[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12392-12415]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
                 RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS, 2001

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of H.R. 4577, which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4577) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       McCain amendment No. 3610, to enhance protection of 
     children using the Internet.
       Cochran amendment No. 3625, to implement pilot programs for 
     antimicrobial resistance monitoring and prevention.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I had originally planned to come to the 
floor to voice my opposition to this bill and to offer a point of order 
that it violates rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate. I 
intended to do so because of two serious failings in it.
  First, this bill cuts the program that Congress passed in the 1997 
Balanced Budget Act to help States provide health insurance to low-
income children and could cost up to 2 million of them their health 
insurance. The State Children's Health Insurance Program, known by its 
acronym as S-CHIP, was designed to make health insurance coverage 
available, at State option, to lower-income, uninsured children.
  More than 2 million children have been enrolled in S-CHIP--children 
who would otherwise lack access to the health insurance coverage that 
helps them grow and thrive.
  When we designed S-CHIP in 1997, States were given specific 
allotments to cover eligible uninsured children. We designed the 
program so that those allotments were to be available to individual 
States for a period of 3 years. This was done to ensure that allotments 
didn't sit unused. At the end of 3 years, unspent allotments are to be 
reallocated to other States that have spent their full allotments. The 
basic idea is to effectively direct available S-CHIP dollars to States 
willing and able to use them to cover uninsured kids.
  We are now coming up upon the first opportunity to reallocate unspent 
S-CHIP funds. Three years have elapsed since the program was first 
implemented.
  But, instead of thinking through the ramifications of reallocation, 
today we confront an unexpected and far more fundamental challenge to 
the future of the S-CHIP program. The appropriations bill before us 
would cut $1.9 billion in S-CHIP funds from the program, with an 
unenforceable promise to restore the funds in 2003--a promise which is 
itself subject to a Budget Act point of order.
  This cut represents a dramatic retreat from the commitment the 
Federal Government extended to uninsured children, their families, and 
to the States in 1997. S-CHIP was designed to be a stable, guaranteed 
source of funding to States to cover lower-income, uninsured children. 
If States cannot count on the federal government to stand by its 
commitment, there will inevitably be an erosion of State support

[[Page 12393]]

for participation in the program and aggressive enrollment strategies. 
As a result, fewer children will receive health insurance coverage.
  We have to be very clear that what we are talking about today isn't a 
technical accounting gimmick that simply moves funds forward. We are 
talking about a concrete cut in a very real program upon which millions 
of children depend. The consequences will be no less real. If the 
provision in the appropriations bill is not removed, the National 
Governors' Association estimates that as many as 2 million children 
will be denied access to health insurance coverage.
  For that reason, the National Governors' Association strongly and 
unambiguously opposes the S-CHIP cut included in this appropriations 
bill.
  NGA is not alone in its opposition to the appropriations cut. The 
community of advocates who work on behalf of children strongly opposes 
it as well. In fact, all Senators should have received a letter signed 
by over 80 groups opposing the cut, including the Children's Defense 
Fund, Families USA, the American Hospital Association, and the American 
Medical Association. In addition, the Health Insurance Association of 
America has also written to express its opposition to S-CHIP cuts.
  Second, this bill cuts three welfare programs by $1.4 billion. The 
title XX social services block grant is cut by a whopping 65 percent--
from $1.7 billion in funding to $600 million. This is just a quarter of 
the level we promised to Governors during welfare reform in 1996.
  The title XX block grant was enacted in 1981, during the Reagan 
administration, to provide States with a flexible source of social 
services funding. Today, title XX funds services to almost 6 million 
Americans, principally children, people with disabilities, and seniors. 
In Delaware, we use these funds for a broad range of programs--
including helping abused and neglected children and for people who are 
blind, and for Meals-on-Wheels. These funds go to programs without 
adequate sources of support and to fill the gaps for the neediest 
citizens.
  These title XX funds are essential. These funds cannot be easily 
replaced--by States or local governments, or by private charity.
  The Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill would cut these 
supplemental welfare grants to States by $240 million. In the 1996 
welfare reform legislation States took a big, big risk. States 
exchanged an open-ended Federal entitlement--that is, guaranteed 
dollars for each person who qualified for welfare--for a fixed block 
grant.
  To provide States with some modest protection, welfare reform 
contained a provision to provide States with a big population increase 
and high poverty rates with supplemental welfare grants. The Labor-HHS 
bill would cut these grants and break that promise.
  These welfare program cuts violate the fundamental deal Congress made 
with the Governors during welfare reform. With these cuts, Congress 
reneges on its word.
  Next year Congress will begin reauthorization of welfare reform. If 
Congress shows that it is not a dependable partner now, how can we 
expect States to have confidence in us next year?
  Altogether this bill cuts a children's health program and welfare 
programs by $3.3 billion. This is unquestionably a violation of sound 
policy.
  In the interest of sound policy, in the interest of uninsured 
children, in the interest of welfare recipients, and in the interest of 
the States who are working with us to serve these vulnerable 
individuals, I had no choice but to oppose this bill.
  I am not alone in recognizing these problems, Senator Moynihan, 
Senator Hatch, Senator Kennedy, Senator Grassley, and Senator Graham 
all joined me in a letter to our colleagues warning them against 
supporting this bill because of its inclusion of the provisions I 
oppose and have just outlined. I know that other Senators opposed them 
as well and I thank all of them for their support.
  However, Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska, the distinguished 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, has assured me that these 
cuts--specifically: (1) The $1.9 billion cut to the State Children's 
Health Insurance Program located in section 217 on pages 53 and 54 of 
the bill; (2) the $1.1 billion cut to the title XX social services 
block grant located in title 2, page 40 of the bill; (3) the $240 
million cut to the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF, 
program, located in section 216, pages 52 to 53 of the bill; and (4) 
the $50 million cut to the Welfare-to-Work performance bonus program, 
located in section 104, pages 21 to 23 of the bill--will be eliminated 
in their entirety in this bill when it returns from conference.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is informed that there is 
supposed to be a vote at 9:45 on the Cochran amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the vote be 
postponed until the completion of my remarks; and I ask unanimous 
consent to proceed for 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am surprised at the comments made by 
the Senator from Delaware to this extent: The 1997 Budget Act puts 
limits on the amounts that can be appropriated under the pending bill, 
the Health and Human Services appropriations bill.
  In order to have a technical offset against the additions that are in 
this bill over the 1997 limits, we provided these three technical 
provisions that give us the right to take the Health and Human Services 
bill across the floor to conference. We had no intention at all to ever 
suggest the Congress would enact those provisions. The Finance 
Committee knew that. All Members knew that. This is a technical 
situation where, in order to get the bill across the floor until we 
enact the military construction bill, which contains the waiver of the 
1997 provisions with regard to the ceilings for our committee, we had 
to have this offset.
  I assure the Senator that the bill will not come out of conference 
with these provisions in it. They were never intended to be enacted. No 
one on our committee supports the elimination of these provisions, and 
Senator Specter was very gracious in allowing us these provisions to 
comply with the 1997 act.
  I assure the Finance Committee that this bill will not come out of 
committee with these provisions in it. They were never intended to be 
in it, as the Finance Committee knows.
  Mr. ROTH. I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and 
based on his assurances of these provisions' removal in conference, I 
withdraw my opposition to this bill. I believe that this is the best 
way to proceed: We not only protect the programs that I came to the 
floor to protect, but we also allow this funding bill for many other 
important programs to forward as well. I thank the Senator from Alaska 
for working with me to resolve this impasse.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his leadership 
in this area, and I commend Senator Moynihan as well for his commitment 
to this important program. I believe the understanding we have reached 
is a satisfactory way to protect this program in conference.
  The rescission of funds for children's health insurance would be a 
serious mistake. It would come at the expense of 12 million uninsured 
children in low income families across the nation.
  It would override the reallocation system established with broad 
bipartisan support in the original law. It would use the funds to pay 
for other programs in this year's appropriations bill. While it does 
promise to restore in the year 2003 the funds taken away this year, the 
damage would be done long before 2003 arrives. In fact, more than 80 
leading organizations have signed a letter urging rejection of this 
misguided policy.
  Low-income working families should not be forced to pay the price for 
the budget pressures facing congress. Those pressures were created by 
the budget resolution, and its misguided priorities. The committee was 
operating under the budget instructions they were given. I believe they 
had

[[Page 12394]]

good intentions. Unfortunately, however, this rescission robs needy 
children, and it is unacceptable.
  Strong bipartisan support in the Senate created the Children's Health 
Insurance Program in 1997. We focused on guaranteeing health insurance 
to children in working families whose income was too high to be 
eligible for Medicaid, but too low to be able to afford private 
insurance. Estimates indicate that more than three-quarters of all 
uninsured children in the nation will be eligible for assistance 
through either CHIP or Medicaid in the near future.
  This rescission would have established a devastating precedent at 
precisely the wrong time. The Children's Health Insurance Program is 
working. Every State is now participating.
  Between 1998 and 1999, enrollment numbers doubled from just under 1 
million children to 2 million. States, advocacy groups and other 
leaders are undertaking and planning impressive outreach efforts in the 
states. Last year, back-to-school campaigns helped dramatically 
increase enrollment. A month ago, the Governor of Mississippi announced 
a new campaign to cover all children in that State. We have every 
reason to expect that this trend will continue, as the programs become 
more established and States begin to do all they can to enroll eligible 
children.
  If the rescission were enacted, it would penalize needy children in 
the States that have most actively sought and enrolled eligible 
children. States could be forced to halt enrollment until more funds 
are available. That's wrong.
  The reallocation mechanism in the original legislation is designed to 
ensure that dollars remain targeted to uninsured children, regardless 
of location. Next year is the first year that the reallocation fund 
would be available. Senators should know that no State loses under 
current law. All States have the right to their allocations for three 
years. We have encouraged all States to take advantage of their funds. 
But, it a State cannot spend all its money, the excess dollars should 
be used by States that can.
  If the Senate were to adopt this rescission, States would be 
reluctant to expand their programs or actively enroll more children if 
they feel that future State allotments are unreliable. The National 
Governors Association has sent us two letters--one just last week--
expressing their unified strong opposition for this reason.
  We shouldn't second guess the original policy. It was well designed 
to direct money where it is most clearly needed. The policy was 
strongly supported when we enacted CHIP, and States have acted in good 
faith to implement it. It would be wrong for us to change the ground 
rules now, when so much progress is being made.
  We know that lack of insurance is the seventh leading--and most 
preventable--cause of death in America today. That fact is a national 
scandal.
  The majority of uninsured children with asthma--and one in three 
uninsured children with recurring ear infections--never see a doctor 
during the year. That's wrong. No child should have to be hospitalized 
for an acute asthma attack that could have been avoided. We know that 
uninsured children are 25 percent more likely to miss school. Children 
who cannot see the blackboard well or hear their teacher clearly miss 
lessons even when they are at school. That's wrong. No child should 
suffer permanent hearing loss and developmental or educational delays 
because of an untreated infection.
  Every child deserves a healthy start in life, and the health security 
that comes with insurance. And under CHIP and Medicaid, every child 
will have a legitimate opportunity for health insurance.
  Congress should do everything in its power to shore-up these 
programs, not undermine them. I welcome today's agreement, and I look 
forward to the continuing effective implementation of this worthwhile 
program to guarantee good health care for all children.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the letter to which I 
earlier referred and another related correspondence.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     June 9, 2000.
       Dear Senator: We are writing to express our opposition to 
     the taking of $1.9 billion of fiscal year 1998 Children's 
     Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funds by the Senate 
     Appropriations Committee to help fund the fiscal year 2001 
     Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
     Appropriations bill. In effect, the Senate committee action 
     takes unspent funds that would be reallocated to states to 
     provide health insurance to uninsured children and instead 
     promises to restore those funds in fiscal year 2003. While we 
     are appreciative of the efforts of the Senate Appropriations 
     Committee efforts to increase funding for important programs 
     in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
     Appropriations bill, the use of CHIP funds for this purpose 
     breaches the integrity of the CHIP program and the commitment 
     it represents to the nation's uninsured children.
       This taking of CHIP funds is troubling for several reasons. 
     First, the taking of these funds will deprive some states of 
     the funding needed soon to insure children through the 
     program. Second, states have made decisions on how many 
     children they expect to insure through the CHIP program based 
     on the federal funding commitment in the 1997 CHIP 
     legislation. The Senate Appropriations Committee action, if 
     enacted, calls into question the commitment of Congress to 
     this program. Third, states are rapidly increasing enrollment 
     of uninsured children in CHIP but may become reluctant to 
     continue aggressive outreach and enrollment if Congress 
     starts playing budget shell games with the program funds.
       We urge, in the strongest possible terms, that Congress 
     restore the funds to the CHIP program that were removed by 
     the Senate Appropriations Committee. We believe that Congress 
     should refrain from looking to this program, designed to 
     serve uninsured children, to alleviate the fiscal 
     difficulties faced by the House and Senate Appropriations as 
     they fund critical programs.
           Sincerely,
       AIDS Action.
       Alliance for Children and Families.
       Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning.
       American Academy of Pediatrics.
       American Association of University Affiliated Programs for 
     Persons with Developmental Disabilities.
       American Association on Mental Retardation.
       American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians.
       American Dental Hygienists' Association.
       American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees (AFSCME).
       American Friends Service Committee.
       American Hospital Association.
       American Medical Association.
       American Music Therapy Association.
       American Network of Community Options and Resources.
       American Occupational Therapy Association.
       American Psychiatric Association.
       American Psychological Association.
       American Public Health Association.
       Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now 
     (ACORN)
       Association of Jewish Family and Children's Agencies.
       Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs.
       Bazelon Center of Mental Health Law.
       Camp Fire Boys and Girls.
       Catholic Charities USA.
       Catholic Health Association of the United States.
       Center for Budget and Policy Priorities
       Center for Community Change.
       Center for Women Policy Studies.
       Child Welfare League of America.
       Children's Defense Fund.
       Children's Health Fund.
       Church Women United--Washington Office.
       Coalition of Labor Union Women.
       Communications Workers of America.
       Council of State Governments.
       Families USA.
       Family Voices.
       Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quaker).
       Generations United.
       Girl Scouts of the USA
       Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
       Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs, ELCA.
       Lutheran Services in America.
       McAuley Institute.
       Mennonite Central Committee.
       National Association for Protection & Advocacy Systems.
       National Association for the Education of Young Children.
       National Association of Community Health Centers.
       National Association of Developmental Disabilities 
     Councils.
       National Association of People with AIDS.
       National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems.
       National Association of Public Hospitals & Health Systems.
       National Association of School Psychologists.
       National Association of WIC Directors.

