisting this amendment, and the reason 
they are resisting this amendment is for the reason I have identified. 
They understand with the reduction of inspections, there is going to be 
a reduction in consultations.
  One would think they would say: Wow, amen, let's get behind them; 
they are going to put more money into consultations and, therefore, we 
are going to get more of it.
  But no, they do not. That ought to say something to us because they 
understand as well.
  As I mentioned, I have great respect and affection for my friend and 
colleague from Wyoming, particularly in this area of OSHA, but in this 
very important area where we are talking about people's lives, what is 
the real purpose of this? The real purpose is the protection of 
workers' lives.

[[Page S11699]]

  We have seen since the time OSHA has gone into effect a dramatic 
reduction--50-, 60-percent reduction--in the loss of lives on the 
construction site. OSHA is faced with additional problems of 
occupational health. It is faced with additional issues with these new 
toxic substances and a wide range of challenges for the new workplace 
they are trying to deal with and that also pose a significant and 
serious threat to workers. What we are basically saying with OSHA is 
that we in the United States want to make sure we are going to have as 
safe a workplace as possible for working men and women.
  We believe with the increased funding provided for OSHA in this 
appropriations, as compared to the undermining of OSHA, as we saw in 
the House Appropriations Committee, we will meet that responsibility 
and OSHA can meet it.
  Let us not put at risk what is tried and tested policy conclusions: 
We have strong inspections and strong consultations. That works. That 
is the position Senator Wellstone and I and others support.
  I hope as a result of these votes that is where we will come out; 
that we will come out so there will be a modest increase which the good 
Senator has mentioned in terms of consultation; that we will come out 
and add those additional funds for the outyears but not take away from 
the extremely important inspection.
  Finally, we can pass various pieces of legislation, but unless we are 
going to have enforcement, a right without a remedy does not go very 
far. That is true in just about every area of public policy. We learn 
that every single day. What we need to have is accountability. We hear 
a great deal of talk about accountability. This is accountability. The 
question of inspections is a part of accountability to protect workers. 
If we cut off and reduce inspections, we are denying the important 
accountability that is necessary to protect workers in this country, 
and that is an important and serious mistake.

  Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate the kind remarks of my 
colleagues. I appreciate the comments they have made. We all have a 
tremendous interest in seeing there are safer workplaces, and there is 
a long way to go on that yet. But what we are having a little trouble 
agreeing on is the mechanism for getting there. There are some 
philosophical differences on how to go about safety.
  I do not think they are across that big of a chasm, but if we had the 
opportunity to spend some time to sit down and talk about them, we 
could come up with some things that will help the safety of the 
workplace in this country. We can throw out all the misconceptions and 
previous solutions and work from there. That is not what is happening. 
What is happening is this appropriations bill.
  We mentioned a record of safety and how it has been increasing. I 
have been very curious about that record of safety because a lot of 
people said when OSHA went into effect, there was a huge jump in safety 
in this country and it has been continuing; since OSHA went into 
effect, there has been a decrease in the number of deaths and accidents 
in this country.
  I went back another 20 years beyond that and looked at the number of 
accidents in this country. Business had been bringing that down before 
OSHA went into effect. They were doing that because they knew if they 
were going to have a good business, they had to take care of the 
employee. There has been an ever-increasing awareness of that, and 
there has been an ever-increasing improvement in that.
  My colleagues from across the aisle say consultation and enforcement 
have to go hand in hand. Yes, they do have to go hand in hand, and I am 
not suggesting any other thing. I am saying that half the money we are 
putting in increases ought to go for the other hand of the hand in 
hand. We ought to do 50 percent for each. We are already doing a whole 
lot more enforcement than we are consultation. I am not trying to even 
that up. I am trying to take part of what we are doing this year and 
putting it in there.

  They say: Whoa, rather than do that, take another $33 million and 
stick it in there and that will show a real commitment to safety. Let 
me tell you what that would show. It would show my stupidity on 
management. We are doing a drastic increase on that budget. We are 
expecting them to take a huge increase of funds, find the people, train 
the people and put them out there doing enforcement.
  I have faith in the people who are in that Department, and I believe 
they can do that, but they have a better chance not only of being able 
to train the people but also to get effective use out of them by 
putting half the money into consultation so half the people being 
trained are going to go out there and answer questions.
  They are going to be the good guys. They are going to be the ones who 
say: I know you do not understand these 1,200 pages, but just let me go 
through your business, show you what is wrong and, by golly, you fix 
it. If you fix it, you have no problem. If you don't fix it, my buddy 
over here is going to be on your tail; this other 50 percent of the 
money is going to be on you.
  There is a limit to how much increase you can do in a given year.
  There is room for training improvement. We have looked at what kind 
of training there is. I have also looked at the number of inspections 
that are being done by the people who are there. I am not sure there is 
enough management over the inspections that are being done.
  My colleague from Minnesota mentioned that out of those very bad 
employers, they were only able to inspect 3,000. That is terrible. That 
is rotten. That is not the way it is supposed to happen.
  We have 2,500 Federal inspectors. They are not doing the State-plan 
States. They are only doing the Federal inspections. If they did one 
more inspection a year, they would double the number of inspections on 
those bad businesses. But we are not going to have that if we just 
throw a whole bunch more people into the mix. They are not going to be 
capable of going out and looking at the bad employers and finding those 
bad problems.
  It takes more than a few months to train the people, and you cannot 
do it if you have thousands coming into the workforce at one time.
  There have to be some limits. This is a reasonable approach to being 
sure there is an increase in enforcement, and it is accompanied by an 
increase in consultation.
  If you look at the numbers of people who are waiting out there in 
non-State plan States--the State-plan States are doing pretty good with 
this, the ones that have said they will do the work themselves. They 
are doing pretty good. The non-State-plan States are having a terrible 
time getting to the backlog on consultations. So we need some 
consultation money.
  I have a bill that may be the wrong approach to doing safety. I put a 
lot of hours into it. I sat down with everybody individually, and I 
talked to them about it. It is the SAFE Act, and it calls for hiring 
some private consultation. I have run into opposition on that. What I 
have heard in the way of opposition is: You cannot let the businesses 
hire people to do inspections. Even though those inspections would 
result in things being found, things stopped, things improved, you 
cannot do it that way. It has to be done federally or that there be 
some kind of a mechanism for the Federal Government to have the 
inspectors involved.
  So I have listened. I have said OK. Under this program, the Federal 
Government hires the inspectors, the Federal Government hires the 
consultation people; it is the Federal Government that is coming in to 
do these consultations--totally independent, totally under the 
direction of OSHA.
  I have been trying to listen to what is being said on all of this. 
This is one of the solutions that can be provided. I hope you will 
support increasing the funds to OSHA. I know that is a tough stand for 
a lot of people over here, but I want you to do that. I want you to 
increase the amount of money that is going to the enforcement of OSHA, 
but at the same time what I want you to do is take half of that money 
and assure that it is going to consultation.
  As I said before, there is no way we can assure that it is going to 
consultation. Once it gets in that department budget, even though it is 
under a line item, there is not much of a way, even with oversight, to 
see if those people

[[Page S11700]]

who are supposed to be under consultation are doing any enforcement, 
and vice versa.
  So it is a statement that we are making that, yes, consultation ought 
to go hand in hand with enforcement. It is a statement. How they use 
that budget, we will never know. Maybe we will know through increased 
enforcement. Maybe we will know with a decrease in the amount of 
waiting time people have to have for these inspections.
  But we have a chance to do the right thing and to do it in a 
responsible manner that can be handled, giving the increases and making 
sure that to the small businessman out there who wants to understand 
those 1,275 pages as they apply to his business--and it isn't optional 
for him to do that; it is mandatory he do that--we are saying we are 
going to reach out and give you a little bit of a hand. We are going to 
come into your business. We are going to show you what is wrong, and 
you have to clean it up because we are hiring more enforcement people 
who are going to be here to check on you if you do not.
  That is all we are asking. I think it is a reasonable amendment. I 
was hoping that it would be accepted. I am still hoping it will be 
accepted.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. My understanding is that the Senator from Pennsylvania 
is going to try to propound a unanimous consent request.
  Let me, in 2 minutes, summarize. I appreciate the amendment by my 
colleagues in Wyoming and Georgia. I think this is an unfortunate 
tradeoff. I think it is a profound mistake. I think enforcement is the 
backbone of worker safety.
  The second-degree amendment we will offer later on would essentially 
say: We can do better for consultative services, and we can advance 
some funds there, but we are certainly not going to take it out of 
enforcement.
  My colleague from Massachusetts has spoken about this at great 
length; I have as well. I will not recite the statistics again as to 
the number of unsafe workplaces and the need for strong inspection. I 
simply say that the promise of OSHA--not yet realized--is we are going 
to make a commitment to working people, and we are going to make a 
commitment that people have a safe workplace.
  We are not doing as well as we should. We should do much better. But 
I think it would be a serious mistake for Democrats or Republicans to 
vote to reduce enforcement. That is a huge mistake. For all who care 
about worker safety, do not vote to reduce enforcement, to reduce 
inspection. The laws and the rules and regulations do not mean a thing 
unless we have the enforcement. That is why I think this amendment is 
flawed. That is why I hope it will be voted down.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Just a few comments about the merits of the pending 
amendment; then I will move on to a unanimous-consent request.
  I believe that in the bill, as it is currently drafted, there is an 
appropriate balance between consultation and enforcement. I agree with 
the Senator from Wyoming that this consultation is very important, and 
there are many places where consultation will work. I think there are 
some areas where enforcement is necessary.
  I saw in my line of work as district attorney of Philadelphia, under 
somewhat different circumstances, what enforcement does and what 
deterrence does and what the prospects of penalties may do.
  We have crafted this bill as carefully as we can. I think it has 
about the right mix, although I welcome the suggestions from the 
Senator from Wyoming and the spirited debate which we have had.
  As I take a look at the figures, in the period from 1995 to 1999, the 
enforcement funding falls $3 million this year below the 1995 level; 
$145 million to $142 million.
  By contrast, in the same period, fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year 
2000, OSHA's consultation program has grown from $31.5 million to 
almost $41 million; an increase of about 30 percent.
  Even at the level that we have here, there are 7 million workplaces 
in the United States but only about 2,300 OSHA inspectors. Of the 
12,500 most dangerous workplaces in the Nation, OSHA is able to inspect 
only about 3,000 a year; so 9,500 will not be inspected. The 
enforcement shows that there is an average decline of some 22 percent 
in the 3 years following inspections.
  So when I take a look at the entire picture, I think we have it about 
right in the current bill.
  Therefore, I move to table the second-degree amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am now going to propound a unanimous-
consent agreement on the pending matter.
  I have been asked to pause for a minute so that other Senators may 
consider the unanimous-consent agreement.
  What we propose to do by way of schedule today to move ahead is to 
set the vote aside, then move to an amendment by Senator Graham of 
Florida. I hope we can work out a time agreement on that which is not 
yet agreed to. Then we would go to an amendment by Senator Dodd for 30 
minutes, equally divided, and then come back, perhaps, to Senator 
Gregg, and then move to an amendment which may be contentious on 
ergonomics, to be offered by Senators Bond and Nickles. We would plan 
to have the votes before the ergonomics amendment, which may take some 
considerable time and move into the evening.
  We are still working as fast as we can through a long list of 
amendments to try to see when we can bring this bill to a conclusion at 
the earliest moment.
  May I inquire of the Senator from Minnesota if he is prepared for me 
to propound the unanimous consent request?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania, we are 
looking at it right now. If we can have another moment, we will be 
ready to respond.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask consent that a vote occur on or in 
relation to the pending second-degree amendment after 15 minutes of 
debate to be equally divided in the usual form, and if a motion to 
table is made and defeated, then the Senate immediately proceed to a 
vote on the pending second-degree amendment.
  I further ask consent that following the disposition of the second-
degree amendment, only if agreed to, Senator Wellstone be recognized to 
offer a second-degree amendment under the same terms as outlined above.
  Finally, I ask consent that following the disposition of the first 
second-degree amendment, if tabled, the first-degree amendment be 
withdrawn.
  I further ask consent that if the second second-degree amendment is 
offered, following its disposition, the Senate proceed to vote on the 
first-degree amendment, as amended, if amended, without any intervening 
action, motion, or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. I think that is miraculous. I hardly understand much of 
what I just read, although it was carefully drafted and I am sure will 
provide a roadmap to the future.
  I ask unanimous consent that we now proceed to the amendment offered 
by the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham. I inquire of Senator Graham if 
he will be prepared to enter into a time agreement.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of moving 
forward. This amendment is going to raise some very fundamental issues 
not only for a major social program but also for the relationship 
between the Federal Government and the States and the relationship 
between the appropriations process and the committees that have 
jurisdiction for authorization and the administration of the mandatory 
spending program.
  I do not believe at this time I can indicate how long it will take to 
fully articulate those issues to have the kind of debate which this 
amendment clearly justifies.
  Mr. SPECTER. Might I suggest an hour for the Senator's position and a

[[Page S11701]]

half hour for this side or perhaps even an hour and a half for the 
Senator's position and a half hour for this side. I am anxious to try 
to get some parameters so we know what to do with the remainder of the 
amendments and voting.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I suggest, in deference to the effective use of time, it 
would be preferable if we got started with this amendment and then saw, 
as we were into it, what might be a reasonable time.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask consent to yield back the time on 
the Enzi amendment and ask that the amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Florida.


                           Amendment No. 1821

     (Purpose: To restore funding for social services block grants)

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 1821 be called 
up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], for himself, Mr. 
     Wellstone, and Mr. Rockefeller, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1821.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title II, add the following:


                      social services block grant

       Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, 
     the amount appropriated under this title for making grants 
     pursuant to section 2002 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1397a) shall be increased to $2,380,000,000: Provided, 
     That (1) $1,330,000,000 of which shall become available on 
     October 1, 2000, and (2) notwithstanding any other provision 
     of this title, the amount specified for allocation under 
     section 2003(c) of such Act for fiscal year 2000 shall be 
     $2,380,000,000.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment, in which I am joined by 
Senators Wellstone, Rockefeller, and Dodd, will have the effect of 
reversing a decision made by the appropriations subcommittee to cut by 
more than 50 percent the funding in title 20 of the Social Security Act 
for social services block grants.
  This amendment will restore the program to the level that was 
authorized by the Finance Committee, which is $2.38 billion. This 
program, title 20 of Social Security, allocates funds to the States in 
block grant form, allowing them to provide services to vulnerable, low-
income children and elderly, disabled people. The purpose of this 
program is to assist in maintaining the well-being of those Americans 
who, but for these types of services, might become direct, individual 
recipients of Social Security funds, whether they fell into such 
because of a disability, because of their circumstances in terms of 
losing the support of an adult, or because of the aging process.
  I can tell the Senate, as a former Governor of Florida, the State 
which has the highest percentage of persons over 65 in the Nation, and 
now, as a member of the Finance Committee, which has responsibility for 
the authorization of this program, I am aware of the positive 
contribution this program has made to the well-being of millions of 
Americans and to the fiscal well-being of the Social Security program. 
I am particularly concerned about the draconian cuts that have been 
made and the fact that they have been made with almost no discussion or 
attention to the very serious policy implications.
  My Finance Committee colleagues and I, joined by colleagues from the 
House Ways and Means Committee, have agreed that this program should be 
funded at the level of $2.38 billion for the fiscal year 2000. In fact, 
the two committees of responsibility, the Senate Finance Committee and 
the House Ways and Means Committee, made a commitment to the States 
that the social services block grant would be guaranteed at the level 
of $2.38 billion until welfare reform is reauthorized in the year 2002.
  However, the Senate appropriators, rather than simply appropriating 
the statutory funding level for the fiscal year 2000 at $2.38 billion, 
have slashed the social services block grant to $1.05 billion for the 
fiscal year 2000. This harsh, unauthorized reduction would be on top of 
a 15-percent reduction made to title 20 in the 1996 welfare law.
  These enormous reductions will have adverse consequences for 
substantial numbers of frail elderly persons, disabled individuals, and 
children and their families. In my State of Florida, critical programs 
will be at serious risk if these cuts are made.
  For example, these reductions will affect services that protect 
children from child abuse and that enable poor elderly and disabled 
persons to remain in their homes rather than being placed prematurely 
in nursing homes or other institutions.
  Our State was one of the first to start a program called Community 
Care for the elderly, begun over 20 years ago. It had as its objective 
to allow older Americans to live the life they wanted to live, a life 
of maximum independence in their homes, in their communities, not to be 
forced prematurely into an institution. That program was funded both by 
State funds and by the use of some of these social service block grant 
programs. That program has had not only enormous positive benefits in 
terms of the quality of life of the beneficiaries--and, I might say, 
has now become a program that has been identified for substantial 
expansion by our current Governor, Governor Bush--but it also has been 
a program that has saved both Medicare and Medicaid substantial funds 
by maintaining the best possible state of health for many frail elderly 
and avoiding the extreme costs that are entailed when an individual has 
to be placed in a nursing home.
  We heard at a luncheon earlier today from a program that has shown 
great promise in terms of providing a successful educational 
environment for our youngest students. One of the primary keystones of 
that success is appropriate early intervention with children before 
they become public school students, while they are still in the infant 
and toddler ages, if they have physical or other disabilities, to begin 
to deal with them at the earliest stages, to give them an appropriate 
learning environment in preschool.
  Again, those are precisely the programs that are funded through title 
20 of the Social Security Act. Those are precisely the programs that 
are going to be eviscerated if we adopt this budget with this over 50-
percent cut.
  To add to all of that, I direct the attention of the Senate to page 
212 of the conference report which has been issued on the Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill. In that conference report, there is an explanation 
of why this cut is being recommended. The report states:

       The committee recommends an appropriations of $1.50 billion 
     for the Social Services Block Grant. The recommendation is 
     $1.330 billion below the budget request (read the 
     recommendation of the House Ways and Means Committee and the 
     Senate Finance Committee) and $859 million below the 1999 
     enacted level. The committee has reduced funding for the 
     block grant because of extremely tight budget constraints.

