Nancy Kassebaum

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, first, I would like to ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I will reiterate why I believe this amendment is important. Mr. President, I, too, feel strongly about the importance of child care. In order to make our welfare reform effort successful, I could not support the measure that we just voted on because I felt it was an amount of money that could not be sustained and was not offset in a way that I felt would be successful. The rationale for my amendment is briefly three parts. It creates a unified system of child care at the State level, with one State plan. It is not an effort to, in any way, intrude on the infringement of one committee over another. It is my idea that a consolidation of these efforts is important, and it provides one set of regulations, rather than a two-track system. So it does not transfer jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee child care program to the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee. But it does set up a single system through which child care is handled. It prevents families from experiencing disruptions in their child care since their eligibility is no longer tied to specific program requirements, that is, AFDC. Instead, eligibility is based on a family's income, through a sliding fee scale that the State determines. As parents earn more, they make a greater contribution for child care assistance. I feel it is very important that low-income families can be able to move off of welfare rolls and yet still be able to maintain some support for child care. It preserves the limited funding for child care for low-income working families, many of whom rely on this assistance to stay off of the welfare rolls. For example, for a family of two earning minimum wage, average yearly child care costs consume 47 percent of the household gross income. That is a significant amount, Mr. President. I believe families do need some support because it is the children that we do have to protect in this process. I yield the floor.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I introduce legislation along with Senator Jeffords to reauthorize the Legal Services Corporation [LSC] Act. Through this federally established corporation, thousands of low income Americans have access to our legal system. Clients seek assistance with landlord-tenant disputes, domestic violence cases, writing of wills, and other civil matters. Sometimes the cases need to be litigated, but frequently, the clients simply need legal counseling. Regrettably, Legal Services has been plagued with controversy over the last decade. Critics have charged, with some validity, that Legal Services attorneys have acted as advocates for political causes, such as welfare reform and state redistricting cases. As a result, LSC has not been reauthorized since 1977. Today, I am introducing a Senate companion bill to H.R. 1806, legislation introduced by Representatives McCollum and Stenholm in the House of Representatives. I want to give Representatives McCollum and Stenholm credit for their hard work in putting this bill together, and for their dedication to assuring that low income Americans retain access to our legal system. The legislation being introduced today addresses the concerns that have been expressed over the past several years by limiting the types of activities that Legal Services attorneys can handle. For instance, under the bill, Legal Services attorneys cannot represent tenants being evicted from public housing projects for drug dealing. In addition, attorneys will not be representing incarcerated individuals on prisoner rights cases. The legislation also has new accountability provisions. Lawyers will be required to keep time sheets so federal auditors can monitor the types of cases being handled. New litigation safeguards will be implemented to protect against the filing of frivolous class action law suits. And we will require LSC grantees to bid competitively for their LSC contracts. Mr. President, Legal Services is an important program. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation being introduced today, and ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the SAMHSA Reauthorization, Flexibility Enhancement, and Consolidation Act of 1995. An important aim of this legislation is to increase state flexibility in the use of mental health and substance abuse block grant funds while improving program accountability. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA] programs address the nation's major substance abuse and mental illness health problems. The SAMHSA programs have greatly improved the quality and availability of substance abuse prevention and treatment and mental health services for our citizens. The fields of substance abuse treatment and prevention and mental health have changed considerably since the last reauthorization in 1992--so must our approach in addressing these major public health issues. One important feature of the reauthorization legislation I am proposing is its focus on establishing new partnership block grant arrangements with the states. The performance partnerships will utilize state selected ``benchmarks'' to help us learn what works. They will also facilitate the ability of state and local communities to improve the health of their people. These partnership block grants are a unique blend of categorical and block grants. I believe performance partnerships will increase state flexibility and streamline Federal management while they also will retain accountability. The performance partnerships would also lead to the development and enhancement of national and state data collection systems and provide for justification of future funding. Another major issue addressed in my proposal is that of the mentally ill homeless. My proposal to enhance outpatient treatment for the gravely disabled mentally ill who are committed would ensure that these individuals receive needed treatment in the least restrictive setting. Concerns have been raised about my approach which I would like to address. First, some believe my proposal would not allow a sufficient transition time to develop meaningful partnerships between the Federal Government and the state around the implementation of performance partnerships. Second, some believe my proposal should not retain any of the set- asides because this does not allow for flexibility for the states. Third, others perceive the current data systems to be inadequate and irrelevant to measure performance on national and state-local levels. To address these concerns, the legislation would: First, establish a minimum 2-year transition period before performance partnerships are implemented; Second, provide states the option to opt-out of the current set-aside requirements; and Third, require states to report only on performance for which they have current and relevant data systems. Mr. President, I realize there are issues which others may continue to raise regarding the performance partnership block grants and the commitment of the mentally ill homeless. The introduction of this proposal today should serve as the starting point for further discussions of these issues. As discussion of these issues develops, I would welcome any suggestions my colleagues or others may have for improving this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this bill and the text of the legislation be made a part of the Record.