[[Page 12395]]

       National Center of Poverty Law.
       National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA.
       National Council of Jewish Women.
       National Council of La Raza.
       National Council of Senior Citizens.
       National Employment Law Project.
       National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
       National Head Start Association.
       National Health Law Program, Inc.
       National Immigration Law Center.
       National Mental Health Association.
       National Parent Network on Disabilities.
       National Partnership for Women and Families.
       National Puerto Rican Coalition.
       National Therapeutic Recreation Society.
       National Urban League.
       National Women's Law Center.
       Neighbor to Neighbor.
       Network--A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.
       Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington Office.
       Results, Inc.
       The ARC of the United States.
       The Episcopal Church.
       The Salvation Army.
       The United States Conference of Mayors.
       Union of American Hebrew Congregations.
       Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.
       United Cerebral Palsy.
       United Church of Christ Office for Church in Society.
       United Jewish Communities.
                                  ____



                               National Governors Association,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2000.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     Ranking Member, Senate Appropriations Committee, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Stevens and Senator Byrd: As you consider the 
     fiscal 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
     appropriations bill, we are writing to emphasize our highest 
     funding priorities. The nation's Governors urge you to meet 
     your commitments to the most critical programs affecting 
     human investments and needs.
       Specifically, we strongly urge you to meet the commitment 
     to the Title XX/Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), and 
     restore the reductions in funding and flexibility for the 
     program to the level that was agreed to in the 1996 welfare 
     reform law. Under the 1996 welfare reform law, SSBG was 
     authorized at $2.38 billion for fiscal 2001 and states were 
     provided the flexibility to transfer up to 10 percent of 
     their Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block 
     grant funds into SSBG. Since that time, funding has 
     consistently been cut and flexibility has been restricted. 
     Governors view SSBG as one of the highest priorities among 
     human service programs, and are adamantly opposed to further 
     reductions in funding, such as those approved by the Senate 
     Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee. 
     Such a drastic reduction in the federal commitment to SSBG 
     will cause a dramatic disruption in the delivery of the most 
     critical human services.
       Additionally, the Governors strongly urge you to reject 
     proposals that would rescind funding from the State 
     Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP). The funding 
     structure of S-CHIP provides long-term stability to the 
     program. Rescinding funds from S-CHIP, as proposed by the 
     subcommittee, will undermine states' continued progress in 
     providing access to much needed health insurance coverage. We 
     urge you to protect this critical program for our nation's 
     children.
       The nation's Governors also urge you to maintain your 
     commitments to other key state and local programs that 
     provide vital health and human services to vulnerable 
     families and children including Temporary Assistance for 
     Needy Families (TANF) and Medicaid. Reductions in the federal 
     commitment to these programs would adversely affect millions 
     of Americans, with the greatest impact on those in the 
     greatest need.
       Additionally, the Governors urge strong support for 
     education programs. Education is the most important issue 
     facing our states and the nation. Governors oppose any 
     reductions in these critical programs. Governors also ask 
     Congress to meet its commitment to fully fund the federal 
     portion of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
     (IDEA).
       Finally, we urge you to reverse the delays in funding for 
     key state health and human services programs that were 
     enacted as part of the fiscal 2000 omnibus appropriations 
     package last fall. With enactment of that bill, a portion of 
     the funding made available to states for several programs, 
     including SSBG, Children and Families Services, and the 
     Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services program, will not 
     be made available until September 29, 2000. The nation's 
     Governors are deeply concerned about the effect this delay 
     will have on the delivery of services to the nation's 
     neediest populations.
       We appreciate your consideration of our views and look 
     forward to working with you as you seek to meet the many 
     needs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
           Sincerely,
                                           Governor Mike Huckabee,
                              Chairman, Human Resources Committee.
                                           Governor James B. Hunt,
                         Vice Chairman, Human Resources Committee.

  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the colloquy that 
just occurred in which Senator Stevens promised to return the $1.9 
billion taken from the State Children's Health Insurance Program, S-
CHIP, to fund the programs in the Labor Health and Human Services and 
Education Appropriations bill, during conference. I thank Senators 
Roth, Stevens, Moynihan and Byrd for recognizing the importance of S-
CHIP and the federal promise to the states.
  I applaud this agreement. This program allows states, like Indiana, 
to continue to enroll and provide services to children in low-income 
families. In Indiana, over 120,000 additional children have been 
enrolled in ``Hoosier Healthwise'' since S-CHIP was implemented in 
1998. The removal of this funding would have had a devastating impact 
on Indiana. For every $1 million in federal funding taken from Indiana, 
830 children would not be covered by Hoosier Healthwise. These children 
would be unlikely to obtain quality health care.
  This is not an issue that only affects Indiana. Thirty-five Senators 
from both political parties joined with me and Senator Voinovich to 
send a letter to Senators Lott and Daschle urging them to work to 
restore the $1.9 billion taken from the program. The National 
Governors' Association stated in a letter to the leadership that ``The 
Governors are united in their opposition to the proposed cuts in S-
CHIP. This is not a formula fight; this is a weakening of the state-
federal partnership that is so vital to the success of this program. It 
sets a truly disturbing precedent.'' We are grateful to Senators Lott 
and Daschle for recognizing the need for this funding to be restored.
  The Labor Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Bill 
contains worthy programs but funding for those programs should not have 
come from important efforts such as the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program. I am pleased that this issue will be resolved in the 
conference.
  Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that letters from Senators, 
Governors, and 80 advocacy groups be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, June 20, 2000.
     Hon. Senator Trent Lott,
     Majority Leader, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Majority Leader: It has been brought to our attention 
     that the Senate Appropriations Committee has decided to 
     redirect $1.9 billion from the State Children's Health 
     Insurance Program (SCHIP) to fund other programs in the 
     Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriation 
     bill. We are concerned that this reduction in funding will 
     threaten SCHIP services in many of our communities in 
     addition to setting a dangerous precedent for the federal 
     government's commitment to this critical state program, and 
     we urge you to reconsider this decision.
       The States have pursued aggressive enrollment efforts and 
     successfully increased the number of children they serve. 
     Failing to maintain this promise would make it impossible for 
     states to continue aggressive enrollment strategies designed 
     to insure millions of uninsured children. Governors are 
     relying on all of the funding in this program to continue 
     SCHIP services. All states' SCHIP programs could be at risk 
     if the federal government sets this dangerous precedent by 
     failing to uphold its funding commitment to the program. If 
     the federal commitment is not upheld, it is likely fewer 
     children will be covered by the program.
       Therefore, we urge you to work to restore the SCHIP dollars 
     being used to fund other programs in the Labor, Health and 
     Human Services, and Education Appropriation bill. While many 
     of the programs contained within the bill are worthy, they 
     should not be funded at the expense of SCHIP. We look forward 
     to working with you to address this issue.
           Sincerely,
         Evan Bayh; Lincoln D. Chafee; Carl Levin; George V. 
           Voinovich; Richard H. Bryan; Ted Kennedy; Jim Jeffords; 
           Joe Lieberman; Chris Dodd; Mike Enzi; Conrad Burns; 
           Kent Conrad; Mike DeWine; Paul S. Sarbanes; Gordon 
           Smith; Mary L. Landrieu; Bill Frist; Olympia Snowe; 
           Blanche L. Lincoln; Tim Johnson; John Breaux; Daniel K.

[[Page 12396]]

           Akaka; Max Baucus; Dick Lugar; Charles Schumer; Paul 
           Wellstone; Chuck Robb; Kay Bailey Hutchison; Jay 
           Rockefeller; Bob Graham; Jesse Helms; John Edwards; Bob 
           Kerrey; John McCain; John F. Kerry; Barbara Boxer.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, June 20, 2000.
     Hon. Senator Tom Daschle,
     Minority Leader, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Minority Leader: It has been brought to our attention 
     that the Senate Appropriations Committee has decided to 
     redirect $1.9 billion from the Sate Children's Health 
     Insurance Program (SCHIP) to fund other programs in the 
     Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriation 
     bill. We are concerned that this reduction in funding will 
     threaten SCHIP services in many of our communities in 
     addition to setting a dangerous precedent for the federal 
     government's commitment to this critical state program, and 
     we urge you to reconsider this decision.
       The States have pursued aggressive enrollment efforts and 
     successfully increased the number of children they serve. 
     Failing to maintain this promise would make it impossible for 
     states to continue aggressive enrollment strategies designed 
     to insure millions of uninsured children. Governors are 
     relying on all of the funding in this program to continue 
     SCHIP services. All states' SCHIP programs could be at risk 
     if the federal government sets this dangerous precedent by 
     failing to uphold its funding commitment to the program. If 
     the federal commitment is not upheld, it is likely fewer 
     children will be covered by the program.
       Therefore, we urge you to work to restore the SCHIP dollars 
     being used to fund other programs in the Labor, health and 
     Human Services, and Education appropriation bill. While many 
     of the programs contained within the bill are worthy, they 
     should not be funded at the expense of SCHIP. We look forward 
     to working with you to address this issue.
           Sincerely,
         Evan Bayh; Lincoln D. Chafee; Carl Levin; George V. 
           Voinovich; Richard H. Bryan; Ted Kennedy; Jim Jeffords; 
           Joe Lieberman; Chris Dodd; Mike Enzi; Conrad Burns; 
           Kent Conrad; Mike DeWine; Paul S. Sarbanes; Gordon 
           Smith; Mary L. Landrieu, Bill Frist; Olympia Snowe; 
           Blanche L. Lincoln; Tim Johnson; John Breaux; Daniel K. 
           Akaka; Max Baucus; Dick Lugar; Charles Schumer; Paul 
           Wellstone; Chuck Robb; Kay Bailey Hutchison; Jay 
           Rockefeller; Bob Graham; Jesse Helms; John Edwards; Bob 
           Kerrey; John McCain; John F. Kerry, Barbara Boxer.
                                  ____

                                               National Governors'


                                                  Association,

                                    Washington, DC, June 21, 2000.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader and Senator Daschle: I am writing to make 
     clear the strong opposition of the nation's Governors to cuts 
     in funding for key state health and human services programs 
     as contained in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education appropriations bill for fiscal 2001. By proposing 
     cuts in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-
     CHIP), Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) and Temporary 
     Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Congress is breaking 
     commitments made to the states, and the nation's Governors 
     urge you to restore funds to these vital programs.
       The Governors' are united in their opposition to the 
     proposed cuts in S-CHIP. This is not a formula fight; this is 
     a weakening of the state-federal partnership that is so vital 
     to the success of this program. It sets a truly disturbing 
     precedent. It is already causing some states to reevaluate 
     the speed of their efforts to expand their programs to reach 
     more children.
       The proposed cuts in S-CHIP, SSBG and TANF will cause a 
     disruption in crucial services to the most vulnerable 
     citizens throughout the country--from assistance for 
     individuals moving from welfare to work, to health care for 
     uninsured children, to protective services for children and 
     the elderly. In all three of these programs, Congress has 
     made a commitment to Governors that they can rely on 
     guaranteed, mandatory federal funding. In order to continue 
     with the positive progress made in recent years in moving 
     individuals from welfare to work, increasing the number of 
     children placed in adoptive homes from foster care, and 
     insuring more children in need, Governors must be able to 
     rely on their federal partners.
       The nation's Governors strongly urge you to reject these 
     cuts and uphold the historic state-federal partnership for 
     serving individuals in need.
           Sincerely,
                                               Michael O. Leavitt,
                                                         Governor.
                                             Parris N. Glendening,
     Governor.
                                  ____



                                       Office of the Governor,

                                   Indianapolis, IN, May 23, 2000.
     Hon. Evan Bayh,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bayh: During the last several weeks, a great 
     deal of national attention has been focused on Indiana's 
     Hoosier Healthwise program, our statewide initiative that has 
     received funding from the State's Children's Health Insurance 
     Program (SCHIP) since 1998. I was delighted when Kathy 
     Gifford, the State's Medicaid Director, testified last 
     Tuesday before the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human 
     Resources on Indiana's success in insuring low-income 
     children--some 120,000 new enrollees since July 1998.
       In her testimony, Ms. Gifford also raised two issues of 
     serious concern to me and of great importance to Indiana's 
     children. First, she described how Indiana faces a decrease 
     in its fiscal year (FY) 2000 SCHIP allotment that will impede 
     the State's ability to continue insuring low-income children. 
     She also voiced concern that the Senate Appropriations 
     Committee voted last week to redirect funds from the SCHIP 
     account to fund other programs in the Labor-HHS-Education 
     Appropriations Bill for FY 2001.
       From its inception, the SCHIP program has put Indiana at a 
     funding disadvantage. State allocations are based on 
     unreliable Current Population Survey (CPS) data that 
     underestimates the number of eligible Hoosier children. My 
     administration is now undertaking its own survey of 10,000 
     Hoosier families to produce more accurate data on the number 
     uninsured persons in our state.
       After 18 months of implementation, Indiana's Hoosier 
     Healthwise enrollment already exceeded the CPS-derived 
     estimate for the number of uninsured children below the age 
     of 18 living in families up to 150 percent of the federal 
     poverty level. In January 2000, eligibility was expanded to 
     cover children in families at up to 200 percent of poverty, 
     which will greatly add to the current total enrollment of 
     330,000 young Hoosiers.
       Indiana's success has placed it among a handful of states 
     that will have spent all of their first-year SCHIP allotment 
     (FY 1998) by the end of this fiscal year (FY 2000). However, 
     due to the faulty allotment calculations, Indiana stands to 
     lose 10 percent of its current SCHIP funding this year. In 
     fact, Indiana is one of just two states that will have spent 
     their entire 1998 program allotments and experience a cut in 
     funds. Most other states that will have fully expended their 
     allotments will receive an increase of at least 12 percent. 
     So long as the data on which the allocations are based 
     remains out of line with the true need for children's health 
     insurance in Indiana, Hoosier Healthwise could continue to 
     lose funding even as we enroll more kids.
       Indiana has demonstrated its commitment to implement SCHIP, 
     but is losing federal funds. Other states that have not shown 
     the same enrollment success are slated to get increased 
     allotments. This inequity fails to maximize the funds 
     available to provide coverage for America's children. I also 
     note Indiana's commitment of $47 million of its tobacco 
     settlement over two years to Hoosier Healthwise as evidence 
     of our resolve to help children lead heathlier and happier 
     lives. However, any decrease in federal SCHIP funding at this 
     time threatens the great strides we have made to improve the 
     health and lives of the children of our state.
       The Senate Appropriations Committee's decision to 
     ``borrow'' any unspent 1998 SCHIP program dollars to pay for 
     other programs in the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Bill 
     will make matters worse. These unspent dollars (estimated by 
     the Health Care Financing Administration to be $1.9 billion), 
     would otherwise be required under the SCHIP law to be 
     redistributed to states, like Indiana, that had fully 
     expended their entire FY 1998 SCHIP allocations. The effort 
     to redirect money away from our nation's children now, to pay 
     it back in 2003, after the current SCHIP program expires the 
     previous year, defies common sense. SCHIP is not a 
     permanently authorized program; if Congress cuts these funds, 
     health coverage for thousands of children in Indiana and 
     millions across the country may be jeopardized.
       I implore you to work with other members of the Indiana 
     Congressional Delegation to protect Indiana's health care 
     gains and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. With 
     your help, we are hoping to at least avoid any reduction of 
     federal SCHIP support below the FY 1999 level of $70.2 
     million.
       Thank you for any consideration you may give to our request 
     for assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Frank O'Bannon.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as our distinguished colleague from 
Delaware has so eloquently said, the cuts which this Labor/HHS 
appropriations bill imposes upon several of our most important social 
programs are simply unacceptable.
  In 1996, I stood with Chairman Roth as the Senate Finance Committee 
joined the House Ways and Means Committee in authorizing the social 
services block grant at $2.38 billion through

[[Page 12397]]