  I would like for the Presiding Officer and my colleagues to listen to 
this particular part.

       The committee believes that the States can supplement the 
     block grant account with funds received through the recent 
     settlements with the tobacco companies.

  So the subcommittee's rationale for this particular reduction is that 
the States can now be directed to use their tobacco settlement money in 
order to fund what previously had been a partnership of Federal-State 
funds for the frail elderly, for the disabled, and for children and 
their families.
  Mr. President, I fervently object to this outrageous, irresponsible 
and, I would say, nonsensical rationale.
  As you will recall, this spring we had a fervent debate about the 
question of whether the Federal Government should reach in and mandate 
how all or a portion of the States' tobacco settlements should be 
spent. We fought that out for weeks in the Senate.
  I thought after a series of rejections of exactly this proposition 
that the States could now with some comfort step back and say the 
Federal Government has decided, properly so, that we were the entities 
which secured these tobacco settlements; that the Federal Government 
would be saying we have the respect of the States that they have the 
good judgment to decide what is in the best interests of their citizens 
in the methods of spending these tobacco settlement funds; that the 
States could breathe easy; that they no longer

[[Page S11702]]

were faced with the threat that the Federal Government would want to 
play big father and tell them how to spend their money.
  It was only in March of this year that the Senate overwhelmingly by a 
margin of approximately 71 to 29 defeated an amendment that would have 
required the States to spend part of their tobacco settlement according 
to a Federal list of priorities. In June, the entire Congress voted for 
the Federal Government to stand back, to keep its hands off the tobacco 
settlement, which the States had with such effort and commitment 
achieved; that the Federal Government was saying to the State: We 
respect you, and we put our confidence in your decisions as to how to 
spend this money.
  Now we have a few months later this language saying that it is one of 
the most important social programs we in Washington are going to 
effectively, by withdrawing Federal funds, direct how the States are 
going to spend their tobacco settlement.
  It is outrageous.
  The commitment that we made for hands off was a binding commitment, 
just as our commitment to fund the title XX program that we made to the 
States to fund it at its current level to the year 2002 in order to 
play a role in the successful completion of the welfare-to-work law was 
also a binding commitment, commitments that we are now about to breach.

  Today, many of the same individuals who voted to allow the States to 
use these funds as they saw most appropriate for their citizens are 
about to tell the States that they need to reallocate tobacco 
settlement dollars in order to pick up the Federal social services 
block grant which we are going to slash by over 50 percent. That is 
blatant hypocrisy.
  The argument that the tobacco funds should be used to fill a $1.33 
billion cut in title XX is quite simply--no pun intended--a smoke-and-
mirrors tactic that does not address the issue at hand. Senate 
appropriators have no valid argument in defense of their drastic cuts 
in this critical program.
  Have no doubt that the ultimate loser in this exercise is the child--
the child who is currently receiving child care in a title XX funded 
center. The loser is that other American who has sought refuge from 
abuse through adult protective services, the disabled woman who 
receives treatment through a title XX funded center. Perhaps the reason 
our appropriators believe that they can get away with this raid on the 
social services block grant is that the American people are unclear 
about the services that this program provides.
  So I would like to take this opportunity to enlighten my Senate 
colleagues and the American people on what are the programs funded 
under title XX of the Social Security Act.
  The social services block grant was established in 1975. So it is now 
about to celebrate its 25th year of an important part of the safety net 
that helps those persons who might otherwise have to rely on expanded 
Social Security funds.
  It provides States with funds to address the social service needs as 
the States determine to be of the greatest priority. States have broad 
flexibility in determining which services to provide, who should 
deliver services, and which families and individuals to serve.
  I know our Presiding Officer had a distinguished career of service in 
his State before being elected to the Senate. So he has no doubt dealt 
with some of the programs that are funded under title XX of the Social 
Security Act.
  Adoption, case management, congregate meals, counseling services, 
adult day care, day care for children, education and training services, 
employment services, foster care services, health-related services, 
home-based services, home-delivered meals, housing services, 
independent living services for youth, legal services, child and adult 
protective services, recreation services, residential treatment, 
special services for youth at risk, and the disabled--these are some of 
the services that are provided under title XX.
  As you can see, many of the SSBG-funded services focus on children 
and youth.
  In fiscal year 1996, some 15 percent of the SSBG funds supported 
programs providing child care for low-income children. An additional 21 
percent was spent on services to protect children from abuse and 
provide foster care for children.
  SSBG funds programs for nearly half a million people with mental 
retardation and other physical and mental disability, including 
transportation, adult day care, early intervention, crisis 
intervention, respite care, employment, and independent living 
services. These services help such individuals remain at home and out 
of expensive and often inappropriate institutions. These services also 
help people with disabilities to work, to the extent it is possible for 
them to do so.

  These programs drew the support of the House Ways and Means Committee 
and the Senate Finance Committee, the two committees with 
responsibility for Social Security, to support the level of funding 
which is in the amendment currently pending.
  For those who have suggested this more than 50-percent slash in this 
program, what is it they know about this program that the House Ways 
and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee did not know or 
did not take into proper account? What we should be doing is not 
slashing this program but, if anything, we should be increasing this 
funding in order to assist particularly in this important time of 
transition from welfare to work.
  It should be noted that the Senate Labor-HHS-Education appropriations 
bill appears to reduce the percentage of a State's Federal TANF block 
grant, another of the programs that will be critical to the transfer 
from welfare to work, will reduce the percentage of a State's Federal 
TANF block grant that can be transferred to the social services block 
grant from 10 percent to 4.25 percent for fiscal year 2000. Not only 
are the States facing a draconian reduction in the social services 
block grant but also a limit in the flexibility of those funds. The 
4.25-percent ceiling further limits States' abilities to compensate for 
the impact of the overall social services block grant funding.
  One might ask, should the States also use tobacco money to fill the 
hole for this further cut, as well? Should the States perhaps be called 
upon to use tobacco funds to supplement all Federal funds for social 
programs?
  It is critical we keep the national commitments to the most 
vulnerable members of our society. That commitment cannot be fulfilled 
by slashing title 20 funds by over 50 percent. The President has said 
he would veto this bill in its current form. He cited the deep cuts in 
title 20 as a key reason for doing so. I applaud the President if it 
were to be necessary--and I hope desperately it will not be necessary--
to exercise that veto because of these unwise cuts in title 20 and the 
attempt to direct the manner in which the States will spend their 
tobacco settlement funds.
  There has been a cascade of opposition to this recommendation. The 
National Governors' Association, the National Council of State 
Legislatures, and the National Association of Counties have spoken out 
against this cut. They are joined by over 600 Federal, State, and local 
groups that understand the importance of these title 20 programs.
  I ask immediately after my remarks a series of letters from groups 
across America be printed in the Record expressing their objection to 
this proposal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the social services block grant cut of the 
magnitude reflected in this bill would substantially reduce a State's 
ability to provide services to vulnerable children, elderly, and 
disabled people. Because of the dimensions of such a cut, as well as 
the fact that most 1999 State legislative sessions have already 
adjourned, most States would not be able to offset this loss with 
additional State funds, tobacco or otherwise. That is the real point of 
this debate. This debate is not about tobacco money nor is it about 
what States do with their dollars. This debate is about the cutting of 
a program that was designed to help the most vulnerable Americans to 
live better lives and the devastating impact such a cut will have on 
their lives and our communities.
  As I come to a close, a word of caution: The raiding of title 20 
programs

[[Page S11703]]

could serve as an example of what will happen when a program is block 
granted. In the eleventh hour of last year's budget debate, a budget 
bind had developed and the means of escaping from that bind was to use 
title XX funds, if you will believe it, to fund road and highway 
spending. Today we are again sacrificing the same social services block 
grant on the altar of budgetary expediency.
  This year it is not highway funds but let's tell the States how to 
spend their tobacco settlement. These experiences should serve as a big 
red flag as we structure our social services funding. Thus far, we seem 
willing to use Meals on Wheels' funds to continue the illusion we are 
not breaking the budget caps. Will we ever fund the census from moneys 
from our children's educational future? If the answer to this question 
is yes, can similar cuts to Social Security and Medicare and other 
social programs critical to the well-being of millions of Americans be 
far behind?
  The implications of this action this afternoon are ominous. They are 
odious. We have the opportunity to avoid them.

                               Exhibit 1


                                  Intergovernmental Relations,

                                Milwaukee, WI, September 30, 1999.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: I am writing to you on behalf of 
     Milwaukee County to express our strong support for your 
     amendment to the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill to restore 
     funding to the Social Services Block Grant (Title XX). 
     Funding the Title XX program at its authorized level of $2.38 
     billion is critically important to Milwaukee County.
       In addition, Milwaukee County urges you to retain current 
     law provisions that allow states to transfer up to 10 percent 
     of their TANF block grants into Title XX.
       As you know, the SSBG program has been cut three times in 
     the past three years, totaling a half a billion dollars in 
     funding. With current funding down to $1.9 billion for FY 
     1999, Wisconsin has experienced a decrease in funding of over 
     $7.6 million for this year, with the state's counties bearing 
     the brunt of these significant cuts.
       In Wisconsin, it is the state's counties that provide 
     critical social services to vulnerable populations such as 
     supportive home care and community living and support 
     services for elderly and disabled adults and children. 
     Milwaukee County also utilizes SSBG dollars to provide a wide 
     range of other services, including drug and alcohol abuse 
     treatment, temporary shelter service for homeless families, 
     and outpatient treatment for individuals with mental health 
     issues.
       In addition, Wisconsin is currently transferring the full 
     10 percent of its TANF block grant, nearly $32 million, to 
     fund Title XX services. If the current 10 percent 
     transferability level is reduced to the proposed 4.25 
     percent, Wisconsin would lose the ability to transfer over 
     $18 million in TANF funds.
       Again, Milwaukee County strongly supports your efforts to 
     restore full funding for the SSBG. Thank you in advance for 
     your active support of Title XX.
           Sincerely,

                                                    Joe Krahn,

                                                  Milwaukee County
     Washington Representative.
                                  ____



                               Wisconsin Counties Association,

                                   Monona, WI, September 30, 1999.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: I am writing to you on behalf of the 
     Wisconsin Counties Association (WCA) to express our strong 
     support for your amendment to the Labor-HHS Appropriations 
     bill to restore funding to the Social Services Block Grant 
     (Title XX). Funding the Title XX program at its authorized 
     level of $2.38 billion is critically important to Wisconsin's 
     counties.
       In addition, WCA urges you to retain current law provisions 
     that allow states to transfer up to 10 percent of their TANF 
     block grants into Title XX.
       As you know, the SSBG program has been cut three times in 
     the past three years, totaling a half a billion dollars in 
     funding. With current funding down to $1.9 billion for FY 
     1999, Wisconsin has experienced a decrease in funding of over 
     $7.6 million for this year, with the state's counties bearing 
     the brunt of these significant cuts.
       In Wisconsin, it is the state's counties that provide 
     critical social services to vulnerable populations such as 
     supportive home care and community living and support 
     services for elderly and disabled adults and children. 
     Wisconsin's counties also utilize SSBG dollars to provide a 
     wide range of other services, including drug and alcohol 
     abuse treatment, temporary shelter service for homeless 
     families, and child abuse prevention and intervention 
     services.
       In addition, Wisconsin is currently transferring the full 
     10 percent of its TANF block grant, nearly $32 million, to 
     fund Title XX services. If the current 10 percent 
     transferability level is reduced to the proposed 4.25 
     percent, Wisconsin would lose the ability to transfer over 
     $18 million in TANF funds.
       Again, WCA strongly supports your efforts to restore full 
     funding for the SSBG. Thank you in advance for your active 
     support of Title XX.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Joe Krahn,
     WCA Washington Representative.
                                  ____

                                                    July 13, 1999.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Senate Appropriations Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Stevens: The Board of Directors of Generations 
     United urge you to fund Title XX, the Social Services Block 
     Grant (SSBG) at its present entitlement level of $2.38 
     billion included in the Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Act of 1996.
       We are pleased that the Clinton Administration has 
     requested restoration of this program to the fully authorized 
     level for the next fiscal year. We believe that this proposed 
     funding level is a formal recognition by the administration 
     of the importance of this block grant and we hope you will 
     endorse this recommendation. We do however continue to have 
     concerns about reducing the states ability to transfer funds 
     from TANF into Title XX to no more than 4.25 percent. We 
     would like to ensure that state flexibility remains.
       SSBG is an important source of intergenerational support 
     providing flexible federal dollars that helps states respond 
     to their most pressing human service needs. SSBG has a proven 
     record of addressing dependent care needs across the 
     generations. Essential programs supported by SSBG include:


                              for children

       Services that support the success of the Adoption and Safe 
     Families Act. For example, in 1997, States reported using 2.2 
     percent of SSBG funds for adoption foster care and child 
     protection services.
       SSBG is also an important source of support for Child Care.


