[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 27560-27564]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT--
                               Continued

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield some time at this moment to the 
Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Labor-HHS 
Subcommittee for his commitment to children and health. He stood with 
many of us many times. Unfortunately, the Labor bill that is now before 
us simply doesn't make the grade. I believe a number of our colleagues 
on this side of the aisle will be speaking against this and voting 
against this in the hopes that when the President vetoes it, the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, chairman of the committee, will work out 
some of the things about which we care deeply.
  When you leave something for the last minute, you can't do it 
justice. This Congress has left our investment in educating our 
children, in protecting our American workforce, and in ensuring the 
health of the people of this country for the last minute, and the 
failures are pretty obvious. The Labor-HHS appropriations bill should 
have been the first bill we brought to the floor--not the last.
  This Congress has tried every trick and every gimmick to play games 
with the budget. I am here to say we are nearing the end of this game; 
and for the American people who are watching this Congress, they must 
wonder how serious we are about addressing their concerns. If this 
flawed proposal passes, the American people will be the ones who lose 
out.
  I am on the floor to say this combination D.C./Labor-HHS conference 
report--with its irresponsible across-the-board cuts--fails to make the 
vital investments we need, the investments our constituents are asking 
for.
  Mr. President, I will vote against this conference report, and I will 
tell you why. First, and most important, this bill will not guarantee 
that we reduce class size.
  Now, last year, this Congress, the House and Senate, Democrats and 
Republicans, made a bipartisan commitment to help our districts hire 
and train new teachers. We did that because research shows students who 
learn in classes where there are fewer students in the early grades do 
better throughout their educational careers. They learn the basics--
math, science, and English--and they have fewer discipline problems. We 
did that because it was a goal of all of us to make a concerted 
national effort to make sure that young children learned the basics, 
reduced the discipline problems, went on to college, and would be 
viable contributors to our economy when they graduated.
  Last year, we made that bipartisan commitment and promised the 
parents of this country we would give their schools targeted money for 
smaller class sizes for the next 7 years. This bill walks away from 
that commitment. That is not acceptable. Not only does it walk away, 
but it broadens the use of the money so much that it could open the 
door to using vital, public education, class size dollars for private 
school vouchers.
  Now, the President has said he will veto this bill if it does not 
keep our commitment to hire more teachers to reduce class size. I am 
proud that 37 Senators have joined with me to sign a letter saying they 
will back up that veto because we know that guaranteeing smaller 
classes for our children is worth fighting for.
  The Labor-HHS bill's failure on class size is glaring. But to me it 
is just a start of many things that need to be fixed once this is 
vetoed and sent back to us in order for Democrats to be supportive.
  It also fails to help families gain the literacy skills they need. 
When the Senate passed its version, we were able to provide an increase 
of $103 million, which would have taken thousands of people off of 
waiting lists for literacy services. But in this conference agreement, 
they cut the Senate number by $43 million. Those families were just 
about to get the skills they needed to rejoin our economy, and this 
agreement pushes them to back of the line.
  This bill fails to make kids safer in our schools. In a year when the 
tragedy at Columbine High School is still fresh in our minds, this bill 
cuts--cuts--$31 million from the Senate bill for the Safe and Drug-Free 
Schools Program. Local educators tell me we should double our funding 
in this area which is vital. Cutting it is just not acceptable.
  This bill also fails the children who depend on the Head Start 
program. Head Start often makes the difference between success and 
failure in school for so many disadvantaged children. This bill does 
not do right by them.
  This bill also cuts basic skills education for disadvantaged 
students. And it underfunds education technology programs at a time 
when we know all of our students need to get the skills in technology 
so that they can get the jobs that are open and waiting for them in so 
many communities across our country. It also cuts the vocational 
education program at a time when we know we need to make sure our kids 
graduate with skills to help them get jobs.
  This bill does not do enough to support the Reading Excellence Act 
and bilingual education. This bill underfunds several important 
programs that build access and success for higher education students by 
not adequately funding Pell grants and vital programs like GEAR UP, 
LEAP, and TRIO.
  I could go on. But it is clear that on education this bill is a 
missed opportunity. I am sure many people will try to claim that this 
agreement is ``a victory for education.'' But I can tell you as a 
former teacher and a former school board member that it is a hollow 
victory.
  Mr. President, on labor issues, the Labor, HHS bill fails to 
adequately protect American workers and to promote universal 
employment.