2003. This authorization was a part of our commitment to the states in 
the welfare reform laws.
  The social service block grant allocates important funds to our 
states, enabling them to provide valuable services to our most needy 
citizens.
  Because of this block grant, senior citizens receive Meals on Wheels. 
Neglected children receive foster care and adoption services. Working 
parents receive day care for their children and adult day care for 
their aging parents. Those being abused receive protective help.
  These services have become an integral part of our communities, 
expanding and enriching the lives of our young and old, our poor and 
vulnerable.
  If the social services block grant is cut to the draconian level 
appropriated by this bill . . . well, the future of these vital 
services is in grave danger.
  We have already reneged once on this commitment--in 1998, when in an 
11th hour budgetary slight-of-hand, we used title XX funds to finance 
our road and highway spending.
  We revisited this topic again last year when, despite a vote of 59-37 
in favor of restoring title XX to its authorized level of $2.38 
billion, the social services block grant was again the victim of an 
end-game mugging, leaving only $1.7 billion of available funds.
  The $1.1 billion cut to SSBG in the Senate Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education bill would have forced our states to operate 
with a budget that has been cut by 65%.
  We return to the Floor time and time again on this issue because 
Congress continues to break the commitments it has made to our states.
  We slash these important programs under the guise of fiscal prudence 
and we perpetuate the illusion that we are not ``breaking the budget 
caps.''
  But, what we are really doing is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
  And, that means that we are not only breaking our promise to the 
states, we are reneging on the commitment that we made to our most 
vulnerable Americans.
  It is imperative that these monies be restored, and that the funding 
of the social services block grant be restored to the authorized level 
of $1.7 billion.
  I, along with Senators Grassley, Jeffords, Rockefeller, Voinovich, 
Moynihan, Wellstone, and Kennedy, was prepared to offer an amendment to 
restore funding to the social services block grant.
  I am pleased that the Senator from Alaska has alleviated that need.
  I appreciate the leadership Senator Stevens is showing today by 
pledging to restore these funds to our important SSBG, S-CHIP and TANF 
programs.
  I hope that this act represents the end of the long string of broken 
promises that we have made to states, localities, and most of all, our 
citizens in need.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to take just a few minutes to 
express my extreme pleasure with the agreement reached by the Chairman 
of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, and the Chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, restoring funding for the 
Children's Health Insurance Program.
  I am delighted that an agreement has been reached by the two chairmen 
on restoring funding--not only for the CHIP program--but also for the 
Social Services Block Grant program.
  These two important programs affect the lives of millions of 
Americans daily and are critically important in my home state of Utah.
  As the original sponsor of the child health program, I was 
particularly concerned about the committee provision and--not only its 
potential impact on children already enrolled in CHIP--but especially 
on those children who are eligible but not yet enrolled.
  This is why I wanted to come to the floor and personally thank the 
distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Committee for agreeing to 
restore the $1.9 billion in federal spending for CHIP as well as the 
$1.1 billion reduction in the Social Services Block Grant.
  Moreover, I understand that the Chairman has also agreed to restore 
$240 million in funding for the Temporary Aid for Needy Families 
program. This is also an important improvement to the committee bill.
  I want to commend Senator Stevens for working with us on the Finance 
Committee in resolving this very difficult funding issue.
  Moreover, I want to commend our chairman, Senator Roth, for his 
steadfast leadership in leading the charge at preserving the underlying 
funding for these critically important programs.
  I can appreciate the difficult work that the Chairman and all the 
Members on the Appropriations Committee have faced in crafting a bill 
that addresses the needs of the American people while complying with 
the fiscal constraints necessary to balance the federal budget.
  It is not an easy task recognizing the numerous demands placed on the 
committee by many worthy programs and causes.
  As one of the original sponsors of the CHIP legislation, I am 
particularly concerned about any mid-course changes to this important 
program that could undermine our ability to enroll eligible children.
  In my state of Utah, nearly 18,000 kids have benefitted from CHIP.
  Had the committee provision been enacted, the Utah CHIP program would 
have seen a $1.7 million reduction in its fiscal year 1998 allocation.
  And, as we now know, one of the critical problems facing the program 
has been the outreach effort to enroll eligible children.
  Clearly, we do not want to undermine the success we have had to date 
in which there are now more than two million children enrolled 
nationwide.
  As with any new initiative, it takes time to get these programs up 
and running. This is especially true in view of the fact that CHIP is 
administered at the state level and, therefore, it takes more time to 
get these programs fully operational.
  I have heard from many constituents who are concerned about these 
proposed funding cuts.
  They point out to me that there is a substantial lead time required 
to establish the outreach necessary to sign up new enrollees. That work 
is underway.
  I am very proud of the job Utah is doing under the leadership of our 
Governor Mike Leavitt and with the help of many, many community 
organizations doing such excellent work in the field--but we are not 
there yet.
  That is why the proposed cuts could have been so harmful.
  Mr. President, the CHIP program has been a resounding success across 
the country with all fifty states providing some form of CHIP services 
to eligible children.
  It has truly been remarkable the level of support we have seen from 
many groups across the country opposed to the proposed CHIP funding 
reductions.
  Not only has there been strong, bipartisan support in the Senate 
against the reductions, but we also have heard from the National 
Governors Association and scores of other advocacy organizations 
including the American Hospital Association, the Children's Defense 
Fund, and the Girl Scouts of the USA expressing strong opposition to 
any reductions in CHIP funding.
  Once again, I thank Senator Stevens and Senator Roth for this 
agreement as it sends a clear signal that CHIP is, indeed, fulfilling 
its mission to America's youth.
  Thank you Mr. President and I yield the floor.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in 
opposition to two key provisions which should not have been included in 
this appropriations bill. I commend my colleagues, particularly 
Chairman Stevens and Chairman Roth, for reaching an understanding that 
the funds taken by these provisions will be entirely restored in the 
conference report on the Labor/HHS appropriations bill.
  The first provision relates to the State Children's Health Insurance 
Program (SCHIP) we created in 1997. Put simply, it will prevent 
uninsured, low-income children from receiving health care services they 
need and may even

[[Page 12398]]

jeopardize the future of this critically important children's health 
program. Enrollment in SCHIP has been increasing--doubling from just 
under 1 million to 2 million children between 1998 and 1999. But the 
SCHIP funding cut included in the Labor-HHS bill will undermine this 
progress and discourage State efforts to increase enrollment. If the 
precedent is set for using these funds as offsets, States could not 
rely on the future availability of their SCHIP allotments.
  The second provision is a massive unwarranted cut in funds for the 
Social Services Block Grant, from $1.7 billion to $600 million. SSBG is 
a most flexible source of social services funding. The States and local 
communities decide, within broad parameters, which needs to address. 
Among many things, SSBG supports:
  Help for the home-bound elderly;
  Assistance for adoptive families;
  Elder abuse prevention; and
  Foster care for abused children.
  In my own State of New York, we use most of our SSBG funds to provide 
child protective services and for day care. There is no reason to, in 
the words of the President, ``bankrupt'' SSBG.
  I recognize that the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee faced very 
difficult decisions in light of the unreasonably low allocation it 
received. These problems were created by the FY 2001 Budget Resolution 
which underfunded this and other appropriations measures while 
providing for a large tax cut. This tax cut, if merited, should not be 
paid for by limiting insurance coverage for low-income children and 
reducing help to the aged and disabled.
  With the Congressional Budget Office expected to increase its 
estimate of the on-budget surplus, there is no good reason for these 
two provisions.


                           amendment no. 3625

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, Senator Cochran and 
Senator Frist, in supporting this important amendment that will provide 
$25 million for CDC's programs on antimicrobial resistance. Deadly 
microbes are becoming increasingly resistant to the antibiotics that we 
have relied on to fight infections for more than half a century. 
Already, drug-resistant infections claim the lives of 14,000 Americans 
every year--meaning that every hour of every day, a family suffers the 
tragedy of losing a loved one to an infection that not long ago could 
have been cured with a pill. At a time when scientists are making 
amazing new discoveries in genetic medicine, it is a tragic irony that 
we are losing our battle against some of humanity's most ancient 
disease foes.
  The amendment that we have introduced will strengthen the nation's 
defenses against disease-causing microbes that are becoming resistant 
to existing medications. The new resources will be used for research 
into the best ways to control the spread of resistant infections. The 
amendment will also fund education programs to make certain that 
doctors know when to prescribe antibiotics--and when not to. In 
addition, the extra funds provided by the amendment will help hospitals 
and clinics establish disease control programs to halt the spread of 
resistant infections in patients. Finally, new resources will 
strengthen the nation's public health agencies, which are the front 
line in the fight against disease. By fortifying these defenses, we can 
provide the country with increased protection against disease outbreaks 
of all types, including deliberate bioterrorist attack. I urge my 
colleagues to approve this amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3625. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the 
Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from New York (Mr. 
Moynihan) and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Well?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senate will come to order.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Chair call for order in the Well?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators in the Well will please remove 
their conversations from the Well.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I don't believe all the Senators heard the 
Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will all Senators in the Well please remove 
their conversations. Senators desiring to speak should clear the Well.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 145 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Baucus
     Inouye
     Moynihan
     Schumer
  The amendment (No. 3625) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3610

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now return to consideration of 
amendment No. 3610. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                Amendment No. 3628 To Amendment No. 3610

     (Purpose: To prohibit funds for the purchase of fetal tissue)

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I offer a second-degree 
amendment to the pending amendment and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3628 to amendment No. 3610.
       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     ``SEC.   . PURCHASE OF FETAL TISSUE.

       ``None of the funds made available in this Act may be used 
     to pay, reimburse, or otherwise compensate, directly or 
     indirectly, any abortion provider, fetal tissue procurement 
     contractor, or tissue resource source, for fetal tissue, or 
     the cost of collecting, transferring, or otherwise processing 
     fetal tissue, if such fetal tissue is obtained from induced 
     abortions.''.

  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, do I still have the floor?
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Harkin is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative 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. Mr. President, at the outset, I ask all Senators who 
have an interest in offering amendments to come to the floor so we can 
proceed to move this bill forward. At the moment, we have three 
amendments which are

[[Page 12399]]

pending, which are up for consideration. We have the amendment offered 
by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, and he is 
prepared to withdraw his amendment in the nature of a second-degree 
amendment to Senator McCain's amendment on a consent agreement that his 
amendment will not be second degreed.
  The distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, has an interest in 
debating his amendment only for a few minutes later but having it 
listed for a vote later today.
  Senator McCain is prepared to debate his amendment briefly now and 
then when Senator Leahy is available to debate his amendment at greater 
length.
  I ask unanimous consent that there be no second-degree amendment to 
the Smith amendment--the distinguished Senator from Iowa says there 
cannot be an agreement on the pending Smith amendment. Until we clarify 
that, my suggestion is that we proceed with debate on Senator Smith's 
amendment at this time for however long that takes and then proceed to 
debate Senator McCain's amendment for however long that takes. We will 
try to get the procedures worked out.
  In the interim, we will be considering the amendment by Senator Kerry 
from Massachusetts. Again, I ask anybody who has an amendment to offer 
to come to the floor as promptly as possible.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Harkin and Senator Specter were here 
yesterday. There was relatively no business conducted because there 
were no amendments offered. It is now Tuesday, and we are going to get 
tremendous pressure from the two leaders to move this bill along.
  Tomorrow will be Wednesday. On Thursday, people will be talking about 
leaving here. I think everyone should be put on notice that there may 
not be an opportunity to offer all these amendments that people want to 
offer on this very important piece of legislation unless they start 
coming down today. We need people to offer amendments on this 
legislation.
  Is that fair to say, I ask the Chairman?
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Nevada for his comments. In the 
absence of a vote on Monday, it was hard to find business; we could not 
find it yesterday. We have had a vote. Senators are in town and on 
campus. When the Senator from Nevada talks about finishing the bill 
this week, the majority leader told me last week that this bill would 
be finished, if we had to work through Saturday. That is specifically 
what Senator Lott said. That is when he anticipated starting the bill 
about Wednesday of this week.
  The majority leader would like to finish this bill no later than 
tomorrow so that he could start on other business, perhaps the Interior 
bill on Thursday. So I say that what the Senator from Nevada has 
announced is exactly right, that if Senators want their amendments to 
be considered, now is the time.
  Mr. REID. I also say to the Senator, the two managers of the bill are 
going to try to have a time for setting forth what amendments people 
want to offer--not that it would be a filing deadline--so we have a 
finite list of amendments we can look at. We hope the two managers can 
agree on some time later that we can do that.
  I also ask permission--Senator Hollings has been here all morning. He 
has 7 minutes he wishes to use as in morning business. I hope, after 
Senator Smith speaks and Senator McCain speaks, that Senator Hollings 
may be recognized to introduce a bill for 7 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. If the Senator would yield, on the first point, we have 
sought to get a list of amendments. We will hopefully seek a unanimous 
consent agreement by the end of the day as to the amendments which are 
going to be offered. And we will accommodate the distinguished Senator 
from South Carolina, although I have never heard Senator Hollings speak 
for as little as 7 minutes. I am looking forward to that speech myself.
  Mr. President, I suggest we proceed now with Senator Smith, Senator 
McCain, and then Senator Hollings.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Amendment No. 3628

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, the amendment I have 
offered is a very simple one. It says that none of the funds made 
available in this act may be used to pay--either directly or 
indirectly--reimburse, or otherwise compensate any abortion provider, 
fetal tissue procurement contractor, or tissue resource source for 
fetal tissue or the cost of collecting, transferring, or otherwise 
processing fetal tissue if that tissue is obtained from induced 
abortions.
  So this amendment is not going to shut down any research using fetal 
tissue. Some will say that, but that is not the case. It will not do 
that.
  I believe it is morally wrong to take the life of an innocent child, 
an unborn child, in order to advance the health needs of another human 
being because that child has given no consent for that. So, to be 
perfectly honest, it would be fine with me if fetal tissue research, 
using elective abortions, were abolished, but that is not what this 
amendment is about.
  I am absolutely in favor of using fetal tissue obtained from 
spontaneous abortions or miscarriages. There is a difference between a 
miscarriage and an induced abortion. The difference is that one 
innocent human life was not deliberately destroyed for the sake of 
another. In fact, Georgetown Hospital currently conducts research using 
only spontaneous abortions--very successfully I might add.
  So this is a reasonable amendment. I am hoping I will be able to work 
with the other side on this issue to come to some conclusion so it will 
not be a huge controversy on this bill. We have been working with the 
distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania on that.
  But I want to make it clear I am not prohibiting the use of aborted 
fetuses for research. I am only advocating that Federal taxpayer funds 
should not be used to pay an abortion clinic or middleman who acts as a 
fetal tissue procurement contractor for such tissue.
  Let me repeat this important point. My amendment allows the Federal 
Government to use fetal tissue from induced abortions, but they cannot 
pay an abortion provider or a middleman for that tissue, which includes 
his costs associated with preservation, storage, processing, and so on, 
because, according to the NIH, there does not seem to be a necessity 
for a middleman.
  So the amendment I am offering is really quite simple: No purchasing 
of fetal tissue from induced abortions.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 3610

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment I have pending, following 
the disposition of the Smith amendment, requires that the schools and 
libraries that are taking advantage of universal service subsidies for 
Internet connection deploy blocking or filtering software to screen out 
obscene material and child pornography for children and child 
pornography on all computers. The decisions would be made by the local 
school boards and library boards.
  The Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, has asked to speak on this issue 
and requests that we begin that sometime around noon.
  So if it is agreeable to the Senator from Pennsylvania and the 
Senator from Iowa, perhaps we could have an hour equally divided 
between myself and Senator Leahy. I think that would be--actually, we 
will ask Senator Leahy's staff if that is agreeable to him and then ask 
for a UC on that.
  Mr. REID. If I could respond, Senator Harkin didn't get the 
information, I was just told. Senator Leahy has notified us he may want 
to second degree the McCain amendment, so we cannot agree to a time 
agreement.
  Mr. McCAIN. That is fine. So I will not ask for a unanimous consent 
agreement on time, but the way I understand it, we now have a Smith 
amendment to be disposed of first.
  I want to make it clear that I do not wish to impede the progress of 
this bill. I paid attention to the Senator from

[[Page 12400]]

Pennsylvania, and I am very much in favor of a reasonable time 
agreement on this amendment.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I am confident that when Senator Leahy can devote his full 
attention to the matter, something can be worked out. He is ranking 
member of the Judiciary Committee, and I believe they are in executive 
session, or if not executive session, something very important, and he 
had to leave the floor. He said he will be able to be back here in 
approximately an hour to work on this. So we will protect him until 
then and see what happens when he arrives.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I see my dear friend from South Carolina 
waiting to illuminate all of us, so I will yield the floor at this time 
and pursue debate on this amendment at such time as Senator Leahy is 
available.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding the Senator from Arizona could not 
ask for the yeas and nays because his amendment is not pending. Is that 
true?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment is pending with an 
amendment pending also in the second degree. Therefore, he can ask for 
the yeas and nays only by unanimous consent.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate the Chair's help.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  (The remarks of Mr. HOLLINGS pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2793 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative 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. Mr. President, Senator Wyden is on his way to offer an 
amendment. We are renewing our call for Members who have amendments to 
offer to come to the floor. We have an extensive list of proposed 
amendments. Again, I emphasize the urgency of this request at this 
moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have two amendments here that are ready to 
be offered. Will the manager tell me why I can't offer these at this 
time?
  Mr. SPECTER. By all means, we look forward to them being offered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
laid aside.


                           Amendment No. 3629

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning needlestick 
                           injury prevention)

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3629.

  Mr. REID. 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 appropriate place, insert the following:


       sense of the senate on prevention of needlestick injuries

       Sec. __. (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports 
     that American health care workers report 600,000-800,000 
     needlestick and sharps injuries each year;
       (2) the occurrence of needlestick injuries is believed to 
     be widely under-reported;
       (3) needlestick and sharps injuries result in at least 
     1,000 new cases of health care workers with HIV, hepatitis C 
     or hepatitis B every year; and
       (4) more than 80 percent of needlestick injuries can be 
     prevented through the use of safer devices.
       (5) OSHA's November 1999 Compliance Directive has helped 
     clarify the duty of employers to use safer needle devices to 
     protect their workers. However, millions of State and local 
     government employees are not covered by OSHA's bloodborne 
     pathogen standard and are not protected against the hazards 
     of needlesticks.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Senate should pass legislation that would eliminate 
     or minimize the significant risk of needlestick injury to 
     health care workers.