                              older adults

       SSBG are essential for keeping older adults independent and 
     out of institutions.
       In 1997, an estimated 318 million was used for adult day 
     care and home-based services.
       Forty-five states reported using the funds to provide home-
     based services to the elderly, 38 for elderly case management 
     and 46 for child protection.
       Generations United is the only national organization that 
     promotes intergenerational policies, programs, and 
     strategies. We represent more than 100 national organizations 
     and millions of individuals who support reciprocity between 
     the generations and the social compact that calls for using 
     the strengths of one generation to meet the needs of the 
     other. We believe a health society should not have to choose 
     between its most vulnerable members--children, youth and the 
     elderly--but instead should support the basic needs of each 
     generation.
       We urge you to fund Title XX, the Social Service Block 
     Grant at its fully authorized level of 2.38 billion.
           Sincerely,
     The Board of Generations United.
                                  ____



                                   National Network for Youth,

                               Washington, DC, September 30, 1999.
       Dear Senator: The National Network for Youth is a 24 year-
     old non-profit membership-based organization committed to 
     advancing its mission to ensure that young people can be safe 
     and grow up to lead healthy and productive lives. 
     Representing hundreds of non-profit, community-based youth-
     serving organizations, youth workers and young people from 
     around the nation, the National Network for Youth urges 
     Congress to support the amendment offered by Senators Graham, 
     Wellstone, and Rockfeller to restore funding for the Social 
     Services Block Grant so states can continue to provide 
     children and youth in high-risk situations and their families 
     the services they need.
       Established under Title XX of the Social Security Act, the 
     Social Services Block Grant provides funding critical to 
     states' ability to offer services to vulnerable children, 
     youth and families. In 1997, 5% of the funding available was 
     designated for vulnerable youth. Over 200,000 youth received 
     SSBG services including temporary housing, residential 
     treatment, counseling, therapy, support and training to live 
     independently, vocational training, and case management. 
     Without the support of state and local services, vulnerable 
     youth have a high risk of homelessness, teen pregnancy, 
     poverty, and entering the criminal justice system.
       The homeless youth population is estimated to be 
     approximately 300,000 young people each year. Physical and 
     sexual abuse and neglect are among the key causal factors for 
     runaway behavior. States and local governments have the 
     primary responsibility for protecting children from abuse and 
     neglect, and preventing youth at high risk from entering the 
     criminal justice system. In Fiscal Year 1997 more than 2.3 
     million children were protected from abuse and neglect 
     through services funded by the Social Security Block Grant, 
     supplementing other federal programs offering aid to state 
     and local programs protecting children and youth.
       Funding for the Social Security Block Grant was reduced 
     from $2.8 billion in 1995 to $2.38 billion in 1996. The 
     Social Security Block Grant has since faced repeated cuts and 
     is currently funded at $1.9 billion. Additional funding cuts 
     to the Social Services

[[Page S11704]]

     Block Grant could weaken those services critical to the aid 
     of vulnerable youth and other at-risk populations. The 
     National Network for Youth urges Congress to support the 
     amendment offered by Sens. Graham, Wellstone, and Rockefeller 
     to restore funding for the Social Security Block Grant in 
     FY2000.
           Sincerely,
     Della M. Hughes,
       Executive Director.
     Miriam A. Rollin,
       Director of Public Policy.
                                  ____

                                                  California State


                                      Association of Counties,

                               Sacramento, CA, September 30, 1999.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: I am writing to you on behalf of the 
     California State Association of Counties (CSAC) to express 
     our strong support for your amendment to the Labor-HHS 
     Appropriations bill to restore funding to the Social Services 
     Block Grant (Title XX). Funding the Title XX program at its 
     authorized level of $2.38 billion is critically important to 
     California's counties.
       In addition, CSAC urges you to retain current law 
     provisions that allow states to transfer up to 10 percent of 
     their TANF block grants into Title XX.
       The SSBG is a major source of human service funding for 
     California, and repeated federal cuts will impair services 
     for vulnerable populations. Our state is one of the largest 
     recipients of SSBG funds, and due to last year's $471 million 
     reduction in the block grant, California lost over $56 
     million in funding. Two of the major services California 
     funds with SSBG are In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) at 
     $116.2 million, and Development Disability Services for kids 
     in CWS at $111 million.
       The SSBG is a cost-effective program that has been slashed 
     by close to one billion dollars over the past five years. The 
     SSBG funds services that allow people to remain in their 
     homes, a much more desirable solution than the costly 
     alternative of institutionalization. According to HHS data, 
     in FY 1997 the SSBG funded home-based services that allowed 
     over 60,000 elderly Californians to remain in the community. 
     Overall, the SSBG funded services for 1,665,349 Californians, 
     including 191,000 disabled and 87,195 elderly that same year. 
     In addition, in 1998, California transferred $183 million 
     from TANF to the SSBG to fund child care services.
       Again, CSAC strong supports your efforts to restore full 
     funding for the SSBG. Thank you in advance for your active 
     support to Title XX.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Joe Krahn,
     CSAC Washington Representative.
                                  ____



                                  American Humane Association,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     Washington, DC, September 28, 1999.
       Dear Senator Graham: I am contacting you to commend your 
     amendment to fund Title XX, the Social Service Block Grant at 
     its present entitlement level of $2.38 billion for the FY 
     2000 budget. Title XX is one of the few programs available to 
     support lower-income working families. This block grant has 
     also been a significant funding source for programs that 
     protect abused and neglected children.
       Founded in 1877, the American Humane Association (AHA) is a 
     nationwide association of child welfare professionals, public 
     and private social services, medical and mental health 
     professional, as well as educators, researchers, judicial and 
     law enforcement professionals and child advocates. AHA's 
     Children's Division continues to be a voice dedicated to the 
     protection of children.
       AHA strongly believes that Title XX deserves to be placed 
     high on the list of priorities. This block grant allows 
     states the flexibility to provide much needed services for 
     vulnerable children and families in near crisis situations 
     and has helped support reforms in state foster care systems.
       AHA is pleased that the Clinton administration has 
     requested restoration of this vital program to the full 
     entitlement level for the next fiscal year. We believe that 
     this proposed funding level is a formal recognition by the 
     Administration of the vital importance of this block grant 
     and we hope you will endorse this recommendation. We do, 
     however, continue to hold great concerns with regard to the 
     administration's proposal to reduce the states' ability to 
     transfer funds from TANF into Title XX to no more than 4.25 
     percent. We would like to work closely with you, as well as 
     the Administration, to ensure that state flexibility is 
     retained.
       By helping to keep people in the community, the Social 
     Services Block Grant actually saves the federal government 
     and the nation's taxpayers the cost of expensive 
     institutional care. Therefore, we strongly urge you to fund 
     the Social Services block Grant at its fully authorized level 
     of $2.38 billion.
       Thank you for your hard work and attention to this issue. 
     If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate 
     to contact us at (202) 543-7780.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Adele Douglass,
                                   Director, Washington DC Office.


                Amendment No. 1886 To Amendment No. 1821

     (Purpose: To restore funding for social services block grants)

  Mr. GRAHAM. I send to the desk a second-degree amendment to the 
amendment currently pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], for himself, Mr. 
     Wellstone, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Kennedy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1886 to amendment No. 1821.

  Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

       Strike all after the first word and insert the following:
       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the 
     amount appropriated under this title for making grants 
     pursuant to section 2002 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1397a) shall be increased to $2,380,000,000: Provided, 
     That (1) $1,330,000,000 of which shall become available on 
     October 1, 2000, and (2) notwithstanding any other provision 
     of this title, the amount specified for allocation under 
     section 2003(c) of such Act for fiscal year 2001 shall be 
     $3,030,000,000.''

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be able to 
follow the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in listening to the arguments by the 
Senator from Florida I can understand his interest in adding funds to 
what the committee mark is. I have no disagreement with the importance 
of the funds which are at issue.
  I am constrained to oppose the amendment because in constructing this 
overall bill for $91.7 billion, in collaboration with the ranking 
Democrat on the subcommittee, we have juggled some 300 programs. If we 
are going to add a very substantial amount of additional funding to 
education, which we have some $2.3 billion over last year, and if we 
are to add $2 billion for the National Institutes of Health, and to 
have an initiative against juvenile violence, it is a matter of the 
allocation of priorities.
  The comment has been made about the use of the tobacco funds. Those 
are very substantial sums of money, some $203 billion over a number of 
years.
  I fought on the Senate floor to try to bring some of those tobacco 
funds to the Federal Government so we would have more moneys available. 
It is an obvious suggestion, when the States are the recipients of so 
much of that funding, that some of it be used where other Federal funds 
had been made available. This is another illustration, along with the 
request for additional funds for after school, $200 million more, or 
for class size, for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting--all of 
those are items which, under normal circumstances, I would say are very 
good programs, they are very good approaches, we would like to see 
them. But when it comes to assessing priorities, it is my sense, after 
working through very carefully with staff and then with the Democratic 
staff, the full subcommittee and the full committee, that this is an 
appropriate assessment of priorities.
  Therefore, even though I have sympathy for what the Senator from 
Florida has had to say and think these are good programs, on a priority 
basis I have to oppose this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the Senator 
from Florida, Mr. Graham, on his amendment.
  I want to respond to my colleague from Pennsylvania. I will start out 
with Minnesota, and then I will go to the country at large. Actually, 
in Minnesota, for reasons I will explain, these social service programs 
and funding are passed directly to counties. The State cannot replace 
the money with tobacco money or anything else, and certainly not for 
next year, which is a bonding legislature. But above and beyond that, 
in any case, the tobacco money has already been spent for other 
programs.
  The point is, we do not know what will happen. This is what my 
colleague concluded. We do not know what will happen with these 
programs that are so important to poor people, to vulnerable people, 
elderly people, people with disabilities. To cut the social service 
programs by 50 percent and then say

[[Page S11705]]

States have tobacco money so we will count on them to do it is an 
abandonment of our commitment. It is an abandonment of our commitment.
  What we have done is cut the social services block grant program by 
more than half. What my colleague from Florida has done--and I am 
pleased to join him in this amendment--is to restore the funding to the 
full formula amount of $2.38 billion. We are talking about programs 
that are so important to the lives of the most vulnerable citizens in 
our country: The elderly, the very young, the poor, and the disabled.
  The question is, What is this SSBG fund? Are we talking about 
something important?
  Yes, we are talking about something important, if you think adoption 
services, congregate meals, counseling services, child abuse and 
neglect services, day care, education and training services, employment 
services, family planning services, foster care services, home-
delivered meals, housing services, independent and transitional living 
services, legal services, pregnancy and parenting services, residential 
treatment services, services for at-risk youth, and special services 
for families for the disabled and transportation services are 
important. If we think these services are important, then how in the 
world can we cut this funding by 50 percent?
  I respect my colleague from Pennsylvania. He has done the very best, 
given the budget caps under which he has worked. But I do not believe a 
good argument against the amendment we have introduced is: Well, there 
is tobacco money out there and the States can use that money.
  Some States do not have that money to use. Some States can't use that 
money. In any case, whatever happened to our commitment at the Federal 
level to try to fund some services that would help the most vulnerable 
citizens in our country? That is my question.
  Let me talk a little about some of these programs and then go further 
with the argument I want to make. Let me take Meals on Wheels. Why do 
we not think about this in personal terms? I think, I say to Senator 
Graham, we are going to get support for this amendment. I believe we 
can pass this amendment. Are Senators going to vote to cut funding for 
the Meals on Wheels program? That is a program for people, many of them 
elderly, many of them disabled. Both my parents, for example, had 
Parkinson's disease. They might not even be able to get to congregate 
dining, which is a great program. They might not even be able to get 
into town; they cannot drive. Quite often there is not the 
transportation. In Minnesota it is cold; it is wintry weather. Maybe 
during the winter they cannot get out and freely move around. So you 
have the Meals on Wheels program where you deliver a hot lunch, a 
nutritious meal, to elderly citizens. And we are going to cut this 
program?
  Let me repeat that. We are going to cut this program? We can do 
better. We can do much better.
  Talk about independent and transitional living services; here we have 
some services--I will talk about this in some detail--that would enable 
an elderly person or someone with a disability to live at home in as 
near normal circumstances as possible, with dignity. It is a range of 
support services. It might be nursing services, community health 
outreach services, making sure those people are able, with a little 
help, to stay at home. We are going to cut this program, potentially by 
half? We are going to cut services that enable people to live at home 
with dignity as opposed to being put into a nursing home? We cannot do 
that. We cannot do that.
  According to the Title XX Coalition, in fiscal year 1997 more than 
1.1 million elderly people and over 740,000 people with disabilities 
benefited from the social services program. State and local prevention 
and treatment services reached over 2.3 million children and their 
families. I thought we cared so much about the elderly. I thought we 
cared so much about the children. I thought we cared so much about 
making sure at least there is an investment in some resources that will 
enable people with disabilities to live lives with independence and 
dignity. That is what the disabilities movement is all about. We cannot 
say that if we cut these services, if we cut these programs by over 50 
percent.
  In my home State of Minnesota, SSBG funds are used, in some counties, 
to augment child care for single women and their families. We talk 
about the importance of moving from welfare to work, but if a mother 
works and cannot find child care or cannot afford child care, how is 
she going to do it? Or if you have working poor people and they work 52 
weeks a year and they work 40 hours a week and one of them is working 
or both of them are working, affordable child care is a hugely 
important issue for them. There are not Senators in this Chamber who 
would not want to make sure their children were able to get good child 
care. And we are cutting into services for child care?
  Many Minnesota counties use SSBG money for home care services for the 
elderly. We are talking about funds to pay for a care giver to go to a 
vulnerable elderly person's home and help them with ``home chore 
services,'' such as taking their medicine on time and in the right 
doses, keeping their homes clean and safe, helping people take a bath, 
making sure there is food in the refrigerator.
  I am sorry, I am not going to get worked up, but I do not understand 
how in the world we can justify cutting those services for elderly 
people. I do not understand that. That is exactly what we went through 
with my mother and father in Northfield, MN. That is exactly the 
struggle we had in trying to help them stay at home. We did all we 
could among Sheila, myself, and our children.
  Sometimes one needs some help. At the county level, if there is a 
public health outreach program, somebody can help elderly people to 
make sure they take their drugs, to make sure they take the right 
dosage, to help someone like my dad who had Parkinson's disease and his 
body shook and my mother was not able to help him take a bath, to help 
people live at home, help people keep their independence. This is mean-
spirited to cut these programs.
  We cannot say: Well, but there is the tobacco money and States can 
use tobacco money. We do not know whether all States can. We do not 
know whether all States will and, in any case, this is a commitment 
that we have made in the Senate. We are a national community. Can we 
not as a national community, represented by the Senate, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, at least make a commitment to fund these services 
that are so important for vulnerable people?
  I was speaking with Marien Brandt, the human services director in 
Sibley County, MN, a rural county, who told me her county spends SSBG 
funds primarily to serve vulnerable populations who are not eligible 
for assistance under other funding programs. She suggested that many of 
the people her agency serves would be forced into institutionalized 
care without SSBG funds.
  She gave me the example of the child who might have to go into an 
out-of-home placement if her agency becomes unable to provide 
counseling services that help the child's parent learn to adequately 
care for and protect that child.
  The vulnerable adults they help with SSBG money tend to be elderly 
people, seniors, disabled people who get home health care services, 
people they help stay at home, the very people about whom I talked.
  If we are talking also about counseling services for parents and for 
children at risk, what in the world are we doing cutting those 
services? Marien told me that in Sibley County, SSBG money is used 
especially in the rural areas to fund transportation for the elderly 
and the disabled so they can go to the doctor, so they can buy 
groceries, so they are simply not isolated.
  Let me point out what we are doing. All too often we say SSBG and 
people do not know what we are talking about. And we throw the money 
around: increase $1.2 billion, subtract $1.3 billion. I will translate 
it into personal services. Here is an example of one of many counties--
I could take hours on this--where we use this money to provide 
transportation. Sometimes it is not the big buses. Sometimes it is 
smaller, a dial-a-bus so an elderly person can go to the doctor, people 
can go to the grocery store, they can go to congregate dining, they

[[Page S11706]]

can go places and they are not isolated. What in the world are we doing 
cutting this funding by 50 percent?
  This SSBG money, I say to my colleague from Florida, is used to fund 
services for people who otherwise would fall through the cracks. This 
money is used to provide services for the most vulnerable citizens in 
our country.
  I do not understand exactly--I understand what my colleague from 
Pennsylvania said. He cares a lot about these budgets as they affect 
people. But I really do not know how we got to the point where we cut 
these social service programs by 50 percent. I do not understand that. 
I am afraid one of the things I think happens is that quite often, when 
we work under these caps--I do not know if my colleague from Florida 
will be angry with me for saying this, so therefore maybe I will not, 
now that I think about it.
  We put ourselves into fictional politics. These caps do not work, and 
everybody seems to be locked in with these caps. We are engaged in 
mutual deception. Nobody wants to talk about breaking the caps. That is 
not what this amendment does, although advance funding, whatever, we 
all know we need to spend more.
  In my opinion, this amendment goes to the heart of what this debate 
is all about. We ought not, I say to the Presiding Officer--a good 
Senator--to be cutting these kinds of programs. These programs are for 
the most vulnerable citizens in our country. We ought not to be cutting 
programs that enable someone to get Meals on Wheels, that enable 
someone to go to congregate dining, that provide home health care 
services so people can stay at home rather than being 
institutionalized, that provide child care, help for families so they 
can afford child care. We ought not to be cutting these kinds of 
services by 50 percent. I fear one of the reasons we end up doing it is 
that these are the citizens who do not have the clout. It is just too 
easy to make cuts based upon the path of least political resistance. It 
is just too easy to cut services for the very poor and the most 
vulnerable. This is wrong.
  This amendment goes to the heart and soul, I hope, of the Senate.
  I will not go over reports from many counties, but I want to talk 
briefly about how my own State is going to be impacted.
  Minnesota communities currently receive $41.6 million annually. If 
these proposed cuts are enacted, Minnesota is going to lose $23.2 
million in funding. We will receive only $18.3 million in fiscal year 
2000.
  We are unique, I will concede that point, because by law the SSBG 
funds bypass the Governor and flow directly to the local level. The 
State cannot touch the money. We cannot add or subtract funds from the 
block grant.
  Minnesota law further requires local level programs to run balanced 
books, which means they cannot carry any budget surplus from one year 
to the next. What this means, if these cuts to the SSBG go through, the 
State will not be able to offset any of the lost funds with funds from 
other sources. The local level programs will have no budget surpluses 
to fall back on, and these Federal level program cuts will be reflected 
immediately in local level cuts; in other words, right there in the 
counties where the people live. It would mean substantial reductions or 
perhaps even the elimination of local Minnesota programs.

