[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 148 (Tuesday, December 5, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11554-S11555]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  HEALTH AND EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to continue to address the key 
pending piece of legislation that has not been enacted this year. It 
has been passed by both the House and Senate. In the conference 
committee, we finished our work. But it is sort of hanging in limbo. 
That is the funding bill for Education, Health and Human Services, 
other important programs such as the National Institutes of Health, 
and, of course, the low-income heating energy assistance program which 
is so vital to many of our low-income and elderly citizens who live in 
the northeastern part of the United States and in a lot of the other 
northern parts of America.
  That bill right now is in limbo. We passed the appropriations bill in 
the Senate; the House passed the bill. Then ensued about 4 months of 
very tough negotiations between the House and the Senate, culminating 
in a marathon session that took place one weekend before we left, a 
couple weeks before the election, in which we agreed. When I say 
``we,'' I mean Chairman Stevens of the Appropriations Committee; 
Senator Byrd, our ranking member on the full Appropriations Committee; 
Senator Specter, who is the chairman of the education appropriations 
subcommittee; and me. I am the ranking member on the subcommittee. On 
the House side, we had Chairman Young of Florida, the chairman of the 
full Appropriations Committee; we had Congressman Porter, who is 
chairman of the subcommittee on that side; Congressman Obey, ranking 
member on the subcommittee, and also ranking member of the full 
Appropriations Committee. We all agreed.
  It was a Sunday, and we were there until 2 a.m. on Monday morning. We 
finally agreed. The negotiations were heated. Many times we were hung 
up on certain things, but in the end we came up with a good compromise.
  That was Monday morning. That was right before we left for the 
election. Less than 12 hours later, a faction within the House 
Republican leadership, led by Congressman DeLay and Congressman Armey, 
decided to renege on that bipartisan compromise. We were all baffled by 
this sudden decision. We spent many late hours compromising, 
negotiating, giving and taking.
  I think we came to an honorable, mutually satisfactory agreement. 
Again, no one was 100-percent happy with it. For example, I was 
extremely displeased that an important regulation protecting workers 
from workplace injuries such as carpal tunnel syndrome was delayed yet 
again, for the third year in a row, despite the fact that last year's 
conference report contained explicit language stating it would not be 
delayed any further. Well, Republicans insisted we try to delay this 
yet again.
  Each year, over 600,000 American workers suffer disabling, work-
related, musculoskeletal disorders. This costs employers $15 billion to 
$20 billion a year in compensation. It may cost our economy upwards of 
$60 billion annually. I was especially disappointed because this so-
called ergonomics provision was a nonpartisan proposal initiated under 
Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole, a Republican, in the Bush 
administration 9 years ago.
  Yet while I was displeased with this particular aspect of the bill, I 
was satisfied that the bill contained important provisions to improve 
education for our kids, improve health care for women and the elderly, 
fund needed research at the NIH, and safeguard Social Security and 
Medicare--provisions that are far too important to be destroyed by 
last-minute partisan politics.
  In this bill, we had the highest increase ever in funding for 
education, with 35 percent more funding for class size reduction. It 
meant 12,000 new teachers would be hired across America. That is what 
was in the bill. There was school modernization funding that would 
generate about $9 billion in needed school repairs to some of our older 
schools; $250 million to increase accountability to turn around failing 
schools; a 40-percent increase in grants to States for the education of 
kids with disabilities and special needs; the largest increase we ever 
gave for IDEA, from $4.9 billion to $6.9 billion; the largest increase 
ever for Pell grants, to make college more affordable to working 
families. That is what was in this bill--the largest increase ever for 
Pell grants; the biggest increase for grants to States for educating 
kids with disabilities; school modernization, the first time ever, 
which would have funded about $9 billion in needed school repairs; 35-
percent funding for class size reduction, the most ever. That is just 
in education.
  In child care, again, was a record amount of money, an additional 
$817 million that would have covered 220,000 more children in America 
to have child care; afterschool care, $546 million in this bill, so 
that 850,000 children in America could have some form of afterschool 
care.
  Health care. We added money so that 1.5 million more patient visits 
could take place at our community health centers around America. We put 
in an additional $18 million for breast and cervical cancer treatment 
and screening, an additional $1.7 million for NIH research--the highest 
level we have ever given, the biggest increase ever for funding at the 
NIH.