[[Page 27561]]

  This bill cuts funds for vital organizations, like the National Labor 
Relations Board--by 5 percent--and the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration--by 6 percent--below the administration's request. I 
don't want to be any part of a bill that could harm our ability to 
enforce the labor and workplace laws that protect the health and safety 
of our country's workers.
  This bill's irresponsible across-the-board spending cut would also 
hurt many vital job programs. For example, it would cut the Department 
of Labor's Youth Activities formula grants by $9.7 million, closing the 
door to almost 5,700 disadvantaged young people as they seek job 
training, summer employment, and educational opportunities. That is not 
acceptable to this Senator.
  Mr. President, when it comes to protecting the health of our 
citizens, this bill is a mixed bag. While it does offer important 
support for the National Institutes of Health, for telemedicine for 
Children's Hospital in Seattle, poison control, and community and 
migrant health centers, the areas where it fails are so significant and 
so glaring that I cannot support the underlying bill.
  This bill fails to address the human and social costs of AIDS and 
HIV. This bill's arbitrary and irresponsible across-the-board cut means 
that AIDS patients and their communities will suffer because it doesn't 
meet the growing need for services--services like drug assistance and 
pediatric AIDS care.
  Similarly, the D.C. appropriations bill will hurt our ability to halt 
the spread of the disease because the bill continues to prohibit public 
funds from being used for clean needle exchange.
  This bill also reduces our commitment to reproductive health care and 
family planning. I find it painfully ironic that last week, 48 Senators 
went on record against the principles of Roe v. Wade, claiming that 
abortion should not be a choice for women. Yet when it comes to 
reducing unintentional pregnancies or providing health care services 
for pregnant women, those same Senators are simply not there. This bill 
means that 40,000 women will be denied access to basic reproductive 
health care. It will reduce women's access to critical pre-natal care.
  This bill's irresponsible across-the-board cut will also weaken our 
ability to respond to domestic violence. This bill would spend less 
money than we are spending this year on programs under the Violence 
Against Women Act. That means less money for rape prevention and for 
battered women's shelters.
  Many communities in my State are struggling--struggling--to help 
women and children affected by rape and abuse. Reducing the Federal 
commitment in this area is simply unacceptable.
  Some people will say this bill's across-the-board cut won't hurt 
anyone. They are wrong because denying emergency shelter to a battered 
woman and her children is painful. Denying access to reproductive 
health care services to 40,000 women is painful, and denying access to 
life-saving drug therapies for AIDS patients is worse than painful, it 
is deadly.
  Mr. President, we still have an opportunity to do the right thing for 
our children, our families and our communities. I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on this bill so the President can veto it and we can fix 
it--by undoing its damaging across-the-board cut and keeping our 
commitment to reduce class size. Let's show the American people that 
even though this Congress has failed--throughout the session--to do its 
work in a timely, responsible way, we still have the wisdom to get 
things right at the end.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the Labor-HHS bill 
which has been attached to the D.C. appropriations bill. I will not 
have any comments on the D.C. appropriations bill; I leave that to my 
friend and colleague, my leader, Senator Durbin from Illinois.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  I ask unanimous consent Jane Daye, Mark Laisch, and Dr. Jack Chow, 
detailees to the Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee, be permitted on the 