  So when I come to the floor and speak about this with some sense of 
urgency, it is because we could lose senior congregate dining. We could 
lose Meals on Wheels. We could lose a host of other local community-
based programs that are so important to our citizens.
  It would also mean cuts in health and substance abuse programs. 
Minnesota is one of only seven States in the country that relies more 
heavily on title XX grants than its SAMHSA grant to fund mental health 
services. We are going to see draconian cuts in mental health services 
as well.
  Furthermore, next year, in my State it will be a ``bonding 
legislature,'' one in which they will not be able to consider policy 
issues. So the Minnesota Legislature is not going to be able--I think 
my colleague from Florida was alluding to this in other States--to take 
up any legislation to change the law governing the flow of SSBG funds 
in 2001.
  I will tell you, I give the example of Minnesota because this is one 
hugely important issue in my State. But I also want to say to my 
colleagues that Senator Graham has done a good job of talking about how 
this is going to affect all of the States. In a report that was put out 
yesterday, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained that if 
the Senate Labor-HHS appropriations bill becomes law, SSBG funding will 
have been cut 87 percent since 1977 in inflation-adjusted terms--87 
percent. An SSBG cut of the magnitude proposed in this bill will 
substantially reduce our State's ability to provide services to 
vulnerable children, to elderly, and disabled people.
  This amendment, that I am proud to cosponsor with Senator Graham, is 
an effort to say to the Senate that we have to do the right thing and 
that we must restore full funding for the title XX social services 
block grant program.
  I will wait to hear if there is debate on the other side. I have many 
more examples to present from many counties in my State, both rural and 
urban. But I will repeat it one more time. As far as I am concerned, 
the fundamental core question for us to address, the issue for us to 
debate, is whether or not we in the Senate want to cut the social 
services programs that are so important to the most vulnerable citizens 
in our States--important to elderly people so they can have 
transportation and not be so isolated; important to people like my 
parents, who are no longer alive, so someone can come to their 
apartment and help them live at home when they have a disabling 
disease; important to a family where the single parent is working and 
she wants to make sure there is affordable child care; important to the 
person with disabilities so he or she can live at home with dignity; 
important for people who are not well enough and cannot even physically 
be able to go to congregate dining, who need Meals on Wheels, so 
someone can come and deliver them a nutritious meal.
  By the way, the Meals on Wheels program is inadequately funded right 
now. We cannot cut these critically important programs and services 
that make life better for vulnerable citizens in our country. We cannot 
do this.
  The States have a tremendous amount of leeway in how they use their 
SSBG funds, and this is one program in which they are able to try to 
develop innovative and creative programs to help the poor and needy 
(people with incomes up to 200 percent of the poverty line are eligible 
for SSBG funds). Title XX only specifies that the money be used to help 
people achieve and maintain economic self-support and self-sufficiency 
to prevent, reduce, or eliminate dependency. The law also allows the 
money to be used for services that prevent or remedy neglect and abuse, 
and to prevent or reduce unnecessary institutional care by providing 
community-based or home-based non-institutional care. States use this 
money to care for people who would otherwise slip through the cracks; 
these funds are critical for the well-being of the most vulnerable 
people among us--the elderly and the very young, the poor, and the 
disabled. These are people who most need our help, and we should not be 
slashing the very money that is most likely to serve them.
  Title XX of the Social Security Act specifies that $2.38 billion is 
to be provided to the States for fiscal year 2000. The Senate Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill, though, slashes funding for this block grant to 
only $1.05 billion. This cut comes on top of a 15 percent cut to the 
block grant made as part of the 1996 welfare reform law, a cut that the 
states reluctantly accepted only with a commitment from Congress that 
we would provide stable funding for the block grant in the future. I am 
pretty sure that a 50-percent cut doesn't qualify as stable funding by 
anyone's definition.
  And what kind of a message do we send to the States when we talk 
about cutting block grant funds? Congress sold welfare reform to the 
states on the promise that they would have the flexibility to 
administer their own social service programs. But as the National 
Conference of State Legislatures point out, ``these cuts [to the SSBG] 
would set the precedent that the federal government is reticent to 
stand by its decision to grant flexibility to states in

[[Page S11707]]

administering social programs.'' SSBG funds are used by the states to 
provide services for needy individuals and families not eligible for 
TANF, and to reduce federal Medicaid payments by helping vulnerable 
elderly and disabled live in their homes rather than in institutions. 
States also use SSBG funds for child care services and other supports 
for families moving from welfare to work. When Congress proposes 
slashing these funds, we send a clear, and I believe extremely 
damaging, message to the States. I think we are telling them not to 
invest in these kinds of social support programs, because they just 
can't count on the money being there.
  But let's just say for a minute that we do go back on our word and 
break our commitment to the States--so what? What exactly does SSBG 
fund? Anything important?
  Only if you think adoption services, congregate meals, counseling 
services, child abuse and neglect services, day care, education and 
training services, employment services, family planning services, 
foster care services, home delivered meals, housing services, 
independent and transitional living services, legal services, pregnancy 
and parenting services, residential treatment services, services for 
at-risk youth and families, special services for the disabled, and 
transportation services are important. All of these programs are 
funded, in part at least, through the SSBG.
  According to the Title XX Coalition, in fiscal year 1997, more than 
1.1 million elderly people and over 740,000 people with disabilities 
benefited from SSBG. State and local prevention and treatment services 
reached over 2.3 million children and their families. The SSBG also 
reached 1.5 million individuals and families by supporting their 
physical and mental well-being, and by helping them overcome barriers 
to employment and economic self-sufficiency. And child care-related 
services were provided to over 2.3 million children through SSBG.
  In my home State of Minnesota, SSBG funds are used in some counties 
to augment child care for low-income single women and families. Even 
with these additional funds, there are currently huge waiting lists for 
subsidized day care in most counties. If we further cut the title XX 
funds, these county level programs are going to have to reduce or 
eliminate services that they provide. And when a single mom who has 
just gotten off welfare and is trying to make ends meet while she 
starts working at her new job, loses the subsidized day care that she 
counts on, what do you think is going to happen? Which do you think is 
more likely--that she'll be able to afford to pay for day care herself, 
or that she'll be forced to go back onto welfare?

  Many Minnesota counties use SSBG money for home care services for the 
elderly. These counties use SSBG funds to pay for a care giver to go 
into a vulnerable elderly person's home and help them with basic ``home 
chore'' services like taking their medicine on time and in the right 
doses, keeping their home clean and safe, taking a bath, or making sure 
there is food in the refrigerator. These are simple, basic services, 
but they often mean the difference between allowing someone to stay in 
their own home or being forced into an institution. If SSBG funds are 
cut, vulnerable elderly are likely to lose home care services like a 
visiting nurse or case management person, which might then force them 
into a nursing home or an assisted living situation that would, in the 
end, cost much more money.
  I was speaking with Marien Brandt, the Human Services Director in 
Sibley County, Minnesota who told me that her county spends SSBG funds 
primarily to serve vulnerable populations who aren't eligible for 
assistance under other funding programs, and she suggested that many of 
the people her agency serves would be forced into institutionalized 
care without SSBG funds. Marien gave me the example of the child who 
might have to go into an out-of-home placement if her agency becomes 
unable to provide counseling services that help the child's parent 
learn to adequately care for and protect that child. The vulnerable 
adults they help with SSBG money tend to be elderly people, seniors or 
disabled people, who get home care services--someone to come in to help 
them clean their home and maintain a safe environment, bathe, have food 
to eat, to see that they take the right amount of medicine when they 
are supposed to. Oftentimes these people are not eligible for medical 
assistance, so there is not another source of funding available to them 
when they are living in the community. What will happen if SSBG funds 
are cut is that they will wind up having to go into a nursing home in 
order to qualify for funds to pay for their care.
  Marien told me that in Sibley County, SSBG money is also used, 
especially in rural areas, to fund transportation for elderly and 
disabled, so they can access services like doctors, getting groceries, 
and just simply so they are not so isolated in their home (a ride to 
the senior center, perhaps). There is no other funding source that will 
pay for this. For disabled people who are just over eligibility 
guidelines for medical assistance, SSBG money is used to help meet 
their needs--managing medication, transportation, and community based 
services like training and counseling.
  The way Marien explained it to me, her county basically counts on 
SSBG money to pay for services for people who otherwise fall through 
the cracks. They count on this money to provide simple, basic services 
that keep the most vulnerable among us in their homes and out of much 
more costly institutions.
  Sue Beck, the Director of Human Services in Crow Wing County, 
Minnesota told me a similar story. She explained that her county also 
counts on SSBG funds to make sure that vulnerable populations, the 
elderly, the disabled, children, and poor people, have the services 
they need to live economically secure, self-sufficient lives. Over the 
past several years, due to SSBG cuts that have already been imposed, 
her county has had to cut back services in transportation and ``chore 
services''--for disabled and elderly people who need just a little bit 
of help--things like help shoveling snow or grocery shopping. They use 
SSBG money currently to augment their employability budget--to provide 
supported employment, and community based employment for people who 
other wise might not be able to compete successfully in the job market. 
All of this is at risk when we talk about cutting SSBG in half.

  Dave Haley, from the Ramsey County Department of Human Services also 
told me about his county spends SSBG money. The first example he gave 
me was that of a typical family of a single-mother who has three young 
children. The oldest child, a 7-year-old boy, has missed a significant 
number of school days. The mother is experiencing problems with 
chemical dependency and involved in a violent relationship with her 
boyfriend. The mother cannot make sure that the child gets up every day 
on time, and is promptly fed and dressed for school. The family does 
not have a car or other personal means of transportation. Through 
programs partially funded with SSBG money, the County is able to 
provide support to the mother to resolve her chemical dependency 
problems and domestic abuse. Services ensure that the seven-year-old is 
attending school on a regular basis and the boy is beginning to make 
academic progress.
  There are over 2,000 young children in Ramsey County currently in 
this situation. Ramsey County and local school districts have been able 
to develop a very active program to address these educational neglect 
issues and insure that children attend school on a consistent basis. 
They will be forced to scale back this effort, though, if SSBG funds 
are cut by more than 50 percent.
  Another example that Dave gave me is that of a 30 year-old woman that 
is living in her own apartment in her home community. Thirty years ago, 
a similar individual with moderate mental health needs would have been 
placed in a state hospital miles from their family home. Over the last 
three decades, needed supports have been developed, including programs 
to monitor and assist individuals in managing their medications, 
checking on their money management and assisting when necessary with 
proper budgeting, teaching needed independent living skills, and 
employment support to maintain their current job. Without periodic 
weekly checks, the individual would have great difficulty managing 
their daily life, and might be forced

[[Page S11708]]

into an institutionalized living situation.
  The system that has developed over the last three decades has not 
only improved the lives of hundreds of people in Ramsey County, it has 
also enabled the state and federal government to save hundreds of 
thousands of dollars on more expensive institutional care.
  Currently, Ramsey County receives $5 million in SSBG funding. If this 
were reduced by half, it would affect far more than what I have briefly 
mentioned. SSBG money also supports chemical dependency prevention 
efforts, homemaker and other support services for seniors to prevent 
nursing home placement, and support efforts for families with a child 
with developmental disabilities to enable the family to stay together 
and avoid or delay out of home placement, to name only a few. If these 
funds are not restored, all of these programs, and all of the people 
they serve, will suffer.
  So you tell me, which of these programs deserves to go, because 
something is going to have to if this provision passes. Who do you 
think we should turn away? Maybe low-income families with children? Or 
perhaps the elderly or disabled? What difference does it make if 
someone goes to bed hungry, or homeless, or just plain afraid that they 
won't make it through tomorrow? We have a budget cap to maintain, after 
all. And that is what this Congress has defined as really important 
here, right? Not helping our constituents, or keeping our commitments 
to the States, because I certainly don't see how anyone in Congress 
could argue differently when I see an effort like this to eliminate 
one-half of the SSBG funding.