  I mentioned earlier a record amount for LIHEAP, the Low Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program, so that the elderly and low income in the 
northeastern parts of our country can get the heat they need this 
winter.
  That is what is in the bill. It addresses the educational needs of 
our country, child care, health care, medical research, and, as I said, 
things such as home heating for the elderly and low income.
  Well, each side won some battles; each side lost some. Isn't that 
what compromise is about? Isn't that what bipartisanship is about, 
where I don't get my way all the time and you don't get your way all 
the time? Maybe I will get some of what I want and maybe you will get 
some of what you want. That is what bipartisanship is about. We hear 
all this talk about bipartisanship. It looks as if next year the Senate 
is going to be right down the middle, 50-50, for the first time ever. 
If there is ever a time that we need bipartisanship, where we have to 
mentally understand that we Democrats don't get our way all the time 
and you Republicans don't get your way all the time but we work these 
things out, it is now. That is what we did on this appropriations bill.
  As I said, it took us almost 5 months of tough negotiations, with 
strong feelings about this. Finally, we shook hands and we all signed 
our names to it and we walked out of the room. Then, two Republicans on 
the House side, Mr. DeLay and Mr. Armey, turned thumbs down on it after 
we had done our work to reach a bipartisan agreement.
  Well, if we are going to set the stage for working closer together 
next year, I suggest we start here and now with the appropriations bill 
for education. We have a bipartisan bill. Republicans and Democrats who 
worked on it for 5 months know all the line items that are in it. We 
all agree that some are progressive, some are conservative, and there 
are moderates--almost the entire spectrum of the political ideology was 
involved in this bill. Yet we all agree, except Mr. DeLay and Mr. Armey 
on the House side.
  Why should two people in a position of power be able to tell the 
entire Congress and, in fact, the entire country that we are not going 
to have this bipartisan agreement that we reached, on which we worked 
so hard? Two people say that we are not going to have it.
  Congressman Young, with whom I served in the House, has been a 
distinguished House Member for a long time. He and I don't agree 
philosophically on a lot of things, but we worked it out. Along with 
Congressman Obey, Senator Stevens, and Senator Byrd, we worked these 
things out.
  So I hope we can tell the American people on the crucial issues of 
education, health care, and child care, yes, we got the message from 
this election. Let's work in a bipartisan way, just as we did on this 
bill, and let's send this

[[Page S11555]]

bill down to the President for his signature.
  Some are now suggesting, I hear, that we adopt a full year's 
continuing resolution, that we disband all of the work we did on this 
bill and just go to a full year's continuing resolution. Not only would 
that be an abdication of our responsibility and send exactly the wrong 
message, but it would be exactly the wrong start for the next 2 years 
of an evenly divided Senate and a closely divided House. As I said, it 
would throw out one of the best examples of bipartisan cooperation that 
we were able to muster this year. Even worse, a full year's continuing 
resolution would be a step backward for the education of our kids and 
the health care available to all Americans. If we had a continuing 
resolution, it would wipe out all the gains I spoke of, including class 
size reduction, Head Start, and breast and cervical cancer treatment 
and screening.
  I have a chart which shows one of the things that would happen if we 
do not adopt the appropriations bill on education and health.
  As I said, we have the largest increase ever for NIH funding. Why did 
we do that? We did that because this Congress a few years ago voted 
overwhelmingly that we were going to double the funding in 5 years for 
the NIH. Republicans voted for it and Democrats voted for it.
  Both Senator Specter and I took that charge. We have been adding that 
money to double that. This year we have a $1.7 billion increase for NIH 
funding to get it up to double.
  That increase means that under the current bill about which I am 
speaking we will be able to fund 9,500 new research project grants over 
and above what we have had in the past.
  If we have just a continuing resolution, we will be able to fund only 
5,000, and 4,500 new research grants will not be funded next year if we 
don't get this bill to the President and have just a continuing 
resolution.