floor during consideration of the D.C. and Labor-HHS-Education 
conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Today we are bringing up--and I guess the vote will be 
held on Tuesday--the conference report that accompanies the D.C. 
appropriations bill. This report, as we now know, also includes the 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill 
negotiated by the House and Senate appropriators.
  I regret very much that the conference agreement includes a poison 
pill inserted by the House Republican leadership, an irresponsible and 
indiscriminate across-the-board cut against all discretionary programs, 
projects, and activities. Later I will discuss that at length.
  First, I commend the work of my colleague and chairman on the 
appropriations bill, Senator Specter. He and I have had a great working 
relationship through the years, a true partnership every year on this 
bill, first when I was Chair and he was ranking member and now he is 
Chair and I am ranking.
  Senator Specter has a deep commitment to the vitally important 
health, education, labor, research, and other initiatives in this bill. 
Senator Specter and his staff have always treated our side fairly. I 
want him and them to know how much I appreciate that. I not only 
appreciate it; I understand how important it is in terms of completing 
our Nation's business.
  A few weeks ago, the Senate passed the Labor-HHS-Education 
appropriations bill by an overwhelming vote of 73-25; 41 Democrats and 
32 Republicans voted for it. This is an exceedingly strong vote. It got 
this strong vote because Senator Specter and I worked together and we 
worked with Senators from both sides of the aisle to craft a bill that 
truly reflected our Senate priorities. It was a good bill. It provides 
a major increase for medical research. It provides $500 million more 
than the President requested for education. It maintained our 
commitment to worker safety provisions.
  It did have one major flaw. It did not fund the President's class 
size initiative in an acceptable manner. Nonetheless, I argued strongly 
for its passage. At the time, I told Members on my side of the aisle I 
would work to resolve the class size issue in conference. We had a good 
Senate bill. We had a strong Senate vote, with 73 votes on the Senate 
side.
  The House of Representatives, on the other hand, was not able even to 
produce a bill. The Appropriations Committee on the House side reported 
out a bill. It cut education, cut job training, had a whole lot of bad 
labor riders dealing with workers' safety protection. But the full 
House never even took it up.
  Several weeks ago, we began something I had never ever engaged in 
around here; we began a nonconference conference. We could not have had 
a conference because the House never passed a bill, but we met with the 
House appropriators. Congressman John Porter, the chairman of the 
Labor-HHS subcommittee on the House side--Senator Specter and I, and 
our staffs, met with him in an effort to move the process forward. When 
our committee was working on it, we made good progress. We worked 
together to produce an agreement that was very close to the Senate 
bill.
  Again, I compliment and commend my colleague on the other side of the 
aisle in the House, Congressman Porter, for working together in an open 
and constructive manner to produce a bill I believe could have garnered 
votes and could have passed. If we could have ended the conference at 
that point, I would be here today speaking in favor of the Labor-HHS 
and Education bill. However that is not the case.
  With regard to the class size reduction issue, I raised the point in 
our negotiations with the House that 38 Senators encouraged the 
President to veto the conference report if it did not include this 
initiative. However, I was not able to convince the negotiators on this 
point. I am, however, convinced this issue will be addressed in any 
final bill. But putting this class size initiative aside, we had put 
together, I