  In my own State of Minnesota, these cuts will have an immediate and 
deeply felt effect. Minnesota communities currently receive $41.6 
million annually. If the proposed cuts are enacted, Minnesota will lose 
$23.2 million in funding, receiving only $18.3 million in FY 2000.
  Minnesota is unique among all the states, though, because, by law, 
SSBG funds by-pass the governor and flow directly to the local level. 
The state cannot touch the money--they can neither add nor subtract 
funds from the block grant. Minnesota law further requires local levels 
programs to run balanced books. Which means that they cannot carry any 
budget surplus from one year to the next. So what that means is that if 
these cuts to the SSBG go through, the state will not be able to help 
offset any of the lost funds with funds from other sources, the local 
level programs will have no budget surpluses to fall back on, and these 
federal level cuts will be reflected immediately at the local level in 
program cuts. It would mean substantial reductions, or perhaps even the 
elimination of local Minnesota programs like senior congregate dining, 
Meals on Wheels, and a host of other local community based programs. It 
would also mean cuts in health and substance abuse programs, as 
Minnesota is one of only seven states in the country that relies more 
heavily on its Title XX grant than its SAMHSA grant to fund mental 
health services. Furthermore, because next year will be a ``bonding 
legislature,'' one in which they will not be considering policy issues, 
the Minnesota legislature will not be able to take up legislation to 
change the law governing the flow of SSBG funds until 2001.
  So some of my colleagues may be saying to themselves, well that's 
unfortunate for Minnesota, but in my home state we'll be able to 
supplement the cuts with other money--maybe the money we got from the 
tobacco settlement, or perhaps we will just transfer money from our 
TANF surplus. First, let's talk about the tobacco settlements: in some 
states, anti-smoking and other health needs will receive first priority 
for use of the settlement funds, not unanticipated reductions in SSBG 
funds. Also, some states have already enacted legislation committing 
the tobacco funds for other purposes. Okay, well, then if not the 
tobacco settlement funds, then maybe the TANF surplus funds. But right 
now, seven states--Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, 
Missouri, Nevada, Oregon--currently have no unobligated TANF funds. And 
if the House gets its way, 3 billion dollars in TANF surpluses will be 
rescinded from the states. This will leave another 12 states--Alabama, 
Connecticut, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, New 
Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Utah, and Vermont--who if they 
used every single cent of their remaining TANF surplus still won't have 
enough money to cover the lost SSBG funds. That's a total of 19 States, 
more than a third of all states, that won't have the social service 
funds available to offset the SSBG funding cuts proposed in this bill.
  I have here a letter from a group called ``Fight Crime, Invest in 
Kids,'' which is an organization made up of over 500 police chiefs, 
sheriffs, prosecutors, victims of violence, and violence prevention 
scholars, written in support of this amendment. They write to explain 
that recent cuts in SSBG have short changed child care, child abuse 
prevention, removal and placement of abused children, drug treatment, 
and other critical crime prevention investments.
  As they point out in this letter, one of the Government's most 
fundamental responsibilities is to protect the public safety. To meet 
that responsibility, Congress must close the crime-prevention gap--the 
gaping shortfall we ought to be making to help our Nation's children 
get the right start.
  The Graham-Wellstone amendment to restore funding to the SSBG would 
provide over $591 million to protect children from abuse and neglect. 
Since abused and neglected children are almost twice as likely to 
become chronic offenders, it is clear that these services can have an 
important crime prevention impact. The amendment would also provide 
$300 million to support child care in 47 states. A study by the High 
Scope Foundation showed that quality child care can dramatically reduce 
the chances of children becoming criminals. It is clear that we must 
continue to provide the funds for these programs, and we can only do 
that by restoring the title XX grant to its full formula amount.
  In a report they put out yesterday, the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities explained that if the Senate Labor-HHS appropriations bill 
becomes law, SSBG funding will have been cut by 87 percent since 1977 
in inflation-adjusted terms. An SSBG cut of the magnitude proposed in 
this Senate bill will substantially reduce the States' ability to 
provide services to vulnerable children, elderly, and disabled people. 
Please, do the right thing and restore the SSBG money by supporting the 
Graham-Wellstone amendment to restore full funding for the Title XX 
Social Services Block Grant.
  If the Senate does not support this Graham amendment, then, in my 
view, the Senate does not have a soul. If the Senate does not support 
this Graham amendment, then, in my honest to God opinion, the Senate 
does not have a soul.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I am ready to make a motion, if the other side does 
not wish to use the remainder of their time. If there is something 
further they have to say, I do not want to cut that off.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it is my understanding we are not 
operating under a time agreement, so there is not a clock ticking on 
this issue.
  I see one of the cosponsors of the amendment, the Senator from 
Connecticut, is on the floor. I do not know if he desires to speak on 
this issue or not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I appreciate that. I am very impressed with 
the level of my colleagues' debate. I commend my colleague from 
Florida, Senator Graham, and my colleague from Minnesota, Senator 
Wellstone, for articulating what I think the rationale and support for 
this amendment means to make a huge difference in our States and 
localities and to underserved Americans.
  I have an amendment that I will be offering shortly on behalf of 
Senator Jeffords and myself, Senator Snowe, and others, on child care. 
I am prepared to offer that, but I do not want to in any way cut into 
the debate of my colleague from Florida or others who may want to 
continue with regard to his particular amendment.
  Again, I commend him for it. I am delighted to be a cosponsor of it. 
I

[[Page S11709]]

think it makes a significant contribution. I point out, in my State 
alone--I represent the most affluent State in America, something of 
which I am proud. I also tell you I am not so proud of the fact that 
the largest increase in child poverty in the country occurred in my 
State over the last several years--a 60-percent increase in child 
poverty.
  So here is a small State, Connecticut, with 3.5 million people, 
enjoying unprecedented prosperity. Yet in the midst of this small 
State, we are also finding an unprecedented hardship on the part of a 
lot of people, particularly young people. One out of every five 
children in my State is growing up in poverty.
  What the Senator from Florida and the Senator from Minnesota have 
offered is some relief for people in that category, to see to it that 
they might also enjoy the prosperity of our country.

  Meals on Wheels, adult day care, foster care--there is a wide variety 
of other issues. But as my colleagues know, I have tried to focus my 
attention, over the years, particularly on children and their needs; 
and hence the amendment I will offer with Senator Jeffords in a moment 
on child care and afterschool care.
  But I realize this amendment being offered by the Senator from 
Florida covers more than just children. For example, it covers adult 
day care. Three generations living under the same roof--we find that a 
more frequent occurrence in our society. The wonderful advances in 
medicine allow people to live longer, more fruitful lives, but it also 
creates generational burdens in many ways.
  So this is not an unreasonable request for a nation of almost 280 
million people to see to it that those who are the least well off--
carrying some of the most significant burdens--can also share in the 
prosperity we are enjoying. That is what I think we would all like to 
think of when we talk about America: a nation where there is equal 
opportunity.
  What this amendment does is create opportunity. It does not guarantee 
success, but it gives people a chance to maximize their potential. For 
those reasons, I strongly urge the adoption of the amendment, and again 
I am pleased to be a cosponsor.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to reserve time to close. If there are any 
speakers in opposition to the amendment, I would defer to them and then 
I would like to close.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, we are prepared to move to the close on 
behalf of the distinguished Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The arguments in favor of this amendment are numerous. 
The Federal Government made a commitment to the States as part of the 
welfare-to-work legislation that it would maintain funding for this 
program at the level of $2.38 billion each year. That commitment was 
made out of a recognition of the importance of the programs funded 
through title XX of the Social Security Act toward achieving the 
results, the goals of welfare to work. We are about to breach that 
commitment--not just to breach it, we are about to obliterate that 
commitment.
  Second, the proposal directs the States to spend a portion of their 
tobacco settlement to replace these Federal funds, the funds we have 
committed to make available to the States.
  We have voted in this Senate on numerous occasions, by margins of 70 
to 30 or more, against that specific proposition, against the attempt 
of the Federal Government to play big father and direct the States as 
to how they should use their tobacco settlement money. Now, having 
beaten back the efforts at the front door, we see this effort coming in 
through the back door saying: Well, we are not going to tell you that 
you have to spend your money. We are just going to cut over half of a 
critical Federal partnership program with the States, a program we 
committed to as part of the States entering into the Welfare-to-Work 
Program. We are just going to suggest. And, by the way, you ought to 
spend your tobacco money to fund it. Outrageous.
  Third, this is not just a matter of what is in our heart; this is 
also what is in our mind. The reason Congress adopted this program in 
1975--which, if I recall, was under the administration of President 
Ford--was the recognition that expenditure of Federal funds on programs 
that kept older Americans out of nursing homes, expenditure of Federal 
funds on programs that alleviated the suffering and the potential for 
further suffering of the disabled, saved the Federal Government money, 
programs that kept families together, that helped children in need, 
saved the Federal Government money. With almost no consideration, we 
are about to turn the clock back on this accomplishment of President 
Ford and 25 years of demonstrated success of this program in both 
helping people and saving the Federal Government money.
  Most important, we are about to pick out the most vulnerable people 
among us and say: It is upon your back that we are going to attempt to 
reduce the imbalance in our budget accounts. We are going to turn to 
the weakest to say: You should carry the fullest load.
  I don't want to just speak these closing remarks in my words. I will 
use the words of a few of the many organizations across America which, 
in the short period of time since the alert went out that this 
ridiculous action was even being considered by the most deliberative 
body in the world, have responded with their assessment of what this 
would mean. Let me mention a few of them.
  The National Governors' Association had this to say:

       Over the past few years, the [social services block grant] 
     has taken more than its share of cuts in federal funding. As 
     part of the 1996 welfare reform deal, Congress made a 
     commitment to Governors that the SSBG would be level funded 
     at $2.38 billion each year.

  Congress made a commitment to the States that this funding would be 
maintained. Now we are about to cut that funding by more than 50 
percent, according to the National Governors' Association.
  The Fight Crime Invest in Kids Coalition, an organization that 
represents over 500 police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, victims of 
violence, leaders of police organizations and violence prevention 
scholars, had this to say about this proposal:

       The Graham-Wellstone amendment to restore funding of $2.38 
     billion for the Title XX Social Services Block Grant would:
       Provide over $591 million to protect children from abuse 
     and neglect. Since abused and neglected children are almost 
     twice as likely to become chronic offenders, it is clear 
     these services can have an important crime prevention impact.
       Provide $300 million to support child care in 47 States. 
     The High/Scope Foundation study showed that quality child 
     care can dramatically reduce the chances of children becoming 
     criminals.

  That is what 500 chiefs of police and sheriffs and other leaders in 
the criminal justice community have said about the importance of this 
amendment.
  Catholic Charities USA said this in its letter:

       Cutting funds to services that keep people independent and 
     in their communities is short sighted and will lead to 
     unnecessary suffering and increases in other federal 
     programs.

  This is what the Girl Scouts said about this proposal:

       The further cuts to this program which have been proposed 
     by the Senate will no doubt negatively impact our 
     communities, most of which are already struggling with 
     limited resources for much needed services.

  Finally, the National Conference of State Legislatures in their 
letter stated:

       The current proposal in the Senate Labor, Health and Human 
     Services and Education appropriations legislation will 
     jeopardize services to the elderly, disabled and children and 
     families. It also represents a retreat from Federal 
     commitments made during the enactment of welfare reform 
     legislation.

  For all of those reasons, as well as the fact that Senators Kennedy 
and Cleland have asked to be added as additional cosponsors to this 
amendment, I urge my colleagues to step back from the precipice of 
irresponsibility and repudiation of commitment, to step back from the 
cliff that would have us, through the back door of this ill-considered 
proposal, breach our commitments to the States to keep our hands off 
their State-won tobacco settlement, and particularly so we can look in 
the eyes of the American people who would

[[Page S11710]]

be most affected by this--the children, the disabled, and the frail 
elderly--and say: You are not the forgotten Americans.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to voice my displeasure at the 
severe reduction this year's Labor-Health and Human Services 
appropriations bill includes for the Social Services Block Grant. This 
program was established under Title XX of the Social Security Act to 
help people who are least able to help themselves; the elderly, the 
disabled, and children of low income families. The money is put to good 
use in some two dozen areas such as foster care services, day care, 
intervention and prevention for at-risk families, and special services 
for the disabled. The Labor-HHS Subcommittee has produced a bill that 
cuts SSBG funds from $1.9 billion to $1 billion. Just short of cutting 
it in half. The committee report cites tight budget constraints and 
suggests that states can make up the difference with proceeds from the 
tobacco settlement. Mr. President, money from the tobacco settlement 
should be used for anti-smoking programs and other health programs. The 
basis of that litigation was that smoking caused health problems which 
the states had paid for. So health care programs that were deprived of 
funds in the past should be the beneficiaries of the tobacco money, as 
should anti-smoking programs. We should not tell the states that we're 
pulling the rug out from under the SSBG and it is up to them to make up 
the difference if they choose to. Some states have already passed 
legislation that allocates the tobacco money.
  The Social Services Block Grant program is an entirely egalitarian 
program. The formula could scarcely be simpler. The proportion of the 
money each state gets is the proportion of the national population it 
has. New York has seven percent of the population. It gets seven 
percent of the funds. So this draconian cut affects states evenly. 
Everyone should be concerned about it.
  One further point. This is a block grant. It allows the states to 
decide how best to spend money on a range of similar needs. The 
alternative would be a handful of categorical programs to which the 
states would apply individually. From time to time Senate debate 
centers on the merits of block grants versus categorical programs. 
Education comes to mind, for example. The opponents of block grants 
frequently say that once you block grant a group of existing programs, 
it becomes significantly easier to cut their funding. If this $900 
million reduction is allowed to stand, the opponents of block grants 
will have a shining new example of the damage that can be done to a 
block grant and the proponents of block grants will have a more 
difficult time gaining their objectives in the future.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the 
Graham amendment to restore funding for Title XX, the Social Services 
Block Grant. This program is critical to the ability of our states to 
meet the needs of our most vulnerable citizens--children, the elderly 
and the disabled.
  The present Senate Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill contains a 
provision to cut funding for the Social Services Block Grant by more 
than half, from $2.38 billion to $1.05 billion. This program has been 
under attack for years. In 1996, Title XX was cut by 15%. In 1998, the 
highway bill used cuts in Title XX to pay for the out years of highway 
spending in 2001. While I understand the importance of roads for 
economic development, should we pay for it by cutting basic funding for 
needy children, disabled Americans, or senior citizens?
  In the last few years this Congress has sent a message to the states. 
We have said, ``We trust you to know how to take care of your own 
people. We want to support you, and help you, and at the same time, 
give you the flexibility to design your own programs.'' This was one of 
the clear messages of welfare reform.
  As one of the members on this side of the aisle who voted for the 
1996 welfare law, I have to say that I truly believe that these Title 
XX cuts will weaken welfare efforts in our states. The Social Services 
Block Grant is used to provide many important support services that 
help complement the efforts of welfare reform in helping individuals go 
to work and continue working--education and training services, 
employment services, transportation, and child care are all among the 
important programs supported by this block grant. Indeed, as part of 
the welfare reform package that I agreed to, we promised the states 
that we would maintain funding for Title XX at the $2.38 billion level 
until reauthorization in 2002. How can we take back that promise now?
  You know, one of the greatest features of the Social Services Block 
Grant is its flexibility. States, and even communities, can determine 
how to best serve their poor, their elderly, their children and their 
disabled citizens. My state provides an excellent example of this. 
While nationally states used an average of 14% of the Title XX block 
grant for foster care program for abused and neglected children, in 
West Virginia we use over 30% of our block grant for foster care and 
34% for protective services for abused and neglected children. West 
Virginia cannot afford such a drastic cut in Title XX. It will 
undermine our State's commitment to abused and neglected children just 
when tough, new federal time lines are being enforced to move more 
children from foster care into safe, permanent homes faster.
  If we cut this funding by more than half, my state will face enormous 
challenges in its efforts to keep children safe and stable in their 
homes and communities. This is intolerable.
  Nationally, 12% of the Title XX block grant is spent on services for 
the elderly, including protective services for seniors who are victims 
of abuse and neglect. In West Virginia, 10% of our block grant--a 
little over $1.6 million--is spent on these services for seniors. This 
not only provides them with support and protection, it helps them 
remain in their own homes, rather than being placed in nursing homes or 
other institutions.
  What message are we sending to our poor, elderly neighbors, if we cut 
these services in half?
  As a former Governor, I understand why Governors want the flexibility 
of block grants. But the history of Congress is to push for block 
grants in the name of ``flexibility'' but then to slowly but surely cut 
the funding of block grants, leaving states and families in the lurch. 
As a member who cares deeply about poor children, disabled Americans 
and needy families, I am worried about how such cuts will effect the 
small communities and our most vulnerable families.
  We should not cut these vital funds. There is a unique and strong 
coalition fighting to protect this vital investment ranging from 
government groups like the National Governors Association and National 
Association of Counties, to dedicated service providers like Catholic 
Charities and the United Way. If we believe in community programs and 
the importance of non-profit charities, how can we justify cuts to 
Title XX which will hinder their partnership projects?
  The Social Services Block Grant is not just good for people, it is 
also good policy. It gives the states flexibility. It helps communities 
to be innovative in taking care of their own by supporting local 
partnerships. It makes sense.
  These funding cuts undermine many of our priorities. We cannot say we 
want to invest in children and families, then cut the Title XX Social 
Services Block Grant. This is worse than many of the budget gimmicks in 
this legislation because cutting Title XX hurts vulnerable families in 
communities across America. We should not cut this program.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would like to briefly discuss with my colleague, 
Senator Graham, some language that appeared in the Appropriations 
Committee Report for the fiscal year 2000 Labor, HHS, and Education 
Appropriations bill. Senator Graham, I understand that the Report 
states, with regard to the funding reduction in Social Services Block 
Grant program, that ``the States can supplement the block grant amount 
funds received through the recent settlements with tobacco companies.'' 
Senator Graham, I understand you have seen this language?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes I have, and I thank my colleague from Texas. I must 
say I was very surprised by this report language, particularly 
considering the fact that the Senate only this year voted several times 
and decisively to prevent the federal government from seizing the money 
the States earned as