                           Amendment No. 3630

 (Purpose: To provide for the establishment of a clearinghouse on safe 
                           needle technology)

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be laid aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3630.

  Mr. REID. 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:

       On page 54, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) In General.--There is appropriated $10,000,000 
     that may be used by the Director of the National Institute 
     for Occupational Safety and Health to--
       (1) establish and maintain a national database on existing 
     needleless systems and sharps with engineered sharps injury 
     protections;
       (2) develop a set of evaluation criteria for use by 
     employers, employees, and other persons when they are 
     evaluating and selecting needleless systems and sharps with 
     engineered sharps injury protections;
       (3) develop a model training curriculum to train employers, 
     employees, and other persons on the process of evaluating 
     needleless systems and sharps with engineered sharps injury 
     protections and to the extent feasible to provide technical 
     assistance to persons who request such assistance; and
       (4) establish a national system to collect comprehensive 
     data on needlestick injuries to health care workers, 
     including data on mechanisms to analyze and evaluate 
     prevention interventions in relation to needlestick injury 
     occurrence.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Employer.--The term ``employer'' means each employer 
     having an employee with occupational exposure to human blood 
     or other material potentially containing bloodborne 
     pathogens.
       (2) Engineered sharps injury protections.--The term 
     ``engineered sharps injury protections'' means--
       (A) a physical attribute built into a needle device used 
     for withdrawing body fluids, accessing a vein or artery, or 
     administering medications or other fluids, that effectively 
     reduces the risk of an exposure incident by a mechanism such 
     as barrier creation, blunting, encapsulation, withdrawal, 
     retraction, destruction, or other effective mechanisms; or
       (B) a physical attribute built into any other type of 
     needle device, or into a nonneedle sharp, which effectively 
     reduces the risk of an exposure incident.
       (3) Needleless system.--The term ``needleless system'' 
     means a device that does not use needles for--
       (A) the withdrawal of body fluids after initial venous or 
     arterial access is established;
       (B) the administration of medication or fluids; and
       (C) any other procedure involving the potential for an 
     exposure incident.
       (4) Sharp.--The term ``sharp'' means any object used or 
     encountered in a health care setting that can be reasonably 
     anticipated to penetrate the skin or any other part of the 
     body, and to result in an exposure incident, including, but 
     not limited to, needle devices, scalpels, lancets, broken 
     glass, broken capillary tubes, exposed ends of dental wires 
     and dental knives, drills, and burs.
       (5) Sharps injury.--The term ``sharps injury'' means any 
     injury caused by a sharp, including cuts, abrasions, or 
     needlesticks.
       (c) Offset.--Amounts made available under this Act for the 
     travel, consulting, and printing services for the Department 
     of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, and 
     the Department of Education shall be reduced on a pro rata 
     basis by $10,000,000.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I spoke about these two amendments at some

[[Page 12401]]

length yesterday. I will abbreviate what I said yesterday. Every year, 
600,000 injuries occur as a result of nurses and other health care 
professionals being stuck accidentally by needles. It is not because of 
any negligence on their part. It is because of the dangerousness of 
their work.
  Approximately every 35 seconds, someone--usually a nurse--is stuck 
with a needle. It is estimated that the number of reported cases is 
underestimated. It is probably every 15 seconds, 24 hours a day, 7 days 
a week, that these individuals are injured. So we have at least 20 
diseases that are transmitted very easily by being stuck with needles.
  I gave the account yesterday of two nurses. We could have given 
hundreds of thousands of different examples, but we gave two people--
one was a woman from Reno, NV, and the other a woman from 
Massachusetts--whose lives were dramatically altered as a result of 
being stuck with needles while being nurses. One of them takes 21 pills 
a day; the other takes 22 pills a day. They are very, very ill--HIV and 
hepatitis C.
  The purpose of these amendments is to have there be a standard 
established so that this, in fact, will not take place in the future. 
There are already needle-less instruments that can be used, which work 
just as well. The only problem is they are a little bit more expensive, 
and the health care system wants to save every penny, so they don't use 
them. In the short term and in the long term, money would be saved if, 
in fact, we used these new devices.
  The lost time from individuals being stuck with these needles is very 
significant. People become disabled very quickly. So we need to stop 
this practice and have the Federal Government join with the private 
sector, in effect, to do away with needles as we now know them.
  I would be happy to answer any questions Senators may have. This is 
something that has been debated in the past. It should become effective 
immediately.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative 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. Mr. President, with respect to the first amendment by 
the Senator from Nevada, a sense of the Senate respecting legislation 
to eliminate or minimize the significant risk of needlestick injury to 
health care workers, it is my understanding that the Senator from 
Nevada has such legislation which is pending, and it is obviously a 
very worthwhile objective. It is my view that we ought to move such 
legislation as promptly as possible. There is a serious problem and, to 
the extent it can be eliminated or minimized, I am all for it. We would 
accept this amendment.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate the managers accepting this sense-of-the-
Senate amendment. I look forward to working with the Senators on the 
underlying legislation pending in this regard.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3629) was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the second amendment offered by the 
Senator from Nevada to add $10 million to the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health that would come from administrative 
costs, is what we think a worthwhile objective. We are candid to say 
that the charges to administration are now very heavy.
  So it would be my intention to accept this amendment, subject to the 
understanding that we are going to have to work out in conference where 
the funding will come from. After a while, the administrative costs 
deduction is so overburdened that it becomes intolerable, but subject 
to that limitation, we will be prepared to accept the amendment on this 
side.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative 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. Mr. President, coming back to the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Nevada for $10 million to be added to the National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health out of administrative 
costs, we are prepared to take it at this time. Again, this is subject 
to the understanding that there is quite a bit of money taken out of 
administrative costs, and this is something we will have to work out in 
conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 3630 is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3630) was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 3626, Withdrawn

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there are some other amendments that I have 
in relation to this subject. I ask unanimous consent that they be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Amendment 3626 is withdrawn.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3632

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, very shortly I will be sending to the desk 
an amendment to deal with an issue of extraordinary importance; that 
is, the question of pharmaceuticals that get to the market to a great 
extent through taxpayer-funded research.
  From the very beginning of this debate on prescription drugs, I 
teamed up with Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine on this issue. I believe 
this prescription drug issue is so extraordinarily important that it 
has to be pursued in a bipartisan fashion.
  We have seen that there is an enormous interest in this country on 
the question of prescription drugs, and it has become a heated and 
contentious debate. In an effort to try to ensure this discussion was 
bipartisan at every level, in developing the amendment I will very 
shortly offer, I consulted at some length with the chairman of the 
subcommittee, Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, as well as Senator 
Harkin, the ranking minority member.
  Because he is on the floor, at this time I would especially like to 
thank Chairman Specter and his staff for all the efforts to work with 
us on this matter. Chairman Specter has been very gracious as well as 
his staff--I see Bettilou Taylor here--in making time to work with us 
on an amendment that I believe will be acceptable to both the majority 
and the minority when I send it to the desk.
  In this discussion of the question of pharmaceuticals that get to 
market largely through taxpayer funds, I think it was said very clearly 
by Congressman Bill Thomas, the chairman of the House Ways and Means 
Subcommittee on Health, and a member of the Republican leadership: 
``When taxpayers' money is being spent, there ought to be a return on 
that investment.''
  I am going to repeat that because I think it says it very well. 
Congressman Bill Thomas, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee 
subcommittee said: ``When taxpayers' money is being spent, there ought 
to be a return on that investment.''
  I think what is critical at this point is that taxpayers and citizens 
of this country understand just how extensive the Federal investment in 
these pharmaceuticals is.

[[Page 12402]]

  We all understand that the development of prescription medicine in 
this country is a risky business. You are going to have some successful 
investments. You also are going to have some dry holes. That is the 
nature of the free enterprise system. That is what entrepreneurship is 
all about. It is about risk taking, and it is about focusing on bright, 
creative ideas in the private marketplace. Particularly in the 
pharmaceutical sector, this approach has lead to nothing less than a 
revolution. So many of the medicines of today are central to keeping 
people well, and keeping folks healthy. They help to hold down blood 
pressure and cholesterol. As a result of those medicines, we end up 
very often seeing massive savings that would otherwise be incurred by 
what is called Part A of the Medicare program--the hospital portion of 
the program.
  This exciting revolution in the pharmaceutical sector is one that we 
all appreciate. However, today we want to take special note of the fact 
that the taxpayers have contributed in a very significant way to that 
revolution.
  According to the Joint Economic Committee, Federal research was 
instrumental in the development of 15 of the 21 drugs considered to 
have the highest therapeutic impact on society which were introduced 
between 1965 and 1992. Of those 15 pharmaceuticals, 7 have specific 
ties to the National Institutes of Health. Of those seven 
pharmaceuticals with direct connections to the National Institutes of 
Health, three had more than $1 billion in sales in 1994, and in 1995.
  Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3632:
       Sec.  . None of the funds made available under this Act may 
     be made available to any entity under the Public Health 
     Service Act after September 1, 2001, unless the Director of 
     NIH has provided to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
     Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions a 
     proposal to require a reasonable rate of return on both 
     intramural and extramural research by March 31, 2001.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this amendment is very specific in that it 
directs the National Institutes of Health to bring to the Senate by 
March 31, 2001, a specific proposal for ensuring that research funded 
by the taxpayer be recognized in the development of pharmaceuticals, 
and that the companies that benefit from that research pay reasonable 
rates of return on the investment by the taxpayer.
  I believe it is fair to all parties--to entrepreneurs, to 
researchers, to those in the pharmaceutical sector--and to all sides 
because it recognizes that this is a difficult issue.
  There are some technical questions with respect to how this is done. 
In particular, the nature of the pharmaceutical discovery is one that 
has to be thought through very carefully. But at the same time 
acceptance of this amendment would bring a sense of urgency to this 
issue.
  The Congress has a long history on this question. But the fact is 
that for some years there has not been adequate recognition of the fact 
that the taxpayer has done much of the heavy lifting in getting these 
pharmaceuticals to market. With this amendment we will ensure when the 
taxpayers play a significant role in a blockbuster drug that ends up 
producing very significant profits for an individual company that the 
taxpayers' investment will be recognized.
  I am just going to take a few minutes on this matter and use an 
example with which I think we are familiar in the Congress but which 
has special ramifications for folks in my part of the United States, 
and that is the drug Taxol.
  Before I do, I will ask unanimous consent to make a modest change, 
but a very important one, that also includes the Appropriations 
Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify his 
amendment.


                    Amendment No. 3632, As Modified

  Mr. WYDEN. I send the modification to my amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 3632), as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of title II insert the following:
       Sec.   . None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be made available to any entity under the Public Health 
     Service Act after September 1, 2001, unless the Director of 
     NIH has provided to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations and on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions a proposal to require a reasonable rate 
     of return on both intramural and extramural research by March 
     31, 2001.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to cite one example of a blockbuster 
drug that makes the case for why this amendment is so important. That 
drug is Taxol, a breakthrough drug used to fight cancer in women. It 
was originally made from the bark of the Pacific Yew tree. The National 
Institutes of Health developed this drug which last year produced $1.5 
billion in sales for the Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.
  Let me repeat that. This was a drug that was developed by the 
National Institutes of Health. This was not a drug that came about 
through the genius of the private sector. It was a drug developed at 
the National Institutes of Health by dedicated scientists who worked 
hard and were pushing with every ounce of their strength to come up 
with new products to help women.
  I want to outline specifically what they did in this case because it 
is a very clear illustration of why this amendment is needed. With 
respect to Taxol, the National Institutes of Health did the initial 
collection and re-collection of the bark of the Pacific Yew, which is 
the material from which the drug came. The National Institutes of 
Health performed all biological screening in both cell culture and 
animal tumor systems. The NIH did the chemical purification, isolation, 
and structure identification. The National Institutes of Health did 
large-scale production from bark collection through the preparation of 
material for human use. NIH developed and produced suitable intravenous 
drug formulations. They did the preclinical toxicology, they filed the 
Investigational New Drug Application, and they sponsored all the 
activities, including the efforts directed towards total and partial 
synthesis of the drug.
  By the end of the fiscal year of 1992, NIH had invested $32 million. 
NIH could not manufacture the drug for commercial purposes, so it 
competitively bid to find a company to manufacture the drug. The 
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was able to get exclusive rights to go 
forward with this pharmaceutical in the marketplace.
  Frankly, at hearings I held in 1993, the company really could not 
specify what they had done at all, other than the preclinical work and 
research into alternatives.
  So I come back to the fundamental proposition: Why is it that a 
pharmaceutical that was developed by the National Institutes of Health 
and resulted in $1.5 billion in sales in 1999 for Bristol-Myers Squibb 
resulted in no return on investment to the American taxpayer? This drug 
produced an enormous gain for an individual pharmaceutical company, yet 
the American taxpayer did not share in that gain. We are responsible to 
the taxpayer to be good financial stewards of their assets--in a sense 
the taxpayer saw their research walk out the door without adequate 
compensation for that massive taxpayer investment.
  There are other examples of NIH research leading to block buster 
drugs.
  One of those drugs found using NIH research and with more than $1 
billion in sales is Prozac. The basic research in the development of 
Prozac was performed in the 1950s and 1960s by external researchers 
funded by NIH and researchers in NIH labs. Eli Lilly and Company 
developed Prozac based on this research.
  In 1998, Prozac was third on the list of the top 200 brand-name 
prescription drugs in terms of units sold. Other drugs that relied on 
publicly-funded research were also on that list including Imitrex, 
Mevacor, and Zovirax.
  Cisplatin is an anti-cancer drug discovered by a biophysicist at 
Michigan State University. National Cancer Institute scientists 
completed the pharmacology, toxicology, formulation,

[[Page 12403]]

production and clinical trials. Michigan State University then licensed 
its patent to Bristol-Myers Squibb and the drug is used today to treat 
several types of cancer.
  All of my colleagues have met with constituents suffering from 
diseases that we are so close to finding cures for. Diabetes and 
Parkinson's are just two areas that come to mind.
  In this day of biomedical breakthroughs, it is important that the 
taxpayer not only see results of the research, but share in the gain 
that the multi-national drug companies also receive.
  I have come to the floor, I think, now on more than 30 occasions to 
focus on the need for bipartisanship on this issue. Senator Daschle, in 
my view, has done yeoman's work, trying to bring people together. I 
hope we can, as we are seeking to do in this amendment, address these 
issues in a bipartisan fashion and particularly look to those areas 
with respect to prescription medicine that are going to be key for the 
future.
  We know that absolutely vital to the health of this country is the 
research done at the National Institutes of Health. We have had many 
supporters in this body who have championed the cause of additional 
funding for NIH. I am especially appreciative of the work done by 
Senator Mack, for example, Senator Harkin, and Senator Specter. They 
have been a bipartisan juggernaut, working for additional funding for 
research at the National Institutes of Health.
  We also ought to recognize that when blockbuster drugs get to market 
as a result of that taxpayer-funded research, we have responsibilities 
to the taxpayers. We are stewards of their funds. It does not pass the 
smell test at a townhall meeting to say that if the taxpayers spend 
vast sums for federally funded research and a company then makes huge 
profits in the private sector, the taxpayers get no return on that 
investment.
  What we are making clear in this amendment is that Federal research 
should not be let go cheaply. It is important that taxpayers have a 
right to receive reimbursement when a blockbuster drug gets to market 
largely with their funds.
  What this does is ensure, in a timely way, that the National 
Institutes of Health get to the Senate and the relevant committees a 
specific proposal to ensure, as Congressman Bill Thomas, chairman of 
the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health, said recently:

       Where taxpayers' money is being spent, there ought to be a 
     return on that investment.