[[Page 27562]]

thought, really a pretty good agreement. We included a large increase 
for biomedical research, $100 million for community health centers, and 
a big increase for Head Start. None of what I term ``the offensive 
House riders'' the House had put on for labor, health, and safety--none 
of those were included. Largely, it reflected most of the priorities of 
the Senate on both sides of the aisle, both Republican and Democratic.
  As I said, if we could have ended it there, we probably would have 
had a pretty good bill. But then Republican House leadership got 
involved. First, they insisted key programs be cut. They insisted 
afterschool programs be reduced by $100 million. They insisted the 
small increase we had for critical family planning services be 
eliminated. They insisted on cutting Goals 2000. Why? I don't know, 
unless it was because it was a Presidential priority.
  Next, they insisted on further delayed obligations. We had some 
delayed obligations, but I think they were delayed obligations with 
which we could have lived, with which the Departments and Agencies 
could have lived. But the delayed obligations the House leadership put 
in, I think, will cause some real problems at the National Institutes 
of Health.
  I have long said not only do we have to increase the money going to 
the NIH, that we had to double their budget over 5 years--of which I 
have been very supportive--but that we need continuity, so grants could 
go out to researchers that are not interrupted, so when researchers 
start on a program and a research project they can continue.
  With the delayed obligations and the extent to which we have them in 
this bill, it appears that NIH will not be able to fund these research 
programs on a longer term basis. It is just going to be from 1 year to 
the next. As any person familiar with research can tell you, that is 
not the best way to conduct research. I think the delayed obligations 
are going to cut back on the good that we did in terms of increasing 
the funding for NIH.
  Next, the House leaders also put in a $121 million reduction in 
salaries and expenses. That was over and above the reductions we had 
already made on the Senate side. We cut pretty deeply in the salaries 
and expenses and administrative costs of the Departments under our 
jurisdiction, but the House leadership cut another $121 million. I 
believe that is unacceptable.
  After that, the House leadership added--over, I might say, the 
opposition of most of the appropriators--the poison pill across-the-
board cut. The House Republican leaders repeatedly said this cut will 
give each Department the ability to cut fraud, waste, and abuse. I take 
a back seat to no one in this body or the other body or on either side 
of the aisle when it comes to fighting fraud, waste, and abuse in 
government programs, but that is not what this provision says, nor 
would it accomplish that. This is not a 1-percent cut that can be taken 
from any broad array of programs. Every program, project, and activity 
in this bill has to be cut by 1 percent.
  So when you see the House Republican leaders on television saying: 1 
percent, that's nothing, we can take that out of fraud, waste, and 
abuse--sorry. That is not the way the provision is written. The 
provision is written it is 1 percent. It is not 1 percent of the 
increase; it is 1 percent of the total that goes to each line item in 
this bill, every single line item has to be cut.
  You might say that is not, that 1 percent--that doesn't sound like a 
lot. When you put it in the Social Security system and the offices that 
administer Social Security, it cuts it big time. It cuts millions of 
dollars out of veterans' health care. It cuts Meals on Wheels, 
community health centers, afterschool programs; it cuts education. 
Again, I point out it does not just cut the increases; it cuts many 
important programs actually below last year's level.
  I will read from a list here of some programs that actually will have 
less than last year because of this across-the-board cut. Adult job 
training--we saw the other day our economy is booming at unprecedented 
rates. But the economy is changing. For example, we had an announcement 
the other day in Iowa a major packing plant was closing its doors 5 
days before Christmas. I will not go into that right now, but talk 
about heartless; 5 days before Christmas, Iowa Beef Processors is 
closing its doors, and over 400 people are being thrown out of work. We 
need to retrain those people. We need to retrain them for the new kind 
of economy we have. The bill before us cuts adult job training to less 
than what we had last year. It is the wrong way to go.
  Youth opportunity grants, community service jobs for senior citizens 
are cut below last year's level. Family planning, AIDS prevention, 
substance abuse block grants, child welfare and child abuse programs 
are all cut to less than what we had last year. This is not a cut in 
the increase, this is a cut below what we had last year.
  Teacher training: I met with some educators in my office yesterday 
who were here from Irving School in Dubuque. They were getting an award 
as one of the blue-ribbon schools of America, a great award. I 
mentioned the teacher training program was being cut to less than last 
year. They said: How could this possibly be? This is the program, the 
Eisenhower math and science program, that keeps our teachers up to par 
with what is happening so they can better teach their students. You can 
vote for this bill if you want, Mr. President, but if you do, you are 
voting to cut teacher training programs for Goals 2000, the literacy 
programs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this list of cuts that I have 
just enunciated be printed in the Record in tabular form.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


 Sample of Programs Cut Below a Hard Freeze Under Conference Agreement 
  \1\--Compares Labor-HHS Items From Fiscal Year 1999 Level to Fiscal 
                            Year 2000 Level