[[Page S11711]]

part of their tobacco settlements. Legislation that you and I offered 
in the Senate passed overwhelmingly, and amendments to that language to 
force the states to spend their settlement funds according to a 
specified formula were soundly rejected.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is an excellent point. In fact, I think it 
should be pointed out for the Record that, on March 18 of this year, 
the Senate voted 71 to 29 to protect our States' settlement funds by 
defeating an amendment that would have directed that states spend at 
least half of their settlements according to whatever specific list of 
programs the Secretary of Health and Human Services designated during 
any given year. Thus, the Senate rejected the notion that the federal 
government should have an annual veto over more than $140 billion of 
state funds. I think it is also worth noting that the Hutchison/Graham 
legislation we introduced this year to protect these state funds from 
federal seizure had 47 cosponsors, including substantial bipartisan 
support. The legislation was signed into law by the President on May 
21, 1999.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator for that clarification. Our effort 
certainly struck an unmistakable blow for states' rights, and I am 
pleased and proud that our states and others are now free to use their 
funds for children's health, health research, smoking control, and the 
many other health, education, and public welfare programs that they are 
pursuing.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. In fact, I would like to point out that, of the 
roughly $1.8 billion that Texas is spending during the present budget 
biennium, virtually every dollar is going toward health care. For 
example, the state is allocating over $200 million for a permanent 
endowment for children's cancer research; $200 million for smoking 
control and research activities; $100 million for emergency and trauma 
care; $180 million to expand health insurance for low income children; 
and over $1 billion in various permanent endowments for many of our 
state's public and teaching hospitals. I am proud of what Texas is 
doing, and I am proud that you and I and so many of our colleagues had 
the courage to stand-up for the right of our states to pursue those 
priorities and programs that best meet the needs of their residents.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank my colleague for her statement, and for her 
leadership in this important area.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the gentleman for his leadership as well, and 
I am glad we had the opportunity to clarify the intent and the will of 
the Senate in this regard. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, on behalf of the manager, I move to 
table the amendment by the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham, and the 
Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. To which amendment is the Senator referring?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I am referring to the amendment by Senator Graham of 
Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The second-degree amendment or the first-
degree amendment?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. 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. COVERDELL. To clarify the motion, I apologize, I did not realize 
it was a second degree. The motion I have just made would be to the 
first-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I am about to propound a unanimous 
consent that will explain what the remainder of the evening will be. We 
are waiting for the other side to sign off.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. 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. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be laid aside in order for Senator Dodd of 
Connecticut to offer his amendment and that no second-degree amendments 
be in order to the Dodd amendment prior to a vote on a motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. If the Senator will pause for one moment, I think what 
we are close to doing is having about four votes that would occur at 
around 5:15. So Senators can be on notice. We need to get one more sign 
off on that matter before we officially announce it. But that is the 
intent of the managers of the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                           amendment no. 1813

  (Purpose: To increase funding for activities carried out under the 
          Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990)

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill.
  I call up amendment No. 1813
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself, Mr. 
     Jeffords, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Levin, and Mrs. Murray, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1813.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In the matter under the heading ``payments to states for 
     the child care and development block grant'' in the matter 
     under the heading ``Administration for Children and 
     Families'' in title II, strike ``$1,182,672,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,000,000,000''.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, 
Senator Jeffords, Senator Snowe, Senator Kennedy, Senator Murray, 
Senator Levin, and others.
  Let me begin these remarks by apologizing to my colleagues who, once 
again, are being asked to vote on a child care amendment. The obvious 
question raised is, Why am I voting on this for the third or fourth 
time? The simple reason is--and I appreciate the votes. We have had 
good votes in the Senate, and strong bipartisan votes on this issue. 
But for a variety of reasons, which I will not take the time of this 
body to go into, the matter has been dropped in conference, or bills 
have died, or for other reasons. So despite the good and strong and 
positive efforts on behalf of Members of the Senate, we have not been 
able to adopt the language on child care that my colleagues, by 
overwhelming votes, have adopted already in these past 10 months.
  Again, Senator Jeffords, myself, and Senator Snowe are proposing this 
amendment. It is somewhat different than the other ones in this regard 
only. Earlier, amendments dealing with the child care proposal actually 
had mandatory spending in them. This is discretionary spending. In 
fact, the amendment I am offering--properly the credit goes to Senator 
Chafee of Rhode Island, who has been a champion on child care issues. 
This amendment is basically the Chafee amendment on child care that we 
think is deserving of our support on a bipartisan basis.
  By increasing margins, as I have indicated, this body has supported 
additional funding for the child care block grant. The first vote we 
had was 57-43, the second vote was 60-33, and by the third vote it was 
unanimously adopted.
  I apologize again at the outset for asking my colleagues, once again, 
to cast a child care vote since you think you have done so, and already 
you have. But basically our opportunity to provide some additional 
funding is still the same. The arguments have not changed. The bill 
hasn't changed, except this is discretionary and not mandatory, and 
obviously the need across our country has not changed over the last 
number of months.
  I will take a few minutes. We have a very short time agreement on 
this amendment. We have debated it extensively over the past year. I 
don't want

[[Page S11712]]

to take any more of this Chamber's time than is necessary on this 
amendment.
  But the amendment would increase child care assistance to working 
families by doubling the discretionary fund in the child care 
development block grant from $1 billion to $2 billion.
  I continue to believe the best place for a child to be is with their 
parents. That is the best place--no question about it. But when both 
parents are working--as many do in this country, trying to put food on 
the table, a roof over their children's heads--that is difficult. When 
there is only one parent--regretfully, that happens too often in our 
society--you can imagine the burdens on a single parent who has to work 
and also has young children and trying to provide for child care needs.
  So the reality is that good, affordable child care is a necessity. In 
the absence of parental care, we try to do the best we can to 
approximate the kind of care that parents would give.
  That is what this amendment is all about.
  The child care block grant is almost a decade old. My good friend and 
colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, and I authored the child care block 
grant almost a decade ago. It won support and the signature of 
President Bush who signed the legislation into law, and it has provided 
a lot of decent assistance to people over the years.

  It provides direct financial assistance to help families pay for 
child care and does not dictate where that care must be provided. 
Parents across this country can choose a child care center as the child 
care provider. They can choose a home-based provider, a neighbor, a 
church, a relative, or whatever they think is best for that child. We 
leave that entirely up to the parents to make that decision.
  This block grant is also the largest source of Federal funding for 
critical afterschool programs.
  Again, we all appreciate, I think, the growing need for afterschool 
care.
  I point out to my colleagues that 30 percent of the child care block 
grant is used by parents to pay for care to school-age children. That 
translates into almost $1 billion a year.
  That is a major, major source of assistance to parents who worry 
about who is watching their children after school in State after State 
across our country.
  The only downside to this now almost decade-old program is that it 
has been underfunded because of the lack of resources. The Child Care 
and Development Block Grant Act is available only to 1 in 10 eligible 
families in America today.
  Despite all the efforts over the years--and I appreciate the votes 
and the support we have received--still only one 1 in 10 eligible 
families get any assistance under this program.
  Because of a lack of resources States have been getting under the 
block grant--it goes to the States--States have had to severely ration 
child care assistance to families in need.
  So what States have done is they create a threshold, a dollar 
threshold, an income threshold. They say that anybody above that 
threshold cannot get the child care development block grant assistance. 
They have lowered the threshold--that is all the time--because the 
scarce dollars mean that they can only provide it to some families.
  Let me explain what I mean.
  Two-thirds of all of the States in the United States have cut this 
child care assistance to families earning under $25,000 a year--two-
thirds of all the States. Fourteen of those States have cut off all 
assistance to families earning over $20,000 a year, and eight States 
even ration the funds more stringently.
  In the States of Wyoming, Alabama, Missouri, Kentucky, Iowa South 
Carolina, and West Virginia, if you are a family earning in excess of 
$17,000, you get no child care assistance.
  I don't know how a family making $17,000 a year trying to work--this 
is a working family; I am not talking about somebody getting welfare. 
These are working people. If you are a working mother, and you have a 
$17,000-a-year income, you have two children, you do not have child 
care. I am sorry. You don't. You may be lucky and have a grandmother, 
aunt, or next-door neighbor, and probably juggling it every day. But if 
you are in those eight States, even in one of those 22 States, and make 
$20,000 or less, I don't know how people do it.
  That is because we have underfunded for the block grant. I am not 
going to be able to take care of everybody. Senator Jeffords, Senator 
Snowe, I, and others who have supported these amendments know we are 
not going to make a difference for every family. But if we can get a 
little more money by doubling this amendment from $1 billion to $2 
billion in this discretionary program, maybe these States--we think 
they will--will raise those threshold levels, and as a result, more 
families in these States will get that kind of good child care 
assistance that they need.

  Let me tell you how bad this problem is. Even with these stringent 
income eligibility requirements that I have just enumerated, consider 
the waiting list that exists across America. I will not recite all 50 
States.
  Let me tell you for almost every State that we have, the numbers are 
high.
  In California, there are 200,000 children waiting for a child care 
slot, even with the income levels as low as they are.
  So even when you have an income level of $17,000 or lower to get 
child care, or $20,000 or lower, there are 200,000 children in those 
States whose parents qualify financially. They are earning less than 
$20,000. But because there are so few funds, 200,000 are on a waiting 
list.
  Texas, 34,000; Massachusetts, 15,000; Pennsylvania, almost 13,000; 
Alabama, 19,000; Georgia, in excess of 12,000.
  The list goes on.
  These are families that are meeting those income criteria. But even 
with the income criteria, there are not enough dollars to go around to 
provide child care to these families.
  There is a waiting list even with these low-income levels.
  Other States ration their limited child care dollars by paying child 
care providers poverty level wages.
  That is hardly the way to ensure good, quality child care. Again, the 
lowest paid teachers in America are child care providers.

  What a great irony. I don't think anyone argues we probably ought to 
have the best prepared teachers for the most vulnerable of our 
society--kids. A case could be made, I suppose, that someone in a 
higher education institution needed less care. But imagine a 6-month-
old baby and the person who watches that 6-month-old, 1-year-old child 
is one of the lowest paid workers.
  I am urging my colleagues to adopt this amendment so we can raise 
some of the income levels, we can get a few more dollars to the child 
care providers who are so necessary, and we can also see if we cannot 
help our Governors raise some of the income levels.
  We have voted on this now three times. I am deeply apologetic to my 
colleagues. I have had unanimous support for this amendment as recently 
as a few months ago. Because of bills dying or being dropped in 
conference, we are back at it again. I apologize for taking the time of 
my colleagues on this amendment that Senator Jeffords and I have 
offered. We cannot let this issue go away. It is too important to too 
many families.
  I thank publicly Senator Abraham of Michigan, Senator Campbell of 
Colorado, Senator Chafee, Senator Collins, Senator DeWine, Senator 
Frist, Senator Hatch, Senator Jeffords, Senator Roberts, Senator Snowe, 
Senator Specter, Senator Warner, and more. I will not read the entire 
list of Republican colleagues who have been supportive of this 
amendment. The Senators have made a difference voting for this. I thank 
the Senators for their support.
  The votes I had then were for the mandatory program. This is 
discretionary funding. It is substantially different. Some in the past 
may have said vote for this, it is mandatory; this is a discretionary 
program. Obviously, we are dealing with Senator Specter's bill. It is 
different in that regard, probably less of a problem politically for 
some.
  I am deeply grateful for the strong bipartisan support and I am 
confident we will have support again this afternoon on this issue which 
has developed strong bipartisan interest in this body.
  My principal cosponsor from Vermont is here. I want to make sure he 
has some time to talk about this.

[[Page S11713]]

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a time agreement 
be entered into, with 10 additional minutes for the proponents of the 
amendment, and 15 minutes for myself and whomever I designate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I join my good friend from Connecticut. 
We have been working for years to draw the attention of the public to 
the essential need that we pay more attention and provide help in the 
child care area. Each year we get the support of our Members. Each year 
we have successfully gotten agreements for billions of dollars of the 
budget, but the time is now to do something real. That is why we are 
here, to make sure we make a commitment, not only make a commitment but 
provide the funds to enable our society to be able to take advantage of 
all that can be done to make sure our children have an opportunity to 
participate in the best possible way in our society.
  This amendment will almost double the funds that provide low-income 
working families with the help they need. The amendment increases 
funding for the child care and development block grant from about $1.83 
billion to $2 billion. This block grant has always been forward funded 
so no offset will be required. States are struggling to meet the 
escalating child care needs of low-income families, and they are 
transitioning off of welfare. States have already transferred $1.2 
billion in TANF funds into the child development block grant; other 
States use TANF dollars directly to pay for child care costs; while 
still others have spent all of their TANF funds and have nothing left 
to transfer.
  Still this is not enough. States have waiting lists for child care 
subsidies provided under the CCDBG. In addition, many States provide 
subsidies so low-income families are forced into the cheapest and in 
many cases the poorest quality child care.
  There are more than 12 million children under the age of 5, including 
half of all infants under 1 year of age, who spend at least part of the 
day being cared for by someone other than their parents. There are 
millions more school-age children under the age of 12 who are in some 
form of child care at the beginning or end of the school day as well as 
during school holidays and vacation. More 6-to-12-year-olds who are 
latchkey kids return home from school to no supervision because parents 
are working and there are few, if any, alternatives.
  While the supply of child care has increased over the past 10 years, 
there are still significant shortages for parents in rural areas with 
school-age children or infants and for lower income families. The cost 
of child care for lower middle-income families can rival the cost of 
housing and the cost of food. The most critical growth spurt is between 
birth and 10 years of age, precisely the time when nonparental child 
care is most frequently utilized.
  A Time magazine special report on ``How a Child Brain Develops'' from 
February 3, 1997, said it best:

       Good, affordable day care is not a luxury or a fringe 
     benefit for welfare mothers and working parents but essential 
     brain food for the next generation.

  The Senate has voted on and passed similar amendments three times 
this year. There were two votes on the budget resolution, and a 
modified version of the amendments was included in the conference 
report. Again, in July, Senator Dodd and I introduced a similar 
amendment through the tax bill which was subsequently dropped in 
conference. Hopefully, this fourth time will be the charm and the 
Senate will pass this amendment and retain it in conference.
  I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment which is so critical 
for low-income working families and their children.
  I yield to my colleague from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and I thank so many of 
our Republican friends who worked with us on a bipartisan basis. I 
thank the manager, my good friend from Pennsylvania. We have been 
together many years. We both first arrived in this Chamber and we 
worked so closely together back 20 years ago, in 1981, on a caucus for 
children. It seems like a long time ago. Senator Specter, on numerous 
occasions, has been a real stalwart battler and fighter on behalf of 
the Child Care Block Grant Program. I am deeply grateful to him for his 
support on that.
  Senator Johnson desires to be added as a cosponsor.
  I know my colleague from Pennsylvania wants to be heard on this. I 
thank my colleague from Vermont and I thank my colleague from Maine. I 
thank Senator Chafee who has been a champion on this issue.
  The mandatory bill is gone and we are down to the discretionary bill. 
I apologize, I say to the manager. I know Members think we vote on this 
issue every other day, but each time we have been dropped in conference 
despite unanimous votes in the Senate on this issue. I hope, as the 
Senator from Vermont has said, the fourth time may be a charm and we 
will be able to provide some additional funds on a very worthwhile and 
needed program.