  That is what this amendment does. Because of the Government's 
increased role in pharmaceutical development, with so many of the 
breakthrough drugs, particularly the cancer drugs, coming about because 
the taxpayer has paid for medically significant research, this 
amendment, in my view, addresses one of the important issues in the 
health care arena.
  I want to wrap up by expressing my appreciation to Senator Specter 
and Senator Harkin. If this amendment is adopted, I believe early next 
year we will have a specific game plan, a roadmap to ensure that 
taxpayers' interests are protected when they have done the heavy 
lifting in pharmaceutical development while, at the same time, having 
been fair to the entrepreneurs and pharmaceutical firms and others that 
work in this area.
  I hope this amendment will be accepted by the majority and the 
minority.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Oregon for 
this amendment. I think it is a good amendment and it puts the finger 
on a source of potential funding which would be fair and just. The 
National Institutes of Health have engaged in extraordinary research 
and have had phenomenal results. To the extent that research has 
resulted in profits to private companies, it is a fair request; it is 
fair to ask that the Federal Government share in those proceeds.
  During the course of the past several years, our subcommittee has 
taken the lead on substantially increasing the funding for the National 
Institutes of Health. Four years ago, we raised the funding by almost 
$1 billion; 3 years ago, by $2 billion; last year, by $2.2 billion; and 
this year, $2.7 billion. We seek to bring the total funding for the 
National Institutes of Health to $20.5 billion.
  Where we can find that private industry has benefited and made a 
profit, a fair return ought to be given to the NIH. It is preeminently 
reasonable to have that sort of provision in law, to ask the Director 
of the National Institutes of Health to make that report to the 
appropriate committees.
  We are also considering the funding in terms of how much is spent for 
administrative costs. In the subcommittee, we are going to be directing 
inquiries to the recipients of NIH funds as to how much is being 
allocated for overhead and administrative costs. This is an effort to 
increase the moneys which may be available for research.
  Phenomenal results have been achieved on a variety of ailments. 
Parkinson's is now perhaps as close to 5 years from being solved. There 
have been significant advances on Alzheimer's and heart disease. I 
printed the whole list in the Record during my opening statement.
  I am glad to accept the amendment offered by the distinguished 
Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. REID. There is no objection on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3632, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 3632), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 3633

(Purpose: To increase funding for Impact Aid basic support payments and 
                         to provide an offset)

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
laid aside. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], for himself, Mr. 
     Murkowski, and Mr. Sessions, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3633.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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 III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. IMPACT AID.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act--
       (1) the total amount appropriated under this title to carry 
     out title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 shall be $1,108,200,000;
       (2) the total amount appropriated under this title for 
     basic support payments under section 8003(b) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 shall be 
     $896,200,000; and
       (3) amounts made available for the administrative and 
     related expenses of the Departments of Labor, Health and 
     Human Services, and Education shall be further reduced on a 
     pro rata basis by $78,200,000.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this amendment addresses a subject with 
which we are all very familiar. In the early fifties, we put together a 
very good and effective Federal program to reimburse the States for 
revenue that was lost because of Federal activities--whether it was a 
military base or Indian reservation--anytime those properties were 
taken off the tax rolls. Yet that particular type of activity brought 
in additional students. It was set up to reimburse the local school 
districts.
  It is called impact aid. It is one of the oldest Federal education 
programs dating back to the fifties. The rationale for compensation is 
Federal activity deprives local school districts of the ability to 
collect sufficient property and sales tax, even though the

[[Page 12404]]

school district is obligated to provide free public education.
  Since the early eighties, impact aid has not been fully funded 
despite the obligation of the Federal Government to make local school 
districts whole. We introduced some time ago a resolution that would do 
that very thing. It has the support of quite a number of Members of the 
Senate. In fact, I have a letter signed by a large number of Senators. 
I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         United States Senate,

                                      Washington, DC, May 9, 2000.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     Chairman, Labor, HHS, Education, and Related Agencies 
         Subcommittee.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Ranking Member, Labor, HHS, Education and Related Agencies 
         Subcommittee.
       Dear Senators Specter and Harkin: We recognize and 
     appreciate the support you have shown in the past for the 
     Impact Aid program. As you know, this vital funding source 
     for local school districts began experiencing a shortfall in 
     the early 1980's due to budget constraints. As a result, 
     critical needs have been and continue to be unmet.
       We also recognize that although the budget is in balance 
     and there are now surpluses as opposed to deficits, funds are 
     not unlimited. However, we would remind you that the Impact 
     Aid program is an obligation of the Federal Government to 
     make local school districts whole for federal activities 
     which preclude them from collecting the necessary revenues to 
     adequately fund their schools. Thus, we would like to propose 
     annual increases in Section 8003(b) of the Impact Aid program 
     of 12% until it is fully funded in FY 2004. Specifically, we 
     would propose funding the program at 64% in FY 2001, 76% in 
     FY 2002; 88% in FY 2003; and 100% in FY 2004.
       A 12% increase in Section 8003(b) of the Impact Aid program 
     in FY 2001, which constitutes the largest portion of Impact 
     Aid dollars, would not only provide needed dollars to our 
     local school districts, but would send a strong signal that 
     the Federal Government is committed to fully funding this 
     important education program. In some cases, every one dollar 
     of Federal Impact Aid frees up one local dollar to purchase 
     buses, do building maintenance or hire additional staff to 
     lower pupil teacher ratios. However, there are school 
     districts that do not have the ability to make up the Impact 
     Aid deficit because either they cannot afford it or there are 
     restrictions on the local taxing authority which prevent them 
     from increasing sales or property taxes to compensate for the 
     lack of federal contribution. In these cases, needed 
     infrastructure repairs, replacement of buses and textbooks or 
     additional personnel just do not happen because there is no 
     money. Continued under funding of this program puts a 
     unreasonable and unfair burden on our schools. This inequity 
     must be resolved.
       We believe a phased-in full funding schedule is not only 
     doable but is fiscally responsible. Thus, we would 
     respectfully ask that you fund Section 8003(b) of the Impact 
     Air program at a minimum of 64%. Listed below, are proposed 
     funding levels for those sections of the Impact Aid program 
     that are of most concern to our states.

                              [In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    FY 2000    Proposed
                                                    actual      FY 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Support--8003(b)..........................      $737.2      $896.2
Federal prop--8002..............................        32.0        35.0
Special Ed--8003(d).............................        50.0        53.0
Construction--8007..............................        10.1        10.1
Heavily Impacted--8007(f).......................        72.2        82.0
Facilities Maint--8008..........................         5.0         5.0
                                                 -----------------------
    Totals......................................       906.5    \1\ 1.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Billion.

       Thank you.
           Sincerely.
         Jim Inhofe; George V. Voinovich; Dick Lugar; Jeff 
           Sessions; Wayne Allard; Herb Kohl; Paul Wellstone; John 
           Edwards; Olympia Snowe; Mike DeWine; Ben Nighthorse 
           Campbell; Fred Thompson; Rod Grams; Peter G. 
           Fitzgerald; Jesse Helms; Daniel P. Moynihan; Thad 
           Cochran; Susan Collins.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, my language would actually fully fund 
impact aid to all school districts in the country by fiscal year 2004. 
The effect it would have this year would be approximately $78.2 
million. In discussing this with both the majority and the minority, I 
realized the offset we are suggesting; that is, to take it out of 
administrative overhead, is something that has already been done. I 
recognize that once they get to conference, they are going to have to 
shuffle these things around and see what actually can be done.
  While I recognize that in the House and Senate bills there is an 
increase in impact aid, it does not have anything in the future that 
will reach full funding. I have a list here. Not one of the 50 States 
is 100 percent. Yet these are funds taken from the States due to 
Federal activities.
  What I would like, perhaps with the understanding and the agreement 
of the chairman of the committee and the ranking member, is to go ahead 
and adopt this amendment which says, in the 4-year period, impact aid 
will be fully funded; however, there is to be an understanding it has 
to go into conference along with some other requests to see what 
actually can be worked out.
  I want to have a colloquy with the chairman of the committee so we 
can have this understanding. The State of Pennsylvania is actually at 
11 percent of being fully funded, which is not nearly as well as 
Oklahoma, which is at 37 percent. This is something that is an equity 
issue. It is not a distinction of 50 percent or 60 percent of full 
impact aid funding or 10 percent. It is an equity issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I commend my distinguished colleague from 
Oklahoma for offering this amendment because there is no doubt that the 
appropriations for impact aid are very important. As a basic matter of 
fairness to the States, this obligation ought to be undertaken by the 
Federal Government. It is candidly like many obligations the Federal 
Government ought to undertake which the Federal Government has not 
undertaken. One of the most notable examples is special education.
  I have discussed this matter with my colleague from Oklahoma and 
think it worth putting into the Record the advances which the 
subcommittee, and now the full committee, have made on this important 
subject.
  Last year, the total impact aid was $906.4 million. The request by 
the administration, according to information provided to me, is only 
$770 million. The House of Representatives in its bill has allocated 
$985 million. So the Senate is some $45 million higher now than is the 
House of Representatives.
  I do recognize, as I said privately to the Senator from Oklahoma, the 
importance of this account and the desirability of increasing the 
funding.
  We are prepared to accept the amendment on the understanding, as I 
discussed privately with Senator Inhofe and now state publicly for the 
record, that the funding comes out of administrative costs, and that is 
an item which has already been hit very hard.
  A few moments ago, when the Senator from Nevada offered an amendment 
to add $10 million for NIOSH, we accepted the amendment, stating 
candidly, openly, that we would do our best in conference. That is the 
same thing I have told the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma: That we 
recognize the importance, the validity of the purpose, and we will do 
our best, but we are going to have to work out a great many complicated 
matters. On that state of the record, we are prepared to accept the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. While I support improving impact aid around the country, 
we are getting to the point where we accepted a $10 million cut in 
administrative costs, and we accepted some more before that, did we 
not?
  Mr. SPECTER. We did.
  Mr. HARKIN. Now we are going to accept $78 million in administrative 
costs, which we know we can't do?
  I know I have some people on this side of the aisle who want to come 
over and offer amendments that will cut administrative costs.
  I just ask my friend, the chairman, are we just going to accept them 
then? Are we going to accept every amendment that comes over that cuts 
administrative costs to increase education or whatever it might be? If 
we are going to do that, then I have no objection to the amendment of 
the Senator from Oklahoma. But if we are going to pick and choose, 
well, then, maybe we ought to think about which amendments and how we 
are going to balance these off between maybe amendments on that side 
and amendments on this side.

[[Page 12405]]

  Are we going to have a $100 million cutoff or a $150 million cutoff 
on administrative costs and say we will take the first ones out of the 
block up to that point? Where do we draw the line?
  We are going to have Senators on this side of the aisle come over 
here and offer amendments of the same magnitude, and they are going to 
take it out of administrative costs. I ask, will we just accept them?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may respond to my distinguished 
comanager, my view is, we will take a look at each one of them on an 
individual basis. We will assess the validity of the items, and we will 
accept them if they are valid. I do not know exactly what the cutoff 
figure is. I discussed candidly with the Senator from Oklahoma the 
difficulties of looking at $78 million.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is a big item.
  Mr. SPECTER. It is a very big item. The Senator from Oklahoma knows 
we will do our best.
  Mr. INHOFE. Let me reclaim the floor, if I may, and respond to the 
Senator from Iowa.
  For the first 30 years of this program, it was fully funded. I do not 
believe the Senator was in the Chamber when I first started talking 
about it. This is a reimbursement back to the States of money they have 
been deprived of as a result of Federal activity. That is a distinction 
between this and other programs.
  For the Senator's State of Iowa, for example, you are getting 20 
percent of what you would get if it were fully funded. It is an equity 
issue. Certainly, I have the understanding from the chairman--and I 
talked to the Senator from Nevada--and I recognize that when this gets 
into conference, there is going to be a problem weaving and sorting. 
But I cannot imagine any other program that would have a higher 
priority than this, to ultimately say it is our intent to get this 
fully funded back to where it was prior to the 1980s.
  For that reason, I believe it has merit above some of the other 
programs that are coming. This is a reimbursement we agreed to back in 
the 1950s.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Inhofe amendment No. 3633.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Where is 
the McCain amendment in the order of succession?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has been temporarily laid aside.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3633, As Modified

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I send my amendment back to the desk as 
modified and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. IMPACT AID.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act--
       (1) the total amount appropriated under this title to carry 
     out title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 shall be $1,065,000,000;
       (2) the total amount appropriated under this title for 
     basic support payments under section 8003(b) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 shall be 
     $853,000,000; and
       (3) amounts made available for the administrative and 
     related expenses of the Departments of Labor, Health and 
     Human Services, and Education shall be further reduced on a 
     pro rata basis by $78,200,000.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, even though I believe we need to have a 
specific time in the future when Impact Aid is fully funded, I 
recognize there will have to be some kind of discipline in the number 
of amendments that are coming up to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. 
For that reason, I have modified the amount down so that in the first 
year it will be $35 million as opposed to $78.2 million. I believe this 
has been agreed to on both sides.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment offered by my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, to 
increase funds for the Impact Aid program. I have been a long time 
supporter of this vital program.
  The Impact Aid program helps compensate states, like Utah, which are 
adversely affected by a federal presence. This program allocates funds 
to school districts where there are substantial concentrations of 
children whose parents both live and work on federally connected 
property and kids who parents either live or work on federally 
connected property. This is an extremely important program in Utah, 
especially in the southern part of my state.
  Some may ask why this program is needed. The answer is simple. When 
the federal government owns or controls property, that property is lost 
to the tax base of state and local governments. The Impact Aid program 
was established for the purpose of compensating school districts for 
the tax revenue they lose given a federal presence.
  I note with dismay and frustration that the Clinton Administration 
routinely eliminates portions of the Impact Aid program in its annual 
budget recommendations. Fortunately, however, this important program 
has been maintained and consistently funded. For that, I want to 
recognize the assistance of Senator Specter, Senator Stevens, and the 
other members of the Appropriations Committee. Congress has kept this 
program viable.
  Impact Aid is a vital program for Utah for many reasons. Utah needs 
every dollar it can get for our schools. Utah is a ``worst case 
scenario'' when it comes to the issue of school finance. We have the 
largest percentage of school age population in the country and the 
lowest percentage of working age adults. Because of this we have the 
lowest per-pupil expenditure in the country, despite the fact that our 
state allocates an extraordinary percentage of its tax revenue to 
education. Moreover, the adverse impact of a low per-pupil expenditure 
is felt over and over again because per pupil expenditure has become a 
factor in the funding formulas for a number of federal education 
programs.
  To make matters worse, about 70 percent of Utah's land is federally 
connected. We have military bases, parks, forests, wilderness, BLM 
land, reservations, and, of course, a relatively new 1.7 million acre 
national monument.
  If the Federal Government is going to own or control this much land 
in Utah, we need a fully funded Impact Aid program to offset the tax 
revenue losses to our schools. The federal government cannot improve 
education if they give with one hand and take away with the other. That 
is what the Clinton administration seems to be doing--advocating 
education funds only for those initiatives it has proposed, but 
financially starving federal education programs that send money 
directly to Utah school districts.
  I am pleased to join my colleagues in support of the Impact Aid 
program. I urge senators to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3633, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 3633), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INHOFE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3610

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

[[Page 12406]]