        Program                                   Total cut in millions
Department of Labor:
  Adult Job Training..............................................$7.38
  Youth Job Training..............................................10.01
  Youth Opportunity Grants.........................................2.50
  Comm. Service Jobs for Seniors...................................4.40
Department of Health and Human Services:
  Family Planning..................................................2.14
  CDC AIDS Prevention..............................................1.34
  CDC Epidemics Services...........................................0.85
  Substance Abuse Block Grant.....................................15.34
  Medicare Contractors............................................33.52
  Child Welfare/Child Abuse........................................2.82
Department of Education:
  Goals 2000.......................................................4.91
  Teacher Training (Eisenhower)....................................3.35
  Literacy.........................................................0.65

\1\ Includes 1 percent across-the-board cut.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the House Republican leadership and others 
have argued this across-the-board cut was needed to protect Social 
Security. We all agree we want to protect the Social Security surplus. 
But the Congressional Budget Office says even with the across-the-board 
cut, they are going to have to tap Social Security by $17 billion. So 
leaving that aside, an across-the-board cut is not the answer. Let's 
protect Social Security. Let's do it in the right way. Let's make the 
tough decisions, not hide behind an across-the-board cut.
  Frankly, there are other offsets we could use. I say we should impose 
a penalty on tobacco companies that fail to meet targets for reducing 
youth smoking. In fact, I have in my hand a specific proposal to do 
just that, to set a goal of reducing teen smoking by 15 percent. That 
is a modest goal. If they fail to meet that modest goal, they would 
have to pay a penalty. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 
this proposal would raise almost $6 billion in fiscal year 2000.
  That is $2.8 billion more than is saved by this across-the-board cut. 
It would have the added benefit of protecting our kids from the deadly 
addiction of tobacco.
  I want to be very clear--my esteemed friend from Illinois is sitting 
here--this is not a new idea. We have voted on this before. In fact, 
this was part of a proposal the Senator from Illinois and the Senator 
from Ohio proposed and which actually passed this body. So why don't we 
do this rather than having an across-the-board cut in teacher training, 
the substance abuse block grant, health programs, AIDS prevention 
programs. Let's do something we

[[Page 27563]]