  What does that mean? It means things such as Alzheimer's disease, 
child cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, childhood diabetes, HIV, 
Parkinson's disease, cerebral palsy--I have a whole list. I will not 
read the whole list--all of the things that we are very close to making 
breakthroughs on--spinal cord injury is another one--and are very close 
to making tremendous breakthroughs with the new tools that we have--the 
human genome project is being finished; stem cell research is being 
done. We are close to making tremendous breakthroughs. Who knows? One 
of these 4,500 grants that wouldn't be funded could be the one key that 
unlocked the door to which we could find interventions and a cure for 
Parkinson's disease. It could be one of those 4,500. But it won't be 
funded if we don't pass this bill. That is what is at stake.
  These are the things that won't be funded: Research to develop drugs 
to prevent Alzheimer's disease, clinical trial efforts on childhood 
cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, childhood diabetes, and HIV. 
They are just a few of the things that would be cut back. A full year's 
continuing resolution would cut NIH research by 47 percent. Forty-five 
hundred new research project grants would not be funded.
  I wanted to take this time because this is our first day back. We 
were back once since the election, but this is the first time we have 
been back to really get some legislative work done.
  The Christmas season is about upon us. People will be anxious to get 
out of here and get home to spend time with their families and 
constituents. But we can't shortchange the American people.
  Are we going to shortchange our kids? Are we going to say to the 
teachers across America that we are not going to reduce class size? Are 
we going to say to our property taxpayers around the country that we 
are not going to help them rebuild their crumbling schools; that they 
will have to take it out of their property taxes?
  Are we going to say to families hard pressed, who need school care 
for their kids and who may live in a place where they really need some 
afterschool care, that we are not going to fund that either?
  What about a working family that has a few kids and one of them is 
doing well in school and wants to go on to college but they can't 
afford it? They need a Pell grant. Yet we are not going to give the 
additional money for the Pell grants.
  What about our school systems that are hard pressed around this 
Nation because more and more of the burden of educating kids with 
special needs is falling upon our local property taxpayers and they are 
finding it more and more difficult to meet their constitutional 
requirements of equal education for kids with disabilities but they 
aren't able to fund it because the property taxpayers are overburdened 
as it is?
  We have a 40-percent increase in this bill to help our local schools 
make sure they can meet their constitutional obligation to educate kids 
with disabilities. We have a continuing resolution, and there that 
goes.
  I think the election is very clear. People in America want us to 
operate in a bipartisan fashion. This is the opportunity for us to show 
them that we mean it.
  We have a bipartisan bill passed by the Senate, passed by the House, 
worked out in conference committee, and agreed to by Republicans and by 
Democrats. Are we going to say that two people in the majority party in 
the House are able to say they don't like it? Is that what 
bipartisanship is going to be about around here--that we can all work 
in a bipartisan fashion but when it gets to the higher echelon of 
leadership in the House, they don't like it and they can operate by 
themselves? Is that what bipartisanship means? I don't think that is 
what the American people think bipartisanship means.
  I believe the American people believe bipartisanship is exactly what 
we did on the education bill. We worked hard on it and lost. We 
negotiated. We sat and we sat and we talked and talked. We left and 
came back.
  We finally worked it out--not to my satisfaction, not to the 
satisfaction, I am sure, of Senator Specter, and not to the 
satisfaction, I am sure, of any one of us.
  We all had different ideas of what should be in it, but we all gave a 
little bit. In giving a little bit, we were able to get a bipartisan 
bill.
  I say to my friends on the Republican side--I shouldn't say it here; 
we had agreement in the Senate. I would be preaching to the choir. But 
I say to my Republican friends on the House side that if you really 
want to show the American people that we can work in a bipartisan 
spirit, this is the chance to show it--with the education bill.
  What a great Christmas gift this would be to the hard-working 
families of America, to our kids, and to the teachers. What a great 
Christmas gift this would be to millions of Americans who are suffering 
from debilitating illnesses such as Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, 
diabetes, AIDS, and cancer. What a great Christmas gift it would be to 
them to say we are not going to back down and that we are going to fund 
the National Institutes of Health; we are going to put the money into 
this basic research to find the cures that we know are there.
  I think that is the Christmas present Congress ought to give to the 
American people.
  I am hopeful that before this week is out cooler heads will prevail 
and that we will take this bipartisan bill on education and health and 
send it down to the President, who has indicated that he would indeed 
sign it. That would be the best Christmas present we could give to the 
American people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

                          ____________________