  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I will speak 
on my amendment and the time of the vote will be decided by the 
managers of the bill. I will speak on my amendment at this time and 
then probably will not need additional time, depending on the desires 
of the managers of the bill.
  The purpose of this amendment is to protect America's children from 
exposure to obscene material, child pornography, or other material 
deemed inappropriate for minors while accessing the Internet from a 
school or library receiving federal Universal Service assistance by 
requiring such schools and libraries to deploy blocking or filtering 
technology on computers used by minors, and to block general access to 
obscene material, and child pornography on all computers. The amendment 
further requires that schools and libraries block child pornography on 
all computers.
  The last few years have seen a dramatic expansion in Internet 
connections. The Internet connects more than 29 million host computers 
in more than 250 countries. Currently, the Internet is growing at a 
rate of approximately 40 percent to 50 percent annually. Some estimates 
of the number of U.S. Internet users are as high as 62 million.
  Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 added a new subsidy 
to the traditional Universal Service program, commonly referred to as 
the Schools and Libraries Discount, or e-rate. As implemented by the 
FCC, the e-rate is a $2.25 billion annual subsidy aimed at connecting 
schools and libraries to the Internet. This subsidy is funded through 
higher phone bills to customers.
  There are approximately 86,000 public schools in the United States. 
In the first program year of the e-rate, 68,220 public schools 
participated in the program. That is approximately 68 percent of all 
public schools. Participation increased by 15 percent in the second 
year, from July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000, with 78,722 public schools 
listed on funded applications. That is approximately 82 percent of all 
public schools. Simply put, the e-rate program helped connect one 
million classrooms to the Internet. Private school participation in the 
program has resulted in more than 80,000 additional American classrooms 
wired to the Internet. Statistics on libraries participating in the 
program mirror these dramatic numbers.
  I lay out these statistics because they represent both the tremendous 
promise and the exponential danger that wiring America's children to 
the Internet poses. Certainly, the Internet represents previously 
unimaginable education and information opportunities for our Nation's 
school children. However, there are also some very real risks. 
Pornography, including obscene material, child pornography, and 
indecent material is widely available on the Internet. This material 
may be accessed directly, or may turn up as the product of a general 
Internet search. Seemingly innocuous keyword searches like ``Barbie 
doll,'' ``playground,'' ``boy'' and ``girl'' can turn up some of the 
most offensive and shocking pornography imaginable. Though, due to the 
amorphous nature of the Internet, it is difficult to precisely 
establish the amount of pornography available on the Internet. 
According to US News & World Report, there are ``at least 40,000 sex-
oriented sites on the Web.'' This number does not include Usenet 
newsgroups, and pornographic spam.
  Many who oppose efforts to protect children from exposure to 
pornography over the Internet dismiss such efforts as moralizing, as if 
it isn't enough to argue for the protection of innocence. Mr. 
President, I am content to make my stand on the vital importance of 
sheltering the purity of our children's moral innocence. However, the 
need to protect our children exceeds the basic moral argument. Natural 
sexual development occurs gradually, throughout childhood. Exposure of 
children to pornography distorts this natural development. As Dr. Mary 
Anne Layden, Director of Education at the University of Pennsylvania 
School of Cognitive Learning testified before the Commerce Committee, 
children's exposure to pornography accelerates and warps normal sexual 
development by shaping sexual perspective through exposure to sexual 
information and imagery. Dr. Layden stated: ``The result is a set of 
distorted beliefs about human sexuality. These shared distorted beliefs 
include: pathological behavior is normal, is common, hurts no one, and 
is socially acceptable, the female body is for male entertainment, sex 
is not about intimacy and sex is the basis of self-esteem.''
  Alarmingly, the threat to children posed by unrestricted Internet 
access is not limited to exposure to simple pornography. As we have 
seen through an increasing flurry of shocking media reports, the 
Internet has become the tool of choice for pedophiles who utilize the 
Internet to lure and seduce children into illegal and abusive sexual 
activity. Pedophiles are using this technology to trade in child 
pornography, and to lure and seduce our children. In many cases, such 
activity is the product of individuals, taking advantage of the 
anonymity provided by the Internet to stalk children through chat-
rooms, and by e-mail. However, an increasingly disturbing trend is that 
of highly organized, and technologically sophisticated groups of 
pedophiles who utilize advanced technology to trade in child 
pornography, and to sexually exploit and abuse children.
  In 1996, the country was shocked by a tragic story of the sexual 
exploitation of a young child in California. The San Francisco 
Chronicle reported an international ring of pedophiles operating 
through an on-line chat room known as the ``Orchid Club.'' Sadly, this 
case was an ominous precursor of underscoring both the technological 
sophistication of on-line predators, and the unique challenge of 
protecting children in an environment of a global communications 
medium. The Chronicle reported that: ``The case appears to be the first 
incident where pornography on the Internet has been linked to an 
incident of child molestation that was transmitted on-line . . . 
Prosecutors said members produced and traded child pornography 
involving victims as young as five years old, swapped stories of having 
sex with minors and in one instance chatted online while two suspects 
molested a 10-year-old girl.'' Sixteen men were indicted, including 
individuals from across the United States, Australia, Canada, and 
Finland.
  In 1998, the U.S Customs Service, in coordination with law 
enforcement officials from 13 other countries, conducted a raid on the 
``Wonderland Club.'' The price of membership in the Wonderland Club was 
high. In order to ``join'' the Wonderland Club of low-lifes, 
prospective members had to provide 10,000 images of child pornography, 
which were then digitally cross-referenced against the club's data base 
of more than 500,000 images of children to ensure their originality. 
According to Time Magazine:

       The images depict everything from sexual abuse to actual 
     rape of children--some as young as 18 months old. ``Some club 
     members in the U.S., Canada, Europe and Australia . . . owned 
     production facilities and transmitted live child-sex shows 
     over the Web. Club members directed the sex acts by sending 
     instruction to the producers via Wondernet chat rooms. ``They 
     had standards,'' said a law enforcement official involved in 
     the case. ``The only thing they banned was snuff pictures, 
     the actual killing of somebody.''

  As we wire America's children to the Internet, we are inviting these 
low lifes to prey upon our children in every classroom and library in 
America.
  If this isn't enough, the Internet has now become the tool of choice 
for disseminating information and propaganda promoting racism, anti-
Semitism, extremism, and how-to manuals on everything from drugs to 
bombs.
  Rapid Internet growth has provided an opportunity for those promoting 
hate to reach a much wider and broader audience. Children are uniquely 
susceptible to these messages of hate, and make no mistake about it, 
they are the targets of these messages. Through Internet access, our 
schools and libraries, places where we intend our children to develop 
their social skills, tolerance, where they should be learning to 
appreciate the wonder and beauty of diversity, instead they can be 
exposed to extremely hateful and dangerous information, and material 
they may otherwise go through their entire lives

[[Page 12407]]

without being exposed to. According to the New York Times: ``They (hate 
groups) peddle hatred to children, with brightly colored Web pages 
featuring a coloring book of white supremacist symbols and a crossword 
puzzle full of racist clues.''
  Media propaganda has always been used as a means for spreading the 
toxic message of hate. Magazines, pamphlets, movies, music and other 
means have been their traditional tools for those seeking to feed the 
darker side of our human nature. However, the Internet has changed the 
rules and the nature of this sinister game. With the growth of the 
World Wide Web, these evil groups are able to deliver a multimedia hate 
message through every computer, and into the minds of every child, in 
every classroom, and library in America. Images of burning crosses, 
Neo-Nazi propaganda, every imaginable message of division and hatred 
are just one click away from our children. The Seattle Post-
Intelligencer reported in an article entitled ``Nazism on the 
Internet'':

       Many sites operated by neo-nazis, skinhead, Ku Klux Klan 
     members and followers of radical religious sects are growing 
     more sophisticated, offering inviting Web environments that 
     are designed to be attractive to children and young adults.

  The software filtering industry estimates that about 180 new hate or 
discrimination pages, 2,500 to 7,500 adult sites, 400 sites dedicated 
to violence, 1,250 dedicated to weapons, and 50 are murder-suicide 
sites are added to the Web every week.
  Manuals on bomb-making, weapons purchases, drug making and 
purchasing, are widespread on the Internet. Simple word searches using 
``marijuana,'' enables kids to access Web sites instructing them on how 
to cultivate, buy, and consume drugs. During the Commerce Committee 
hearing on my bill, the Children's Internet Protection Act, a 
representative of the BATF stated: ``The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms recently ran a simple Internet query of pipe bomb, using 
several commonly used search engines. This query produced nearly three 
million ``hits'' of Web sites containing information on pipe bombs.'' 
Literature such as the ``Terrorist's Handbook'' is easily available on-
line, and provides readers with instruction on everything from how to 
build guns and bombs, to lists of suppliers for the chemicals, and 
other ingredients necessary to construct such devices. Web sites such 
as (www.overthrow.comldrugznbombz.html) offers the ``School Stopper's 
Textbook,'' touted as ``A Guide to Disruptive Revolutionary Tactics for 
High-Schoolers.''
  There are now approximately ninety different blocking, or filtering 
software solutions that parents and educators may choose from to 
address just about every different value or need relating to child 
safety on the Internet.
  Due to the sheer size of the Internet, and the place at which it 
changes, some have argued that it is impossible to keep blocking lists 
current and comprehensive. Others have argued filtering systems are too 
arbitrary, that filtering by keyword may result in blocking both 
harmful sites, as well as useful sites. There was a time when there was 
some legitimacy to these claims. However, that time has passed.
  According to Peter Nickerson, CEO of Net Nanny Software:

       A general perception exists that Internet filtering is 
     seriously flawed and in many situations unusable. It is also 
     perceived that schools and libraries don't want filtering. 
     These notions are naive and based largely on problems 
     associated with earlier versions of client-based software 
     that are admittedly crude and ineffective. Though some poor 
     filtering products still exist, filtering has gone through an 
     extensive evolution and is not only good at protecting 
     children but also well-received and in high demand.

  When a school or library accepts federal dollars through the 
Universal Service fund, they become a partner with the federal 
government in pursuing the compelling interest of protecting children. 
The Supreme Court has made it clear that schools have the authority to 
remove inappropriate books from school libraries. The Internet is 
simply another method for making information available in a school or 
library. It is no more than a technological extension of the book 
stack. As such, the same principles affirmed by the Court apply to 
restricting children's access to material, over the Internet, in a 
school.
  At its core, this amendment to a spending bill, amending 254(h) of 
the Communications Act of 1934 to require, as a contingency for receipt 
of a federal subsidy, certain measures to restrict children's access to 
child pornography, obscene material, and other harmful material via 
school and library computers, and that all users be restricted from 
accessing child pornography. Local officials are granted the authority 
to determine what technology is used to achieve this end, and policies 
for determining how such technology is used. There is ample precedent 
for conditioning receipt of federal assistance.
  Libraries place many restrictions on what patrons may do while on the 
premises. The simplest example of this are the strict rules implemented 
by libraries to maintain a quiet atmosphere for reading and study. 
Patrons are not permitted to give speeches, make public statements, 
sing, speak loudly, etc. Further, it is the exclusive authority of the 
library to make affirmative decisions regarding what books, magazines, 
or other material is placed on library shelves, or otherwise made 
available to patrons. According to Jay Sekulow, of the American Center 
for Law and Justice:

       Libraries impose many restrictions on the use of their 
     systems which demonstrate that the library is not available 
     to the general public. Additionally, an open forum by 
     government designation becomes, `open' because it allows the 
     general public into its facility for First Amendment 
     activities. Like in the National Endowment for the Arts v. 
     Finley, decision, the government purchase of books (like 
     buying art) does not create a public forum.

  Mr. President, currently, roughly 30 percent of U.S. households are 
wired to the Internet, with some smaller number of those households 
wired with children in the home. With full implementation of the E-rate 
program, there will be an explosion of children going on-line. This is 
an unprecedented egalitarian opportunity for access to educational and 
informational resources by America's children. Equally, this reality 
represents an unprecedented risk to the safety and innocence of our 
nation's most precious resources, the sanctity of childhood.
  The first line of defense is parents. Parents must be involved in 
their children's lives. They must make it a point to know what their 
kids are doing on-line, the games they are playing, the web sites and 
chat rooms they are visiting, whom they are talking to.
  But parents need help. Currently, for most children, their Internet 
activities will occur outside the home. Parents, taxpayers, deserve to 
have a realistic faith that, when they entrust their children to our 
nation's schools and libraries, that this trust will not betrayed.
  Mr. President, Dr. Carl Jung, in 1913, spoke of the importance of 
childhood in shaping values, and the implications for future 
generations. Jung said: ``The little world of childhood with its 
familiar surroundings is a model of the greater world. The more 
intensively the family has stamped its character upon the child, the 
more it will tend to feel and see its earlier miniature world again in 
the bigger world of adulthood.''
  As I look upon the landscape of America today, of our children, 
growing up in a culture of darkness, of a mass media that floods their 
innocent minds with images of gratuitous sex and senseless violence, as 
I contemplate the likes of predators who stalk our children through 
this new technology, of pornographers and hate mongers who seek to 
invade the sanctity of the innocence of childhood to stamp their dark 
values on our children, I wonder what the future world of adulthood 
will look like if we do not act swiftly and decisively to build an 
inviolable wall around our precious children.
  This bill was passed last year by voice vote. I hope we can dispense 
with it, and I also hope Members of this body understand that what is 
happening in schools and libraries all over America, in many cases, is 
an unacceptable situation.

[[Page 12408]]

  We are not trying to impose any standards from the Federal Government 
or from this body. We are asking the schools and libraries to impose 
standards according to community standards, according to what the local 
library board and school board thinks is appropriate, just as those 
decisions are made about printed material in schools and libraries. I 
think this is an important issue. The testimony before the Commerce 
Committee was alarming and very disturbing.
  Obviously, we do not intend to invade the sanctity of the home nor 
tell parents what they should and should not do regarding their 
children. But I believe when taxpayer dollars are involved, the Federal 
Government then has a role to play.
  As a proud conservative, I hope we will pass this legislation 
quickly, and that it will be enacted into law. The sooner the better.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I renew my request for our colleagues who 
have amendments to offer them. I was informed about an hour ago that 
one of our colleagues was on his way to offer an amendment. We are very 
anxious to have Senators come to the floor.
  In the absence of any Senator who seeks recognition, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania and 
the Senator from Iowa whether or not I should lay down my amendment, 
and then set it aside when other Members come out. I am pleased to come 
into play here, if that would help.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, we would be 
delighted.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague for that response.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3631

 (Purpose: To increase funding for part A of title I of the Elementary 
                  and Secondary Education Act of 1965)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone), for himself, 
     Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Reed of Rhode 
     Island, proposes an amendment numbered 3631.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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 III, insert the following:

     SEC.   . PART A OF TITLE I.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the total 
     amount appropriated under this Act to carry out part A of 
     title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     shall be $10,000,000,000.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Senator about what 
the amendment relates?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment increases the 
appropriations of title I, part A, to $10 billion. Actually, the 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee unanimously voted to 
authorize this to the $15 billion level. I think right now we are at 
$8.36 billion. This is an amendment to get us at least part way there.
  I come to the floor today to speak on the agreement that has been 
reached regarding some of the spending cuts in the Labor-HHS 
Appropriations bill. It is my understanding that Senator Stevens has 
agreed to drop certain provisions of this bill in conference; in 
particular, I understand that the 1.9 billion dollar S-CHIP cut, the 
240 million dollar TANF cut, the 50 million dollar welfare-to-work 
performance bonus, and the 1.1 billion dollar cut to the Social Service 
Block Grant (SSBG) will all now be restored in conference.
  I would like to thank my colleagues, particularly Senator Stevens, 
Senator Roth, and Senator Graham, for ensuring that the funding for 
these critical programs is restored. However, I also feel that it is 
important to stand up today and remind all of my colleagues that it 
never should have come to this--none of these programs should have ever 
seen their funding streams reduced in the first place. In particular, 
the proposed 1.1 billion dollar cut to the SSBG, a cut that would have 
reduced the block grant to just 600,000 dollars, should never have made 
it into this bill.
  I have to say how disappointed I was to learn that the FY 2001 Labor-
HHS Appropriations bill contained such enormous funding cuts to the 
Social Services Block Grant, cuts of more than 1 billion dollars. And 
while I find it deeply disturbing that such cuts would be proposed 
under any circumstances, I find it even more deeply disturbing that 
these cuts were proposed as part of the FY 2001 Labor-HHS 
Appropriations since we had this exact debate last year. In the FY 2000 
Labor-HHS Appropriations, the SSBG faced cuts of just over 1 billion 
dollars. At that time, Senator Graham of Florida and I offered an 
amendment to restore SSBG funding, and in my mind, the question was 
settled. When asked, ``Should we reduce funding to the SSBG?'' the 
overwhelming response was, no, absolutely not. At that time, fifty-
seven Senators said that the services their states provide using SSBG 
funds--services like Meals on Wheels, congregate dining, assisted 
living for the elderly and the disabled, foster care services, and 
child care services, to name only a few--are important to the people in 
their communities and that they did not want to see these funds cut.
  I ask you, why then did the SSBG face such enormous cuts again this 
year? This program is simply too important, and it is critical that we 
set a new standard by which the SSBG is always funded first, not last, 
never as an afterthought, never as the result of intensive last-minute 
lobbying and negotiation, and by which the SSBG is always funded to the 
full statutory amount.
  As many of my colleagues already know, the SSBG is a flexible funding 
stream that states use to pay for a wide variety of services and 
programs for many of their most vulnerable citizens. The states have a 
tremendous amount of leeway in how they use their SSBG funds, and this 
is one funding stream they are able to use to try to develop innovative 
and creative programs to help the poor and needy. SSBG funds can be 
spent to serve people with incomes up to 200 percent of the federal 
poverty level, and the money need only be used to help people achieve 
and maintain economic self-support and self-sufficiency, and to 
prevent, reduce, or eliminate dependency. SSBG funds may 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 
very old 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 (20) of the Social Security Act specifies that 1.7 billion 
dollars is to be provided to the States through the SSBG for FY 2001. 
However, in spite of its status as a mandatory program, the SSBG has 
been raided repeatedly over the years to fund other priorities. 
Beginning in 1996, as part of the welfare ``reform'' law, the SSBG was 
cut by 15 percent, from 2.8 billion dollars to 2.38 billion dollars, 
for fiscal years 1997 through 2002, after which point its funding was 
supposed to go back to 2.8 billion dollars. The states reluctantly 
accepted these cuts, and only after they obtained a commitment