already said we ought to do--cut teen smoking. And if the tobacco 
companies cannot meet it, they pay a penalty. Unfortunately, the 
conference report we have before us does not take this path.
  With all the respect, admiration, and friendship I have for Senator 
Specter--and he has worked doggedly on this bill; he has worked hard to 
protect education and health and research programs; he and his staff 
have worked openly with me and my staff--reluctantly I will have to 
vote against this conference agreement.
  The poison pill across-the-board cut did it. I do so with reluctance 
because I believe we crafted a good bill in the Senate, and it would 
have avoided all kinds of political maneuvering if we had the bill we 
passed in the Senate. If we followed that bipartisan path Senator 
Specter and I worked on and set up in the Senate that was reflected in 
a strong bipartisan vote in the Senate, we would have had a much 
different result.
  It is very clear to everyone, if this conference agreement is passed 
by the Senate, it will be vetoed by the President, and that veto will 
not be overridden. When that happens, I plan to work very hard with my 
chairman, Senator Specter, and will be sitting at that table to help 
craft a bill with our House colleagues and, of course, with the White 
House, that reflects congressional priorities but does not make these 
inordinate, mindless across-the-board cuts and that has offsets that 
truly do reduce teen smoking and help us meet our goals of not invading 
the Social Security trust funds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to make a unanimous consent request because 
I have been waiting to make a statement on the floor. Several of my 
colleagues have come to the floor with requests for short periods of 
time. If there is no objection, I ask that the Senator from Washington 
be allowed to speak for 10 minutes, as in morning business, followed by 
the Senator from West Virginia for 10 minutes, and then that I be given 
the floor at that moment in time for 15 minutes to address the bill 
that is pending before us.
  Mr. GORTON. Reserving the right to object, I am not speaking in 
morning business; I am speaking on the bill.
  Mr. DURBIN. Sorry.
  Mr. GORTON. While I think it would be about 10 minutes, I do not want 
to be called down if I go over 30 seconds.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to amend the unanimous consent request 
to accommodate whatever time the Senator would like, if he would 
specify a time.
  Is there a time the Senator would like to set?
  Mr. GORTON. It will be approximately 10 minutes. It will be on the 
bill. If the unanimous consent request is amended in that form, I am 
perfectly happy with that.
  Mr. DURBIN. I want to give the Senator from Washington every 
opportunity to speak on this bill. I misunderstood when I spoke with 
him. But I would be happy to yield to him. As part of the unanimous 
consent request, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from 
Washington be recognized on the bill for up to 15 minutes.
  Mr. GORTON. Fine.
  Mr. DURBIN. Then the Senator from West Virginia be recognized for up 
to 10 minutes in morning business, and then I be recognized for 15 
minutes on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this is a landmark Labor, Education, and 
Health appropriations bill. It is a landmark in more than one respect. 
From my perspective, however, it is especially notable for two features 
relating to our assistance to the education that is being provided to 
children all across the United States of America.
  The first is this bill, in reaction to the President's budget message 
of much earlier this year, ends any dispute about the generosity of 
support for education on the part of either the President or the 
congressional majority. In fact, this bill includes some $300 million 
more for education purposes than did the President's budget message 
earlier this year; $2 billion more than last year--$35 billion in 
total.
  Mr. President, $35 billion is not an inconsiderable sum. But of that 
portion that goes to our common schools from kindergarten through 12th 
grade, it still will represent only about 7 percent of the number of 
dollars that go into providing an education for future generations of 
Americans. But there is not a dispute in this bill over whether or not 
we should fund education with this relative degree of generosity. In 
that respect, this is a landmark bill.
  But as we deal with the question of education, I believe it to be a 
landmark in more than just that respect. This bill, in its present 
form, represents the first modest turn from a direction that we have 
taken for three decades or more. During the last 30 or 35 years, the 
Congress and Presidents of both parties have piled one categorical aid 
program for education on top of another. Each of those programs has its 
own rules for eligibility. Each has its own rules as to how money 
should be spent. Each carries with it its forms to be filled out and 
its audits to be performed and to be examined after the fact.
  The President's proposed budget added a number of new categorical aid 
programs to those already in existence and, I believe, shortchanged a 
number of the most vital educational programs that have been a part of 
our system literally for decades. As a consequence, this bill provides 
considerably more money for impact schools than the President's budget 
called for. Impact schools, of course, are those schools on or near 
military reservations, Indian reservations, or other Federal property 
in which a peculiar and unique burden is placed by the fact that the 
Federal Government has employees or beneficiaries in the immediate 
vicinity while at the same time owning tax-exempt property that does 
not, as property, pay its fair share or any share of the cost of 
operating those schools.
  Most national administrations, most Presidents of the United States, 
have not much liked impact aid. It took me some time to determine in my 
own mind why that was. I think it is because once the formula 
distributes so many dollars to a school district in impact aid, the 
school district decides how the money is going to be spent to advance 
the education of its students. There aren't any rules and regulations 
from the U.S. Department of Education telling school districts how they 
must use that impact aid. As a consequence, it has never had much of a 
lobby in the Department of Education or in administrations either 
Republican or Democratic.
  A second area in which this bill includes more money for education 
than did the President's original request is for IDEA, the education 
for the disabled. This body proudly reauthorized IDEA just 2 years ago, 
including in it a provision that we would come up with 40 percent of 
the costs that that bill, for the education of the disabled, imposed on 
school districts all across the country--40 percent of those costs. 
This bill, more generous than the President's budget, actually funds 
about 9 percent of those costs. Members of the Congress and the 
President got to congratulate themselves on passing a bill mandating 
education for the disabled. They got to congratulate themselves on a 
promise that, very bluntly, I think, neither side had any intention of 
keeping. We do not, in this bill, come close to that 40-percent 
requirement, but we do better than the President of the United States 
did in his budget submission.
  From my perspective, however, the most important change takes place 
in connection with a program that began last year designed to put more 
teachers in the classroom, especially more teachers in the classroom up 
through the third grade, a proposal that, for all practical purposes, 
could be used only for that purpose, whether more teachers in those 
primary grades was the primary need for each and every one of the 
17,000 school districts in the United States or not.
  I don't believe my State is different from many others. My great 
friend and frequent ally, the Senator from West