  I, again, thank my colleague for yielding. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before proceeding to the discussion of 
the amendment on the merits, I would like to announce to my colleagues 
we will shortly begin voting on four stacked votes: the Reid amendment, 
Graham amendment, Dodd amendment, and the Coverdell second-degree 
amendment to the Enzi amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent we begin voting on these matters at 5:10.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, the manager of the bill, it is my 
understanding there will be 1 minute on each side to explain the 
amendments.
  Mr. SPECTER. Fine.
  Mr. REID. Two minutes, equally divided.
  Mr. SPECTER. I incorporate that into the unanimous consent request.
  Mr. REID. And the Reid amendment will be the first amendment we will 
vote on?
  Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Has all time elapsed for Senator Dodd?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has 10 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. The Senator from Connecticut has 10 minutes remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. SPECTER. The unanimous consent agreement gave him 10 minutes 
total. Since that time, Senator Jeffords has spoken and Senator Dodd 
has spoken.
  Mr. DODD. If my colleague yields, we will yield back whatever time we 
have. I realize he is trying to move things along.
  Mr. SPECTER. I am trying to find out what is happening with the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Vermont was 
charged to him, and he yielded back his time to the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. SPECTER. Is the remaining time between now and 5:10 on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are presently 8 minutes 35 seconds 
remaining for the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. And the other time has been yielded back?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. And 10 minutes remaining----
  Mr. DODD. I yield back all time except 1 minute to sum up.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I find it extremely difficult to speak to 
and vote on this amendment because I have supported this amendment on 
so many occasions. Senator Dodd accurately relates, when we were 
elected in 1980, we cochaired the Children's Caucus. Then, in 1987, 
after we were reelected, we were cosponsors of the first parental leave 
program which had just begun. We have been soldiers in the field. I 
have voted for this amendment again and again and again. But I am 
deeply concerned if we agree to this amendment at this time and add 
another $900 million to the current bill of $91.7 billion, we are not 
going to have any bill at all. We are not going to get 51 votes in this 
Chamber to pass this bill and to go to conference. I say that because 
of the deep-seated concerns which have

[[Page S11714]]

been expressed by so many Senators about where we are.
  We have a bill at $91.7 billion which is within the budget caps. We 
have to go to conference with the House. We have to present a bill 
which the President will sign. I do not believe we will be able to do 
that if we add $900 million more.
  I can count the number of cosponsors which the persuasive Senator 
Dodd has. It may be he will have enough sponsors to defeat a tabling 
motion. I think next Tuesday, when Republican Senators return, on the 
vote on the underlying merits it may be different, although I very much 
would like to support him. We have been very concerned about children 
in this bill. We increased the child care block grant $182 million for 
fiscal year 2000, which brings it to $1.182 billion. Senator Dodd would 
like to have it added to $2 billion, and so would I, if I thought we 
could get that bill passed. This $1.182 billion is in addition to the 
child care entitlement which was increased $200 million, to $2.367 
billion next year. So we have on child care more than $3.5 billion.
  In addition, States can transfer up to 30 percent, or $4.8 billion, 
of their temporary assistance to needy families, the so-called TANF 
block grants, to the child care block grant. At the end of the first 
quarter of fiscal year 1999, States had $4.220 billion in unobligated 
TANF balances.
  So there have been very substantial allocations for children. I might 
say, this is an especially tough vote for me because earlier today, my 
daughter-in-law, Tracey Specter, took the lead in establishing a child 
care center in Philadelphia where she and her husband, my son, Shanin 
Specter, have made a very generous contribution for child care. I know 
of the importance of child care so working mothers can provide needed 
assistance for their families in an era of two-wage-earner families and 
in an era of single mothers. I know how vital child care is. But this 
is going to be the log that breaks the camel's back. I think the camel 
now is burdened so that a straw would break the camel's back, but this 
is not a straw, this is a log.
  I do not know quite where we are going to be when final passage comes 
on this bill and we do not have 51 votes. So it is a longstanding 
partnership I have with the Senator from Connecticut, elected on the 
same day to this body, worked hand in glove, almost as longstanding a 
relationship as with Senator Jeffords. Usually Senator Jeffords says, 
``Jump,'' and I say, ``How high?'' on matters which he has in mind. But 
it is with the greatest reluctance that I say I cannot support this 
amendment, much as I would like to, for the reasons I have given.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator has 3 
minutes 20 seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. Let me yield a minute or so to Senator Dodd.
  Mr. DODD. I appreciate my colleague's very gracious comments on this, 
and I appreciate the burden he is under. It is not easy to be the 
chairman of a committee. You have responsibilities to meet and you have 
a lot of good requests that come your way.
  I would make the case to my colleagues, I think there has been a 
strong indication this is a matter in which we have been able to come 
together. We were so divided on so many issues, but on child care we 
found common ground three times already in the last 7 or 8 months, the 
three votes that have been cast on this issue. In fact, the previous 
ones were on mandatory spending. This one is discretionary, so it ought 
to be somewhat more palatable for people.

  I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Pennsylvania on how 
much is already committed. But, of course, I still make the case it 
still only serves 1 in 10 families--I know he knows--and there are a 
lot of people on waiting lists, thousands in each State, even with the 
income levels down. As I said, in 8 States it is $17,000 less; in 14 
States, it is $20,000 less. I don't know how a family earning $20,000 a 
year with all the other financial burdens they have also can meet a 
child care expense they may have.
  So while I am deeply appreciative of the quandary he is in, I make a 
case this strengthens the likelihood we might get 51 votes for the 
bill. It is the kind of bipartisan proposal that has enjoyed so much 
support. It was unanimously adopted only a few weeks ago, so that it 
might, in fact, bring some people who would feel otherwise disinclined 
to support the legislation, but doing something, as he properly points 
out, for working families--it is all working folks now--trying to make 
ends meet, hold their families together. I know he knows this. I know 
he cares about it deeply.
  I hope in the coming minutes before the vote occurs on this, while 
people may have voted one way on a variety of different bills, on this 
one, this amendment, they might say: On this one, we ought to, with 
forward funding, find that extra $900 million so we can make a 
difference for these families.
  I am deeply appreciative of his kind words and his continuing efforts 
and fight. I was going to facetiously suggest, since his wonderful 
daughter-in-law and son went into the business, maybe the chairman 
might have to recuse himself on the vote since he may be compelled to 
vote to table. I say that only facetiously.
  I am delighted his daughter-in-law and son have felt the need to be 
involved in the issue, and I am not surprised, knowing the Senator and 
his spouse, that their children would want to carry on this terrific 
tradition they have started.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from Connecticut for those generous 
comments. He is almost pervasive enough to get me to change my mind, 
but passage of this bill is more important.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the first rollcall 
vote, which is 15 minutes in accordance with our practice, with a 5-
minute leeway, that the subsequent votes be 10 minutes in duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, with great reluctance, I move to table 
the Dodd amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1820

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes equally divided on the 
motion to table the Reid amendment.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if Members of the Senate have enjoyed and 
appreciated ``Prairie Home Companion,'' the great work of Ken Burns' 
``Civil War,'' ``Baseball''--and now he is doing a new one on Susan B. 
Anthony and Liz Stanton dealing with the women's movement--and if they 
have enjoyed with their children ``Sesame Street,'' which is Big Bird 
and Elmo, then every person in the Senate should support my amendment.
  We want to keep public broadcasting public and not commercial 
broadcasting. We do not want it, like most everything else in America, 
to be commercialized. Our children and the rest of America at least 
deserve this much from their Congress.
  This amendment cries out for support. This is an education and labor 
bill, and I underline education. There is nothing more important as it 
relates to education than having a sound public broadcasting function 
of our Government.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is with reluctance, again, that I am 
compelled to oppose the Reid amendment. I like public broadcasting, but 
this bill has been crafted with some 300 programs. Public broadcasting 
is getting a $10 million increase. This is in the face of some very 
substantial problems which were raised with public broadcasting on the 
sale of lists to political organizations. Public broadcasting is very 
important, and with tight budget constraints, I think $350 million is 
an adequate allocation.
  I must say, as the Senator from Nevada mentioned ``Sesame Street,'' 
again, it is a family matter. My three granddaughters are mad about 
``Sesame Street.'' On goes the television, and their behavior is a 
model.
  This budget can only stretch so far. It is crafted for more than 300 
programs. The better course is to take the

[[Page S11715]]

$10 million increase, and $350 million is sufficient.
  Parliamentary inquiry: Is there a tabling motion pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 1820. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), 
the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack), the Senator from Rhodes Island 
(Mr. Chafee), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. DeWine), and the Senator from 
Wyoming (Mr. Thomas) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 44, as follows:

                      {Rollcall Vote No. 301 Leg.}

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Chafee
     DeWine
     Mack
     McCain
     Thomas
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes equally divided on the 
motion to table the Graham amendment.
  Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, our staff tells me that we now have 62 
amendments pending to this bill. That means we are going to be here an 
awful long time on this bill. I think I am going to request that the 
leader initiate a weekend session if we are going to get this bill 
passed.
  We had this bill out of committee with the hopes that we could get it 
passed today at the end of the fiscal year so we could once again get 
back to the habit of passing all the bills in the Senate that come from 
the Appropriations Committee by the end of the fiscal year at least.
  I hope Senators will tell us seriously how many of these amendments 
they intend to call up. There are 41 on that side of the aisle and 21 
on this side of the aisle. Most of them are riders, and if you put them 
on the bill, we will drop them in conference anyway. Beyond that, those 
amendments that take money, you have to take money from some other 
Senator to get them passed.
  Let's not play games with this bill. It is the last bill. It is the 
biggest bill. This is the largest bill. Two-thirds of this bill is not 
even subject to our control. Two-thirds of the bill is entitlements. I 
hope we will start watching those entitlement bills and understand it 
is a very hard bill to put together.
  I congratulate the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from 
Iowa for their handling of the bill. But I plead with you to tell us 
which of these amendments you really want to call up.
  I see my good friend from Nevada. He doesn't have on the right tie 
today. But he is a man who believes, as I do, that bills should move 
forward as rapidly as we can move them. I hope I have his help in 
urging Senators to tell us which of these amendments you really want 
considered by the Senate and give us a time agreement on them so we 
know how long it will take before we finish this bill.
  Does the Senator wish the floor?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Alaska that the 
managers of the bill on our side have suggested maybe we should drop 
your amendments and our amendments. Would the Senator be willing to do 
that?
  Mr. STEVENS. I would be happy to move to table them all and go to 
conference tonight.
  Mr. REID. That is something we were talking about over here.
  I say to the chairman of the full committee that we have already 
looked at these amendments. A number of Members on this side are 
waiting to see what amendments are being offered on the other side. 
There are a couple of amendments that are going to cause this bill a 
really slow ride through these Halls. One is on ergonomics, which is a 
real problem; we have a dozen or so Senators who want to speak in 
relation to that amendment.
  So I think a lot depends on what amendments are offered on the 
majority side to see how we can weed out some of these amendments over 
here.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask the Parliamentarian to look at all 
of the amendments and see which of them are subject to rule XVI. I 
intend to raise rule XVI against any amendment I can raise it against.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida has the floor.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I suggest the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Senate will be in order.
  The Senator from Florida.


                           Amendment No. 1821

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we are talking about one of those 
entitlement issues Senator Stevens just described.
  The Finance Committee of the Senate and the Ways and Means Committee 
of the House established the funding level for title XX of the SSBG of 
their bill at $2.38 billion. The appropriators have reduced that amount 
to $1.50 billion, a cut of over 50 percent. This violates a commitment 
the Congress made with the Governors in 1996 as part of the welfare-to-
work legislation. Therefore, the Governors are opposing the position 
the committee has taken.
  This is a backdoor violation of the commitment that 71 Senators made 
when we voted against having the Federal Government direct how the 
States' tobacco settlement was spent.
  Why is this? Because the way in which the subcommittee recommends we 
make up this difference is to direct the States to use their tobacco 
money to fill this gap. Seventy-one Members of the Senate--48 
Republicans and 23 Democrats--voted in March of this year to do exactly 
the opposite of what we are now being asked to do.
  Mr. President, this is a matter of honor of the Senate and our 
commitment to our partners in the Federal system, the States.
  I urge that this motion to table be defeated.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as much as I have always favored the 
social services block grant program, the funding level in this bill is 
established as a matter of priority.
  If we want to add to education $2.3 billion, significant additions to 
the National Institutes of Health, and crafting some 300 programs, this 
is the level which is appropriate. The States can transfer up to 5 
percent of their temporary assistance to needy families in this program 
through these block grants, which amounts to $16.5 billion. Mr. 
President, $825 million are available there.
  At the close of the first quarter of fiscal year 1999 States had 
$4.22 billion, so it can be made up. People may not want to consider 
the tobacco funds, but the States have about $203 billion which has 
been given to them, where the argument was it should have come to the 
Federal Government to support these block grant programs.
  If we are to pass this bill, if we are to get 51 votes, $91.7 
billion, we can't add additional funds with this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). All time has expired. The 
question is on agreeing to table the amendment No. 1821. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain),

[[Page S11716]]

the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Chafee), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas) are necessarily 
absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 302 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--57

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Chafee
     Mack
     McCain
     Thomas
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask that the underlying amendment, as 
amended, be voice voted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SPECTER. I object.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to dispose of this matter now.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is 2 minutes equally divided 
on the Dodd amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I think I had asked for the yeas and nays 
on the underlying amendment, as amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A sufficient second has not been obtained. Is 
there a sufficient second?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, regular order.


                           Amendment No. 1813

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is there are now 2 minutes 
equally divided on the Dodd amendment.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I make a point of order that this 
amendment violates the Budget Act in that it exceeds the 302(b) 
allocations of the subcommittee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is against the Dodd 
amendment?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Dodd amendment would increase the amount under this 
child care development block grant. This bill is at its ceiling now. 
There is no additional money. I was told at first that it was written 
so it would apply to 2001. That is not the case.
  The amendment is not subject to amendment, as I understand it, under 
the procedure we are under right now and cannot be cured, and I make 
the point of order that it violates the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the rule, the point of order is not in 
order until the time is expired--the motion to table has been made--and 
been disposed of. The regular order calls for 2 minutes equally 
divided.
  Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry. When I came in, I understood one 
of the sponsors had urged the adoption of this amendment; isn't that 
so?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to table and 
that takes priority over the point of order. The point of order will be 
in order when the debate on the motion to table has expired and the 
vote has taken place.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, briefly, this is an amendment we have voted 
on--this is the fourth time in the last 7 months. I thank my colleagues 
for the bipartisan support that the Dodd-Jeffords-Snowe and others 
amendment has been given. Unfortunately, it has been dropped in 
conference in the past so it has not been adopted.
  It was adopted unanimously by this body only a few weeks ago. Prior 
to that, it was a 66-33 vote. Unlike the previous votes, this is 
discretionary funding, not mandatory funding. It tries to deal with the 
issue of child care, something about which we all care.
  We now know today that 1 in 10 families is struggling to make ends 
meet. They are the poorest families in America and are working every 
day and not on public assistance. Today, in 25 States, if you earn more 
than $20,000, you do not qualify for child care assistance.
  I don't know how a family of four, earning $20,000 a year, with young 
children--where the parents are working, where they need to place these 
children in a safe place during the day--can afford that without some 
help.
  For 10 years now, since Senator Hatch and I sponsored the child care 
development block grant that was adopted, this Congress has supported a 
child care program.
  Today, we want to serve more than just the 1 in 10 that is being 
served. This amendment does that. My colleagues have voted for it in 
the past. I urge my colleagues to do so again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in order to save time, I ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw the motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HARKIN. I object.
  Mr. DODD. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. GRAMM. Would the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor, 
under the regular order, for 1 minute.
  Mr. GRAMM. Would the Senator from Pennsylvania yield?
  Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
  Mr. GRAMM. We will be voting on the motion to table. At that point, 
the point of order will lie. All we are going to do is cost every 
Senator 15 or 20 minutes. It will not change anything.
  Mr. DODD. I say to my colleague, there is obviously a different vote 
count on the tabling motion than there is on a point of order. I would 
argue the point of order, but I am hoping----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the time.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reluctantly, I am opposed to the 
amendment, which would add some $900 million to this bill. There have 
been substantial increases on child care and on child care entitlement. 
If we have $900 million added to this bill--which is now at $91.7 
billion--it is the log that breaks the camel's back. I think it is a 
very good program, but in establishing priorities, we have already 
allocated very substantial funds to this line. Therefore, I am opposed 
to the amendment and I move to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to table. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed just 30 
seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Alaska is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. I wish to correct my statement. This does amend a 
section in this bill, which is advance funding, and it is, therefore, 
not subject to the point of order I would have made.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is on agreeing to the motion

[[Page S11717]]

to table amendment No. 1813. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), 
the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. 
Thomas), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), and the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Bond) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 303 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--54

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Bond
     Chafee
     Mack
     McCain
     Thomas
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1886

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to return to my 
second amendment for purposes of a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I ask for a voice vote on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the second-
degree Graham amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1886) was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, point of order: Is the question now on the 
Dodd amendment?