[[Page 12409]]

from Congress that we would provide stable funding for the block grant 
in the future.
  As it turns out, the lifespan on that particular Congressional 
commitment was only two years, because by 1998, we were back to raid 
the SSBG again when the highway bill cut funding for the block grant 
further, to 1.7 billion dollars for fiscal year 2001 and each year 
after that. And now here we are again, with our hand in the cookie jar, 
trying to raid the SSBG one more time. The FY 2001 Senate Labor-HHS 
Appropriations bill that came out of committee proposed slashing 
funding for this block grant yet again, this time to only 600 million 
dollars, a cut of more than one billion dollars. If this proposed cut 
were enacted, funding for the SSBG will be almost 80 percent lower in 
2001 than it was in 1995. Mr. President, I feel certain that by no 
stretch of anyone's imagination does an 80 percent cut qualify as the 
stable funding we promised the states in 1996.
  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 administering 
social programs.'' Couple this with the nearly 2 billion dollars the 
Labor-HHS Appropriations bill proposed cutting from S-CHIP, another 
block grant critical to the states' ability to provide services for 
vulnerable citizens, and I think the states could take only one message 
away from this bill as it came to the Senate floor: Don't make long-
term investments in these social service programs, because you simply 
can't count on the federal government to keep up their end of the 
bargain.
  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 proposed slashing these funds, we sent a clear, 
and I believe extremely damaging, message to the states. I think we 
told 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 were to 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.
  Each year, SSBG funds are used by the states to provide critical 
support services to millions of vulnerable people. In 1998, for 
example, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 
roughly 10 percent of SSBG funds were spent on programs that provided 
child care for low- and moderate-income families, while another 18 
percent of SSBG funds were spent on services to protect children from 
abuse and to provide foster care to children.
  Other SSBG funds were used to provide services to low- and moderate-
income elderly, truly some of our most vulnerable community members. 
Services provided to this population through the SSBG include home-
based care and assisted living services intended to help many elderly 
people stay out of institutions, so that they can continue to live with 
dignity in their own homes, where they feel safe and comfortable. In 
many cases, the costs the federal government would incur if SSBG funded 
services were withdrawn and these individuals forced into nursing homes 
instead would far exceed the savings generated by slashing this 
important block grant. In some states, SSBG funds are also used to pay 
for protective services to prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of 
vulnerable seniors. No other program provides significant funding for 
those services.
  Additionally, the SSBG helps to fund support services for nearly half 
a million people with mental retardation and other physical and mental 
disabilities. The services provided with SSBG funds include 
transportation assistance, adult day care programs, early intervention, 
crisis intervention, respite care, and employment and independent 
living services. Again, these are services that help keep vulnerable 
people in their own homes and out of costly institutionalized settings, 
allowing them to live their lives with dignity and respect.
  In my own state of Minnesota, SSBG funds are used to provide an 
enormous range of important services. For example, some counties use 
SSBG to augment child care for low-income single women and families. 
Yet even with these additional funds, there are currently huge waiting 
lists for subsidized day care in most counties. If we further cut SSBG 
funds, these county level programs are going to have to reduce or 
eliminate services that they provide. And when a single mom who's just 
gotten off welfare and is trying to make ends meet while she starts 
working at her new job, when she 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 than will be saved by reducing the SSBG.
  When speaking with people in Minnesota about how they use their SSBG 
funds, I learned that SSBG money is also sometimes 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're not so isolated in their home (a ride to the senior center, 
perhaps). There's 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. Basically, the way it's been explained to me, Minnesota 
counties typically rely 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.
  When I asked people in Minnesota to explain to me exactly what kinds 
of services they provide with SSBG funds, I was amazed by what I heard. 
Rex Holzemer, who works for Hennepin County, which is the county where 
Minneapolis is located, gave me several short case examples from the 
county's social services areas that are supported by SSBG funds. He 
told me about:
  An 84-year-old widow who was neglected and financially exploited by 
tenants in her duplex who had isolated

[[Page 12410]]

her socially and taken over her financial affairs, including cashing 
her Social Security checks. When a social worker intervened, he found 
this woman emaciated and unaware of her circumstances. The woman was 
hospitalized and subsequently transferred to a care setting. Adult 
Protection arranged for a conservatorship, and as part of a court-
supervised settlement, the perpetrators agreed to pay back the bulk of 
the money.
  Rex also told me about an 8-year old girl with autism, behavior 
problems and a sleep disorder, who was provided temporary crisis 
transitional care while her parents worked to modify her physical 
environment at home. The crisis service provided special training on 
appropriate behavioral interventions for the parents and other 
caregivers, which produced positive behavioral outcomes for the child, 
thereby avoiding inpatient hospitalization and/or out-of-home 
placement.
  Then there is the case of a 48-year-old woman with schizophrenia who 
called looking for help finding a living situation that would offer her 
some needed supervision. She was referred to several community 
transitional programs, but was unable to follow through due to her 
illness. The intake worker connected her with an outreach case manager 
who helped this woman stabilize her life. She was referred to a 
psychiatrist, found crisis housing, and ultimately moved into her own 
apartment with only periodic supportive services.
  Or how about the case of a child born addicted to cocaine, who Child 
Protective Services had to place into foster care? The child's mother 
has never been able to pass drug testing as required by the court-
ordered child protection plan. The child's 25-year-old father, who has 
mild functional impairments, worked intensively with the Developmental 
Disabilities Parent Support Project for eight months to learn 
appropriate parenting skills. Due to the progress the father made, the 
child was transferred at age one from foster care into the father's 
home.
  And what about the two-parent family with four children that was 
overwhelmed by the needs of their 15-year old son who was violent and 
out-of-control? The mother had been assaulted several times by the son, 
and had finally asked that the child be placed out of the home. The 
county was able to provide intensive in-home therapy with the entire 
family. The son also received individual therapy and participated in 
after-school programming. The parents were provided with training on 
appropriate behavioral interventions through the in-home counseling and 
were ultimately able to manage their son within the home, averting the 
need for out-of-home placement.
  In each of these cases, Hennepin County drew on SSBG funds to provide 
services to people who desperately needed help. And in each of these 
cases, because the county was able to provide assistance, vulnerable 
individuals were able to stay out of institutions, with their families, 
in safe, comfortable settings. But if the Labor-HHS bill is enacted 
with the proposed SSBG cuts, Hennepin County will have to reduce 
exactly these kinds of services. And it isn't just urban counties that 
rely on SSBG funds, but many of our rural Minnesota counties also use 
SSBG funds to provide critically important services.
  Sue Beck, the Director of Human Services in Crow Wing County, 
Minnesota, a rural Minnesota county, also told me how her county uses 
its SSBG funds. Sue explained that her county 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. 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're 
supposed to. Oftentimes these people aren't eligible for medical 
assistance, so there's not another source of funding available to them 
when they're 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. 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 otherwise might not be able to compete 
successfully in the job market. All of this is at risk when we talk 
about cutting SSBG by more than 65 percent.
  Dave Haley, from the Ramsey County Department of Human Services, the 
county where St. Paul is located, also told me about how his county 
spends their SSBG money:
  The first example Dave 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 a billion dollars.
  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 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.
  Because of recent budget cuts to the SSBG, Ramsey County has already 
reduced a wide range of services: homemaker services; chemical 
dependency and mental health counseling services; budget counseling and 
money management for adults with chemical dependency or mental health 
issues; chemical dependency education and prevention services; 
parenting support programs for families in the child protection system; 
parenting support programs for teenage mothers; targeted efforts in 
neighborhoods with high rates for child abuse and neglect; monthly 
grants to help families with a developmentally disabled child continue 
to provide in-home care for that child; and semi-independent living 
programs for elderly and disabled individuals to live in their homes 
and not have to move into residential treatment facilities. These are 
programs that have already been cut. If SSBG funding is cut further,

[[Page 12411]]

Ramsey County will be forced to additionally reduce funding for Meals 
on Wheels, transportation services for seniors, outpatient mental 
health services, sexual abuse services, employment and training 
programs, and social adjustment programs for Hmong and Lao immigrants. 
If the proposed SSBG funds cuts 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? You tell me, who should be the one who 
goes to bed hungry, or sick and alone, or just plain afraid that they 
won't make it through tomorrow?
  I have to explain that this program is particularly important to my 
own state of Minnesota, where the proposed cut to the SSBG will have an 
immediate and deeply felt effect. Minnesota communities are supposed to 
receive 30 million dollars in FY 2001 under the current law; if the 
allocation is cut to 600 million dollars as proposed, Minnesota will 
lose more than 19 million dollars in funding, nearly two-thirds of its 
grant, receiving only 10.4 million dollars in FY 2001. Most states 
would feel similar cuts if SSBG funding were to be cut from 1.7 billion 
dollars to just 600 million dollars.
  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 or 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 SAMSA grant to fund mental 
health services. Furthermore, because the law governing the flow of 
SSBG funds in Minnesota would actually have to be rewritten to offset 
the federal funding cuts, the state would not be able to make up the 
funding shortfall to the counties until the Minnesota legislature comes 
into session next year and passes new legislation.
  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, since states will be able to transfer up to 4.25 
percent of their surplus to SSBG. Except, according to an analysis done 
by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, there are 37 states that 
wouldn't be able to offset the funding cuts proposed in the Labor-HHS 
Appropriations bill by transferring TANF funds. More importantly, 
though, we send the wrong message to the states when we tell them to 
rob Peter to pay Paul. States should not have to steal funds from one 
social services funding stream, in this case TANF, to replace funds 
rescinded from another social services funding stream, the SSBG.
  In this era of prosperity, of enormous budget surpluses and huge 
government windfall, of tax breaks and increased defense spending, it 
simply defies logic to further reduce SSBG funding. Now is the time for 
us to invest in meeting the needs of our most vulnerable citizens-- the 
very young and the very old, the disabled, and the poor. It would be a 
terrible breach of faith with the states, but more importantly with the 
people who live in those states, if we continue to raid the Social 
Services Block Grant.
  And while I am pleased that my colleagues have pledged to restore 
funding to this program, as well as several other critically important 
social service programs, I would just say again that it should never 
have come to this in the first place. These programs are too important 
to our most vulnerable citizens, and we have a responsibility to see to 
it that they are funded first, not last. It should simply be a matter 
of course that these programs are always fully funded, and the fact it 
isn't, that we still have to come out here year after year to fight the 
same fight to protect these programs, is ridiculous. In this era of 
budget surpluses and tax cuts, the fact that programs to aid the 
elderly, the disabled, the young, and the poor as somehow continue to 
remain vulnerable to spending cuts ridiculous. I am pleased that we now 
have the budget chairman's promise to restore these cuts, although I 
hope that other, equally important programs don't fall victim to these 
funding reduction in their stead in conference. It is crucial that we 
maintain our end of the deal we struck with the states, and with the 
people who live in those states, and protect these programs. Again, I 
thank Senator Stevens, Senator Roth, and Senator Graham for their 
efforts to protect these programs, and hope that we see a final 
Appropriations bill that fully funds all of these critical programs 
that serve our most vulnerable citizens.
  I thank Senators Harkin and Specter, and also Senator Stevens and 
Senator Graham of Florida, for their work.
  My understanding is we will be able to get this resolved; that we 
will be able in the conference committee to work hard to restore the 
funding for the social services block grant program.
  I ask my colleague from Iowa; is that correct?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes. I think all of us are committed on this side. I 
don't speak for the Senator from Pennsylvania. But in my conversations 
with him, I understand that he is committed to replacing the social 
services block grant. Clearly, we cannot live with those. We are going 
to restore those in conference.
  It was simply a matter of trying to get our bill together to meet the 
budget requirements because SSBGs were not fully funded. I can assure 
the Senator from Minnesota that they will be funded fully in 
conference.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague. I say to both Senators that 
there are two issues here that are important to me. I understand the 
pressure under which both of my colleagues have labored. I thank them 
for their support.
  We went through this debate last year, and we had a vote. I came out 
here with Senator Graham on an amendment to restore the funding.
  The notion that we would actually be cutting the block grant 
program--which is Meals on Wheels, child care services, and help and 
assisted living, help for people to stay at home, elderly people to 
stay at home, people with disabilities to stay at home--to me is so 
shortsighted.
  There is very moving testimony from a lot of people in Minnesota in 
the human services area who talk with great passion about what these 
cuts would mean--especially in a State such as Minnesota where we 
automatically pass this money directly to the county level. We wouldn't 
be able to make up for it. The consequences of these proposed cuts in 
the block grant program would be just unbelievable. To cut the social 
services block grant program by over $1 billion would have a very harsh 
impact.

[[Page 12412]]

  I have complete confidence that this funding will be restored in 
conference committee. This is all about the heart and soul of the 
Senate.
  I do not believe with a flush economy, and yet another revised 
estimate of the amount of money we are going to have for surplus, that 
we would be cutting these kinds of programs that are so important to 
vulnerable citizens around the country. In particular, I speak for 
people in Minnesota.
  The health committee voted unanimously to increase the authorization 
of title I to $15 billion. Right now, this bill we are considering 
provides for $8.36 billion. That is a little more than 50 percent of 
what we called for in the authorizing committee.
  The interesting thing is this was a unanimous vote in the health 
committee. This is about a $400 million increase from last year. That 
is what we have here in the appropriations bill on the floor. The House 
gave almost no increase to this valuable program. This amendment says: 
Look; let's at least bump this up to $10 billion.
  I point out at the very beginning that the title I program is one of 
the most important education programs that we support at the Federal 
level; and the title I program allocates money back to our communities 
to help those students who are especially disadvantaged. The title I 
program is a very targeted program. It goes to the lowest income school 
districts--be they urban, rural, or inner suburban. The title I program 
allocates money back to our local communities and our local school 
districts to provide assistance for children, whether it be more 
assistance for reading, whether it be more help vis-a-vis 
prekindergarten, or whether it be afterschool programs.
  I also want to point out to my colleagues that the title I program is 
funded at best at about one-third of the level, so we really haven't 
even come close to backing up this mission and this commitment to 
children with the resources. I have great appreciation for what my 
colleagues have done in this appropriations bill, but for some reason 
title I really stays very low.
  Again, our committee, the HELP committee, unanimously voted to 
authorize this up to $15 billion.
  Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator from Minnesota yield for an inquiry?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am happy to.
  Mr. SPECTER. We have another amendment that is ready to go. We will 
set Senator Wellstone's aside, obviously.
  How much longer does the Senator from Minnesota anticipate he wishes 
to speak?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have just begun. In the spirit of 
cooperating with management, I am pleased to lay the amendment aside if 
the Senator wishes. But I will say to my colleague, I probably need 
about half an hour to make my case.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the purpose of the inquiry was not to ask 
the Senator from Minnesota to abbreviate his comments in any way. But 
it would help us, in the orderly management of the bill, if we could 
have another amendment introduced now so we can get the process 
rolling, and then, if it is acceptable to the Senator from Minnesota, I 
would ask him to yield for 5 minutes with the right to resume his 
presentation at the end of that time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. 
That will be fine with me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
business be set aside so the Senator from Pennsylvania may offer an 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3635

(Purpose: Relating to universal telecommunications service for schools 
                             and libraries)

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3635.

  Mr. SANTORUM. 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:

       On page 92, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

         TITLE VI--UNIVERSAL SERVICE FOR SCHOOLS AND LIBRARIES

     SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Neighborhood Children's 
     Internet Protection Act''.

     SEC. 602. NO UNIVERSAL SERVICE FOR SCHOOLS OR LIBRARIES THAT 
                   FAIL TO IMPLEMENT A FILTERING OR BLOCKING 
                   SYSTEM FOR COMPUTERS WITH INTERNET ACCESS OR 
                   ADOPT INTERNET USE POLICIES.