[[Page 27564]]

Virginia, is on the floor. I suspect he has a greater percentage of 
school districts in his State than does Washington State that don't 
receive enough money under this program to hire one teacher because 
they are simply too small. So this bill, after an extended debate 
between the two sides in which one side said we have to continue the 
program entirely unchanged, whatever those school districts' priorities 
are, and our side that says we have to trust the school districts to 
spend that money for any educational purpose they desire--two rather 
dramatically opposed points of view--takes a halfway position between 
the two.
  It states that the primary goal of this $1.2 billion is to put more 
teachers in the classroom but that if school districts have other 
priorities or if they don't get enough money to do that for even one 
teacher, they can, in fact, use it for improving the quality of 
teachers they already have through more training or for some other 
educational purpose they believe is more significant than the top-down 
mandate in this bill.
  I hope that will be appealing to the President of the United States. 
It does express at least a qualified degree of trust on the part of the 
Congress in the dedication and intelligence and knowledge of the men 
and women who run our schools, either as elected members of school 
boards or as full-time superintendents, principals, and teachers, to 
make decisions that will improve the quality of education of their 
children.
  I have never been quite certain why it is that Members of the Senate 
think they know more about the needs of schools all across the country 
than do the people who make their entire careers out of providing that 
education, but that has been the net result of what we have done. This 
is a modest move in the other direction, a reflection of the fact that 
early next year, when we debate the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act, we will debate exactly that kind of issue: Who knows best what our 
young people need, we in Washington, DC, or those who run the hundreds 
of thousands of schools in the United States of America.
  This bill also begins to keep a promise we made a relatively short 
time ago significantly to increase funding for health research through 
the National Institutes of Health.
  This bill is a landmark in one other vitally important respect. As 
generous as this bill is to education, as generous as it is to health 
programs and to other programs included within it, it is a part of a 
pattern of 13 appropriations bills that spend almost $600 billion in 
discretionary money in the course of the next year but do not touch the 
Social Security trust fund. Last year, for the first time in decades, 
we ended up with a budget that was not only balanced but in surplus to 
the tune of $1 billion without touching a dime in the Social Security 
trust fund. We are absolutely convinced, I think most of us, that we 
should make the year 2000 the second consecutive year in which that 
takes place and keep on following exactly those same policies.
  We can pass this bill and the other appropriations bills still 
unresolved without dipping into the Social Security surplus and without 
increasing taxes on the American people. That truly is a landmark. We 
thought when we passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, we might get to 
this point in 2002 or 2003. We got to it in fiscal year 1999.
  This morning's newspapers printed excerpts of a speech by Alan 
Greenspan on the nature of our economy and on the fact that it has 
actually been growing more rapidly and is more robust than most of our 
statistics had indicated. Chairman Greenspan has made it very clear 
that actually balancing the budget and paying down the debt is a key 
factor in keeping the economy of this Nation moving forward.
  We have a bill that I commend enthusiastically to all of the Members 
of this body. It is generous with education dollars, as it ought to be 
for one of the highest of all priorities in any society, the education 
of its future generation; it provides at least a modestly greater 
degree of trust in our professional educators and in our elected school 
board members with respect to how to spend that education money; it 
deals generously with our need for health research; and it is a part of 
a pattern that will continue the 1-year precedent of balancing the 
budget without invading the Social Security trust fund, without 
breaking the promises we have made not only to those who are retired 
today but those who are working today but will depend on Social 
Security in the future, that the money they pay into Social Security is 
for that purpose and that purpose only. For that reason, I highly 
commend this bill to the Senate of the United States and hope it is 
passed and approved by the President of the United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.

                          ____________________