                           Amendment No. 1821

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to the first-
degree Graham amendment, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 1821), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1813

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, may I inquire, do we move now to the Dodd 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Dodd amendment has not been agreed to. The 
motion to table failed. The Dodd amendment has not been agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Regular order. I ask unanimous consent to have a voice vote 
on the Dodd amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1813) was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1885

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  The regular order is now on the motion to table the Coverdell 
amendment. Two minutes are equally divided. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered.
  Who yields time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, may I inquire. I asked the 
Parliamentarian for a list of those amendments that violated rule XVI 
that have been offered by various tenders. May I inquire, when will it 
be in order for me to make my points of order against those amendments 
that violate rule XVI?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments would have to be pending before 
the point of order would be in order.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will leave on the desk a list of the 
amendments that have been found to violate rule XVI.
  May I make a further parliamentary inquiry. Under the new rule XVI, 
the Parliamentarian's rule cannot be waived; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no provision to waive rule XVI.
  Mr. STEVENS. I would like to leave this on my desk and ask Members to 
see if their amendments are within this category. If they wish to 
withdraw them, of course, I will not make a motion to table them. I 
think that would be the easiest way to dispose of them--to have Members 
withdraw their amendments. But I do intend to make a point of order 
under rule XVI against some 23 amendments before the evening is over.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is 2 minutes equally 
divided.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, on this amendment on which we are about to 
vote, we have given an increase to OSHA for the work they do. What I am 
asking is that we continue to recognize there are parts of those that 
go in hand in hand. One of the parts is enforcement. The other is 
consultation.
  There are 1,275 pages of OSHA that every business has to follow. They 
need the consultation to be able to wade through that. They need 
somebody they can ask to be able to get answers.
  I have taken the increase in OSHA and given some recognition that 
consultation ought to be a part of that. Consultation will help. I 
don't know that they will spend it that way. We don't have any really 
good oversight to see that. But it is the trend we have to follow. 
Sixty-six percent of their money goes to enforcement and 30 percent 
goes to consultation. I am asking you to split this money in 
recognition between the two so that kind of an emphasis will continue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think the bill in its present form has 
the appropriate balance between conciliation and enforcement. In the 
last 5 years, enforcement has declined $3 million, from $145 million to 
$142 million; conciliation has grown from $3l.5 million to almost $41 
million, an increase of 30 percent.
  I think the bill as written is proper. I might add that it does not 
unduly prejudice the case on the merits, and if the Enzi amendment is 
not tabled under the unanimous consent agreement, Senator Wellstone has 
leave to file a second-degree amendment with 15 minutes to argue it, to 
be followed by another rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The question is on agreeing to 
the motion to table amendment No. 1885. On this question, the yeas and 
nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), 
the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), the Senator from Florida 
(Mr. Mack), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 304 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman

[[Page S11718]]


     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Chafee
     Kennedy
     Mack
     McCain
     Thomas
  The motion to table was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the second-
degree amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on the desk of the clerk and on the desk 
of the two managers of the bill is a list of the amendments that, in 
the opinion of the Parliamentarian, violate rule XVI.
  I ask I be notified by the Chair at any time any one of those 
amendments is called up. I ask unanimous consent I be notified if any 
of those amendments on the list at the desk are called up.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, would the 
chairman mind if somebody else initiated the point of order? He would 
not have to be here if somebody else did it.
  Mr. STEVENS. I assure the distinguished whip that I will be here. But 
in the event I am not here, I have not asked that I be the one to have 
the exclusive right to make a point of order. I only asked I be 
notified if it is called up. In effect, I am serving notice if you call 
up that amendment, I will make the point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, what is the unanimous 
consent request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is the Senator be notified if any 
of those amendments are called up that violate rule XVI.
  Mr. HARKIN. I don't mind that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote on the Enzi 
amendment.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. Regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the second-
degree amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1885) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, for the information of my colleague, I 
was so overwhelmed with this past vote, I was so moved by this past 
vote to give me an opportunity to speak even more on the floor of the 
Senate, that I am now going to vitiate that part of the unanimous 
consent agreement to have a vote on this second-degree amendment so 
colleagues could leave.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the first-
degree amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1846) was agreed to.
 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I commend both Senator Specter and 
Senator Harkin for their dedicated work on this legislation which 
provides federal funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services (HHS), and Education. This appropriations bill provides 
funding for many critical programs directly helping American families 
and providing important assistance to our most important resource, our 
children.
  One of the most important components in this bill is its vital 
support for education. We owe it to each and every child to ensure that 
they have access to a high quality education. This is why I am pleased 
that this bill increases funding for Department of Education to almost 
$38 billion, including nearly $6 billion for educating children with 
special needs and $5.2 billion for the Head Start program.
  I am also pleased to note that this bill prohibits federally funded 
national education standards. It continues to be my strong belief that 
our nation must have higher learning expectations for our children but 
academic standards must be controlled by state and local authorities, 
not the bureaucrats in Washington.
  This bill contains important resources for helping make college and 
continuing education more affordable for all Americans. Under this 
bill, the maximum loan amount for post-secondary education would be the 
highest level in the program's history--$3,325 per student. In 
addition, this legislation provides $1.4 billion for higher education 
opportunities, including $180 million for GEAR UP which assists under-
privileged children and $5 million to provide access to affordable 
child care for parents struggling to complete their college education 
while raising their children.
  I am particularly pleased that this bill provides significant funding 
for medical research at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, $17.6 
billion, which is an increase of $2 billion from last year. I am sure 
that my colleagues share my support for this 13 percent increase in 
funding for vital research which could lead to important scientific 
breakthroughs which will improve the health of our citizens. Finally, I 
am encouraged to note that this bill took an important step towards 
meeting the needs of over 7,000 children and families whose lives have 
been devastated by hemophilia-related AIDS, by beginning to fund the 
Ricky Ray Act as authorized by Congress last year.
  Furthermore, I was pleased to learn that the sections allocating 
funding for Labor, HHS and Education were free of direct earmarks, set 
asides or unauthorized appropriations. However, my initial enthusiasm 
was dampened somewhat upon reviewing the report language. While the 
Committee made a concerted effort to not include any specific 
earmarking in those Departments' budgets, the report contains an 
exorbitant amount of directive language that is clearly intended 
to have the same effect as an earmark. By this, I mean the use of words 
like ``encourage'', ``urge'', and ``recommend'' in connection with 
references to particular institutions, projects, or proposals that the 
Committee would obviously like the relevant agencies to fund.

  These are not direct earmarks, but I am sure the programs which the 
Committee ``encourages'' or ``urges'' the agencies to support will 
receive special consideration. While the Committee avoided providing a 
line item for funding specific projects, it stated its strong 
preference for the funding or continued funding of many specific 
projects which would clearly bypass the competitive funding process.
  I will highlight a few examples of report language that contain a 
multitude of expressions of support, short of earmarks, for particular 
projects. These include:
  The Committee urges the Department of Labor to give full and fair 
consideration to funding requests submitted by the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania to retrain incumbent workers.
  The Committee encourages the Department of Labor to support 
agricultural training for dislocated sugarcane workers in Hawaii.
  The Committee recommends continued support by the Department of Labor 
for the Alaska Federation of Natives Foundation to develop and train 
Alaska native workers for year-round employment within the petroleum 
industry.
  The Committee encourages the agency to contribute technical 
assistance to the University of Nevada at Reno and Las Vegas toward the 
establishment of educational channels for a school of pharmacy.
  The Committee stated its awareness of the San Bernardino County 
Medical Center proposal to create a ``hospital without walls.'' In 
addition, the Committee notes that the Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital is 
proposing the creation and implementation of a Northern California 
Telemedicine Network.
  The Committee is aware of a proposal by the Montana State University-
Billings to develop in collaboration with

[[Page S11719]]

medical facilities in the area a telemedicine program to provide 
preventive medicine and support services to the large elderly 
population in Billings and eastern Montana.
  The Committee continues to be supportive of the work being conducted 
by the Low Country Health Care Systems.
  The Committee encourages priority be given to the University of 
Hawaii at Hilo Native Language College when allocating funds for native 
Hawaiian education.
  The Committee is concerned about the absence of technology 
integration in the north central communities of Pennsylvania. The 
committee notes the efforts of the Lock Haven University of 
Pennsylvania for its development of two regional networks to link these 
rural communities.
  Mr. President, I could continue listing the specific projects, which 
the report highlights and for which the Committee provides 
encouragement for continued or new funding, but I will not waste the 
Senate's valuable time. Due to its length, the list I compiled of 
objectionable provisions included in the Senate report cannot be 
printed in the Record. This list will be available on my Senate 
website.
  It is simply inappropriate that the committee is attempting to 
influence the open, competitive funding process, thereby limiting the 
funds available to workers, schools, hospitals, and communities around 
the country which are not fortunate enough to live in a State with a 
Senator on the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a very important 
subject. I am referring to teen smoking.
  Currently, teen smoking rates are far too high and they continue to 
rise. Since I left the Missouri Governor's office, teen smoking in 
Missouri has increased from 32.6% to 40.3%--almost a 24% increase! In 
fact, today, Missouri ranks sixth in the nation in teen smoking.
  While there is disagreement in this body on where teen smoking 
policies should be set--at the federal or state level--we all agree 
that it must be addressed.
  Seven years ago, in an attempt to tackle this problem, the United 
States Congress passed what is now known as the Synar Amendment. This 
amendment required the states to meet specified targets in reducing 
teen access to cigarettes. It did not tell the States how to meet the 
targets but just that they had to meet them.
  I believe, as I argued during the debate on the Federal tobacco tax 
legislation, that States are in the best position to tackle the serious 
problem of teen smoking. Governors, state legislatures, mayors, and 
city councils know how to target their programs. They know how to 
tailor educational programs for the local schools and communities. They 
have better access to convenience store owners and other retail 
establishments where teens buy cigarettes.
  With that in mind, I am deeply troubled about our current situation.
  Mr. President. Today, there are seven states and the District of 
Columbia who failed to meet their targets to reduce teen access to 
cigarettes. They have failed the state's teens and their parents. In 
addition, since their failure triggered a cut in federal block grant 
funds of 40%, they have failed those who need treatment for drug abuse 
and addiction under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration (SAMHSA).
  I guess we could be optimists and focus on the fact that 43 states 
did meet their targets. Forty-three states that made it a priority to 
cut teen smoking have succeeded. Forty-three states worked with local 
communities and found a way to reduce teen smoking. Therefore, 86% of 
the states met their goals--shouldn't we be pleased by that?
  Unfortunately I cannot be an optimist today. For one of those seven 
states who failed to meet the target was the State of Missouri. This is 
an important issue to me. As Governor of the State of Missouri, I 
signed the law that now makes it illegal to sell minors tobacco.
  Under the federal law, the State of Missouri had to make sure that no 
more than 28% of teens who attempted to purchase cigarettes were 
successful. That seems reasonable--however, the actual success rate was 
33%. That means that in one out of every three minors attempting to buy 
cigarettes was successful. One out of Three!
  Due to this failure, the State of Missouri is set to lose $9.6 
million to be used for drug addiction treatment. That is $9.6 million 
to be used to help drug addicted pregnant women, to reduce teen drug 
use, and to provide treatment to those whose lives have been destroyed 
by a lifetime of drug use.
  In this discussion, it is important to recognize that we have given 
the states the tools they need to fight teen smoking. We rejected the 
mammoth--bureaucracy and tax laden--tobacco bill. I led the fight 
against that bill. By defeating that bill, we made sure the tobacco 
money went to the states for tobacco prevention programs--and was not 
wasted on federal bureaucracy--on the 17 new boards, commissions, and 
agencies established in the bill.
  By defeating that bill, the states got the money rather than 
Washington. In fact, by killing that bill the State of Missouri 
received $6.7 billion from the tobacco settlement. That money is more 
than a third more resources than they would have received under the 
federal legislation. In addition to money, the states won clear limits 
from the tobacco companies on marketing techniques aimed at young 
people.
  With this Settlement in mind, it is even more disappointing that 
today we are left with this tough choice. We either respect the federal 
law and penalize those who are in need of drug treatment programs--or 
we bail out these states who have failed our nation's teens.
  In trying to determine the best course of action, we listened to the 
experts. Barry McCaffrey, the President's Drug Czar, stated that by 
withholding these funds ``. . . some heroin addicts might be forced 
back on the streets to return to a criminal life.'' He says: ``[w]e 
agree that the carrot-and-stick approach of the law can serve a purpose 
of pushing compliance, but we must not throw the baby out with the 
bathwater by increasing drug addiction and crime.'' It is a tough 
choice, but we must protect Americans from the scourge of drug use.
  In addition, I can't let those in the State of Missouri suffer due to 
the State's ineffective enforcement program. I am pleased to have 
worked with Senator Bond, the Senior Senator from Missouri, and other 
members whose states did not meet their targets in finding a solution 
to this problem.
  There is no question that the agreement does not contain everything I 
believe it should--such as creating penalties for teens who purchase, 
use and possess cigarettes. I continue to believe that if we really 
want to reduce youth smoking, we must place some responsibility on 
teens.
  However, I am relieved we have found a solution. These states will be 
forced to devote new money to anti-teen smoking programs. Based on that 
commitment, they will receive their SAMHSA money.
  I hope we do not find ourselves in this same position next year. This 
should be a wake up call to these states to step up their enforcement 
and pass tough teen smoking laws. The increase in teen smoking rates is 
unacceptable.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we will be doing wrapup momentarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader will withhold.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. I would like to notify the Members that there will be some 
more time taken on the bill itself, but that will be the final recorded 
vote for tonight, the last vote for tonight. There will be at least one 
vote tomorrow. I am still working on both sides to make a final 
determination on Monday. It is anticipated we will have at least one 
vote, maybe more, on Monday. But we have not locked that in yet. We 
will notify you of that officially tomorrow.
  I ask unanimous consent Senator Collins be recognized at 9 a.m. on 
Friday to call up her amendment, No. 1824, there be 30 minutes of 
debate equally divided in the usual form, and a vote to occur 
immediately on conclusion or yielding back of time and no second-degree 
amendments in order. That would mean the vote tomorrow would be at 
9:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. The next vote will occur at 9:30 in the morning.

[[Page S11720]]



                          ____________________