       (a) No Universal Service.--
       (1) In general.--Section 254 of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 254) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(l) Implementation of Internet Filtering or Blocking 
     System or Use Policies.--
       ``(1) In general.--No services may be provided under 
     subsection (h)(1)(B) to any elementary or secondary school, 
     or any library, unless it provides the certification required 
     by paragraph (2) to the Commission or its designee.
       ``(2) Certification.--A certification under this paragraph 
     with respect to a school or library is a certification by the 
     school, school board, or other authority with responsibility 
     for administration of the school, or the library, or any 
     other entity representing the school or library in applying 
     for universal service assistance, that the school or 
     library--
       ``(A) has--
       ``(i) selected a system for its computers with Internet 
     access that are dedicated to student use in order to filter 
     or block Internet access to matter considered to be 
     inappropriate for minors; and
       ``(ii) installed on such computers, or upon obtaining such 
     computers will install on such computers, a system to filter 
     or block Internet access to such matter; or
       ``(B)(i) has adopted and implemented an Internet use policy 
     that addresses--
       ``(I) access by minors to inappropriate matter on the 
     Internet and World Wide Web;
       ``(II) the safety and security of minors when using 
     electronic mail, chat rooms, and other forms of direct 
     electronic communications;
       ``(III) unauthorized access, including so-called `hacking', 
     and other unlawful activities by minors online;
       ``(IV) unauthorized disclosure, use, and dissemination of 
     personal identification information regarding minors; and
       ``(V) whether the school or library, as the case may be, is 
     employing hardware, software, or other technological means to 
     limit, monitor, or otherwise control or guide Internet access 
     by minors; and
       ``(ii) provided reasonable public notice and held at least 
     one public hearing or meeting which addressed the proposed 
     Internet use policy.
       ``(3) Local determination of content.--For purposes of a 
     certification under paragraph (2), the determination 
     regarding what matter is inappropriate for minors shall be 
     made by the school board, library, or other authority 
     responsible for making the determination. No agency or 
     instrumentality of the United States Government may--
       ``(A) establish criteria for making such determination;
       ``(B) review the determination made by the certifying 
     school, school board, library, or other authority; or
       ``(C) consider the criteria employed by the certifying 
     school, school board, library, or other authority in the 
     administration of subsection (h)(1)(B).
       ``(4) Effective date.--This subsection shall apply with 
     respect to schools and libraries seeking universal service 
     assistance under subsection (h)(1)(B) on or after July 1, 
     2001.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (h)(1)(B) of that 
     section is amended by striking ``All telecommunications'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided by subsection (l), all 
     telecommunications''.
       (b) Study.--Not later than 150 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the National Telecommunications and 
     Information Administration shall initiate a notice and 
     comment proceeding for purposes of--
       (1) evaluating whether or not currently available 
     commercial Internet blocking, filtering, and monitoring 
     software adequately addresses the needs of educational 
     institutions;
       (2) making recommendations on how to foster the development 
     of products which meet such needs; and
       (3) evaluating the development and effectiveness of local 
     Internet use policies that are currently in operation after 
     community input.

     SEC. 603. IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS.

       Not later than 100 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall adopt 
     rules implementing this title and the amendments made by this 
     title.


[[Page 12413]]

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank both my colleagues, my colleague 
from Pennsylvania and my colleague from Minnesota, for allowing me just 
a few minutes, at least 5 minutes, to explain the subject matter of 
this amendment.
  I heard the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, talking about Internet 
protection. Let me say I commend his work as chairman of the Commerce 
Committee in pursuing this area because it is an important area, to 
provide needed protections for children in libraries and schools, to 
have a program in place to deal with the issues of pornography and 
violence and the other things that have opened up on the Internet.
  I have nothing but words of praise for the Senator from Arizona and 
for the work he has initiated. In fact, the amendment I have just 
introduced uses his language pretty much as the base of the amendment. 
But in looking at this issue, now, for the past several years--and I 
have young children; I am very concerned about their access to the 
Internet--talking to people from both libraries and schools, and others 
who are interested in the subject area, I believe the McCain amendment, 
while I think it goes so far, can in fact and should go further.
  In this respect, as the Senator himself mentioned, there are maybe 
100 filtering software packages out there. Some are good, some are not 
so good; some are state of the art, some are not. His amendment does 
not require anyone to buy state-of-the-art filtering software. It just 
says you have to buy filtering software or blocking software.
  In fact, even the state of the art does not include some of the 
things about which I am very concerned. One of the real concerns I have 
is chat rooms. When you talk about pedophiles and people who prey on 
people via the Internet, they do it principally through these chat 
rooms. I am not aware of very much software that blocks chat rooms.
  So you have a lot of things in addition to sites that maybe are 
pornographic or violent, or other problems you find on the Internet, 
that may be blocked with some of these software packages. But it 
doesn't get to the scope of the dangers on the Internet.
  What I have suggested in my amendment is that, in the alternative, we 
require local communities, schools--anyone who participates in the e-
rate, the same premise on which Senator McCain's amendment is based--
that they develop a policy that there be local hearings and public 
notice, and there be a community effort put together for the community 
to get involved and make the decision on a community basis on how they 
are going to deal in a comprehensive way with this. In fact, we list 
several things in the amendment that must be covered by this local 
policy.
  The policy is then reviewed by the FCC simply to determine whether 
the school district, for example, has met the criteria and actually has 
a policy in place to deal with the areas specified in the legislation. 
If the community decides they do not want to go through public notice, 
they don't want to have hearings, they don't want to go through this 
process of developing a local plan, then Senator McCain's amendment 
falls into line; they must buy filtering software. So we keep his 
amendment as sort of the hammer to encourage localities to do that.
  I think what Senator McCain said was absolutely right. Most of these 
communities are already buying software. I have been through hundreds 
of schools and have talked about this issue. Most of them understand 
the dangers out there and, in fact, have developed or are in the 
process of developing a program to deal with this problem. What we want 
to do is provide some guidance to them, some encouragement to them, and 
in the case of Senator McCain's underlying amendment, which again is 
part of our amendment that I have just filed, it is a hammer that says: 
If you don't provide a comprehensive local approach, then you have to 
buy the software.
  To me, it is a philosophical argument. It says: Should we have 
Washington come down and hammer you and say here is what you have to 
do, or should we have a program that says: Here is the problem. Local 
parents and teachers and community, you go out and bring the community 
together and do the hard work of democracy, which is to work together 
to come up with a solution to the problem. I am hopeful we can do that.
  I just say briefly, my amendment, the bill I have introduced which is 
S. 1545, which is the text of this amendment, has been endorsed by the 
American Association of School Administrators, American Association of 
Education Service Agencies, International Society for Technology in 
Education, National Rural Education Association, the American Library 
Association, the National Education Association, the Consortium for 
School Networking, and the Catholic Conference. They all support my 
amendment. That is about as wide a cross-section as you can get. And I 
would add someone very local. On this issue, Dr. Laura Schlesinger also 
supports our approach as the alternative to the McCain amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my colleague from Vermont, Senator 
Leahy, asked for a few moments to speak in regard to this issue before 
us.
  I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Vermont be allowed to speak 
and I then follow him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Minnesota for 
his customary courtesy.
  Over the past decade, the Internet has grown, as we know, from 
relative obscurity to what is today, both an essential commercial tool 
and increasingly an essential educational tool. With that expansion, we 
have had some remarkable gains. We have also seen new dangers for our 
children. Congress has reacted. We struggle with legislation that will 
protect the free flow of information, as required by the first 
amendment, while at the same time we shield our children from some of 
the inappropriate material that can be found on the Internet.
  The distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, spoke of his 
concern. I share his concern that much of the material available on the 
Internet may not be appropriate for children. I commend the Senator 
from Arizona for his good-faith effort to find a solution, but I cannot 
support the proposal he has urged. This amendment, his proposal, would 
require schools and libraries to certify, install, and enforce an 
Internet filtering program under the supervision of the Federal 
Communications Commission, and also under threat both of losing their 
e-rate discounts in the future and the financial liability of 
reimbursing discounted funds they have already spent.
  In my view, as well intentioned as it might be, the amendment would 
substantially harm and not help the children of this Nation. I do not 
support it.
  We have to tread cautiously and carefully in this arena but also 
understand a lot of schools and libraries have found a pretty practical 
way of doing this.
  For example, many schools and libraries put their screens in the main 
reading room. One has to assume not too many kids are going to go 
pulling up inappropriate things on the web sites when their teachers, 
their parents, and everybody else are walking back and forth and 
looking over their shoulder saying: What are you looking at? It is one 
thing if you are looking at NASA's home page. It is another thing if 
you are looking at wicked dungeons or something, if there is such a 
thing.
  Past legislative efforts to protect children by imposing content-
based restrictions on the Internet have failed to respect our first 
amendment principles and pass constitutional muster. In 1997, the 
Supreme Court unanimously struck down the Communications Decency Act, 
which this body approved 84-16.
  Just last week, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that the 
Child Online Protection Act is likely an unconstitutional, content-
based restriction on protected speech.
  I opposed this legislation--in fact, I was the only vote against it 
when it was offered as an amendment to the

[[Page 12414]]

Internet Tax Freedom Act, S. 442, and spoke against it when it was 
included in the Omnibus Appropriations measure in October 1998. I 
predicted the courts would rule as they have done.
  The McCain amendment to H.R. 4577 is likely to go the way of its 
predecessors. First, the amendment would require that schools and 
libraries obtaining e-rate discounts for telecommunications services 
use blocking and filtering software that makes inaccessible obscene 
material and child pornography, even if local authorities determine 
that other strategies are more appropriate for both students and 
library patrons. As the National Association of Independent Schools 
noted in commenting on this proposal last year:

       * * * it is an individual school's decision to determine 
     how best to address this issue in a way that is commensurate 
     with its mission and philosophy--whether it be part of the 
     teaching and learning process, the inclusion of appropriate 
     use policies or enforceable language in parent/student 
     enrollment contracts, or even filters. It is certainly not 
     the role of the federal government to proscribe a course of 
     action that interferes with what is decidedly a local matter.

  Second, the amendment would invite the FCC to be the de facto 
national censor, collecting from schools and libraries around the 
country so-called ``certifications'' that they are implementing 
blocking and filtering programs on their computers with Internet 
access. The FCC would be responsible for policing these schools and 
libraries to ensure that they are fulfilling the promises they make in 
the certifications, and are in fact blocking computer access to obscene 
material and child pornography. The FCC would also be the ultimate 
enforcer in the scheme outlined in the amendment since the FCC has the 
responsibility for determining when the schools and libraries have 
failed to comply with the filtering requirements of the law and when 
``the provision of services at discount rates . . . shall cease . . . 
by reason of the failure of a school to comply with the requirements.''
  We should not underestimate the power this would place in the FCC 
since the e-rate is a valuable privilege, particularly for schools and 
libraries in poor areas and in rural areas with high costs for 
telecommunications services. The e-rate, passed as part of the 1996 
Telecommunications Act, provides schools and libraries with deep 
discounts in telephone services and Internet access. Protecting 
children from viewing or receiving potentially inappropriate 
information is of the utmost importance. Yet, to ensure their continued 
eligibility for the e-rate, and to avoid having to reimburse past 
financial discounts, we can anticipate that schools and libraries will 
go overboard and block out material deemed by some to be inappropriate. 
Would, for example, online chat rooms focused on the works of Vladimir 
Nabokov and including discussion of the classic Lolita be off limits, 
let alone the work itself, since some may view it as pornographic? The 
film version of this book had a very difficult time finding a 
distributor due to the nature of the subject matter.
  School boards and libraries faced with the risk of losing their e-
rate can be expected to implement highly restrictive programs. This 
broad ``self-censoring'' imposed by the McCain amendment on schools and 
libraries will lead to a chilling of free speech to the detriment of 
our nation's children and library patrons.
  Another consequence will be to re-make the FCC into an updated 
version of the Meese Commission on pornography, but with far greater 
enforcement powers and coercive effect.
  As part of the certification process mandated in the amendment, we 
can expect schools and libraries to submit their plans for Internet 
filtering to the Commission for guidance on whether the proposals are 
acceptable. In practical terms, this would require the FCC to make 
literally thousands of determinations as to what constitutes 
``obscene'' or ``child pornography'' in order to provide comfort to 
schools and libraries seeking guidance. The financial risks are too 
great for schools and libraries to simply wait for the FCC to find 
their filtering and compliance plan to be insufficient. This will, in 
the end, defeat the local decision-making to which this amendment pays 
lip service.
  On the contrary, the amendment if enacted may lead to the Orwellian 
nightmare fully realized. The FCC, an unelected administrative agency, 
will be in the position to regulate the dissemination of knowledge and 
control what our children can read, view, and learn at school or at the 
library.
  Taken as a whole, the problematic aspects of the McCain amendment 
will harm schools and libraries and decrease the value of the Internet 
as an important educational tool. By requiring a certification to the 
FCC, the amendment places yet another regulatory burden on financially 
strapped schools and libraries.
  The distinguished Senator from Utah and I have put forward a proposal 
that addresses this problem and avoids the pitfalls inherent to the 
McCain amendment. We offered this proposal as an amendment to S. 254, 
the juvenile justice bill, and it was agreed to on May 13, 1999, by a 
vote of 100-0. Our Internet filtering proposal would leave the solution 
to protecting children in schools and libraries from inappropriate 
online materials to local school boards and communities. It would 
require Internet Service Providers with more than 50,000 subscribers to 
provide residential customers, free or at cost, with software or other 
filtering systems that will prevent minors from accessing inappropriate 
material on the Internet. A survey would be conducted at set intervals 
after enactment to determine whether ISPs are complying with this 
requirement. The requirement that ISPs provide blocking software would 
become effective only if the majority of residential ISP subscribers 
lack the necessary software within set time periods.
  This Internet filtering proposal seems to be a sensible thing to do. 
As I said, it passed 100-0. Unfortunately, progress on this proposal 
has been stalled as the majority in Congress has refused to conclude 
the juvenile justice conference. This is just one of the many 
legislative proposals contained in the Hatch-Leahy juvenile justice 
bill, S. 254, designed to help and safeguard our children--which is why 
that bill passed the Senate by an overwhelming majority over a year 
ago.
  I would like to see us go back to our filtering proposal. We have 
already voted on it. It is a workable solution. It would bring about 
what we want to do.
  I commend Senator McCain for his leadership and dedication to the 
subject. I hope we will work together on the issue. We share an 
appreciation of the Internet as an educational tool, we appreciate it 
as a venue for free speech, but we also are concerned about protecting 
our children from inappropriate material whether they are at home, at 
school, or in the library.
  Ultimately, it is not going to be just a question of passing a law to 
do this. I suggest parents do with their children today what my parents 
did with my brother, sister, and me when we were growing up: Pay some 
attention to what their children read.
  I was fortunate. I began reading when I was 4, but I had parents who 
actually talked about what I might read. Parents may want to spend some 
time on the Internet with their children. There is software that can 
help to protect their children, and parents should work with that. They 
ought to take a greater interest in what they are doing and not just 
assume Congress can somehow pass laws that keep getting knocked down, 
justifiably so, under the first amendment. Rather, they can work with 
the tools we can give for their children.
  I thank my dear friend from Minnesota for his courtesy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues, Senators Specter 
and Harkin, are we to go until 12:30 p.m. and then break for the 
caucuses; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I can in 4 minutes start to describe a little bit of 
this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that when we come back from the 
caucuses, my amendment be in order. I

[[Page 12415]]

will not be able to do this in 4 minutes. Other colleagues have spoken.
  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I 
understand the Senator requested when we come back at 2:15 p.m. that he 
be recognized to continue to speak on his amendment. The amendment has 
been laid down; is that correct?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. I modify that unanimous consent request to ask unanimous 
consent that when the Senator finishes speaking on his amendment, 
Senator Bingaman be allowed to then offer his amendment at this point 
in time.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the sequencing suggested by the Senator 
from Iowa is fine. That will move the bill along. The Senator from 
Minnesota has laid down his amendment. We have a number of amendments 
pending at the present time. Subject to the wishes of the majority 
leader, it is our hope to vote late this afternoon on a number of 
amendments. That sequencing, as articulated by Senator Harkin, is fine.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to both of my colleagues, I appreciate there are 
a number of amendments. I will take time just to make sure colleagues 
know what this amendment is about. I do not intend to take a long time 
on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, having been a teacher for years, in 1 
minute I do not know how to summarize an amendment that is all about 
education and kids.

                          ____________________