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, although the Bingaman amendment was accepted by voice vote, I would like to be recorded in opposition to the amendment. I believe that this amendment could open a large loophole for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to continue making grants to individuals that raise the ire of the American public. The appropriations bill includes language from the authorization bill reported by the Committee on Labor and Human Resources which eliminates all direct NEA grants to individuals except literature fellowships. This amendment would add two more exceptions for awards honoring those who have excelled in American art forms and jazz music. The issue of NEA grants to individuals has resurfaced as recent controversies have drawn new attention to the NEA's practice of awarding grants to individuals whose ``art'' offends so many of us. While the Labor Committee bill's increased oversight of the NEA's grant-making process and Chairman Alexander's administrative changes will be of some help in restoring public confidence in the Endowment, I believe that the time has come to a draw the line on grants to individuals. Both the authorization and appropriations legislation provide that the only individuals eligible for direct NEA grants would be those applying for literature fellowships. I believe that the literature fellowships are the only worthwhile exception. Furthermore, during consideration of the authorization bill the Labor Committee defeated, by a vote of 7 to 9, an amendment to exempt 7 additional categories of grants to individuals. While the preservation of Heritage Fellows and Jazz Masters grants would weaken the Labor Committee's strong stance on this issue, I admit that the grants the Senator from New Mexico seeks to protect are not necessarily part of the problem I have cited. I can understand the Senator's interest in maintaining these programs, which honor artists and musicians for their past achievements. However, I wonder why these awards need to provide grants at all. The cash awarded is a ``thanks for a job well done,'' rather than a subsidy for an artist's first works. I would think that being honored by the NEA for past achievements would be sufficient, and would not require a cash payment. If the NEA had taken that route, there would be no need for this amendment. Amendment No. 2331 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study of air fares)

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, let me say before I start that the majority leader has yielded me his leadership time if I should need more time than the 5 minutes I believe was in the agreement. Mr. President, I would like to answer several accusations that have been made about the welfare reform bill. First of all, the bill is neither marginal nor is it a sham. The bill that has been put forward by the majority leader is an important step forward and makes good progress in dealing with a most difficult problem. There may be some major philosophical differences, and that we would all recognize. But the bill addresses three areas that I think are important to any significant and major welfare reform legislation. One, it ends the entitlement for welfare; two, it makes substantial reforms in the Food Stamp Program; and three, it provides major and constructive reform of our job training programs. It is job training, Mr. President, that I would like to address specifically. If we are ultimately going to be successful in reforming welfare, we must be realistic about what it takes to do so. We have to separate rhetoric from the reality of what is out there, and we must determine how we can be supportive while making changes that are absolutely necessary. Effective welfare reform is not simply a matter of increasing flexibility or changing incentives, but also of recognizing that obtaining and holding a job does not occur in a vacuum. That is why quality child care is important and why job training--realistic job training--is important. This morning, my colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts, who is the ranking member of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, said in a press conference: ``This is a cynical scheme to pit welfare beneficiaries against laid-off factory workers, unemployed defense workers and millions of other Americans.'' Mr. President, that is just not true, and there has been a misunderstanding about what the job training portion of this program does. Because it was approved by the Labor and Human Resources Committee, I would like to spend a little bit of time going through that title of the bill.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, yes, I will clarify the workfare addition to the permissible activities section. But first let me speak more generally about the Workforce Development Act, a measure which provides a substantial and dramatic reform of our current work force training and work force education systems. The linkage it provides between our training and education systems is, I think, enormously important. The Workforce Development Act was a separate bill, S. 143, that has been incorporated in the legislation that is before us; that is, the welfare reform legislation or, as it is called, the Work Opportunity Act. I want to emphasize from the outset that the Workforce Development Act is not a welfare program. It is a comprehensive effort to bring together myriad Federal programs--about 90 in all--serving everyone from high school vocational students to dislocated workers in America. These programs are brought together in a way that is going to help everyone. The new system will be far more beneficial to individuals in terms of offering realistic help in finding jobs that suit them and in identifying the market opportunities that actually exist. Several question whether these provisions should be included in a measure that focuses on welfare reform, and I understand the concern that misconceptions could occur. At the same time, because the relevant training activities for welfare and food stamp recipients must be provided by the single system created by the Workforce Development Act, this welfare bill provides the opportunity to consider, what I believe to be, a very important initiative. I will, therefore, strongly oppose any efforts to remove these titles from the bill. Our current patchwork system is ill-equipped to deal effectively with today's work force needs. The proliferation of training programs has instead resulted in duplication of effort and is the source of confusion for both employers and job seekers. Moreover, there is little evidence available to tell us what we have actually achieved in return for the $20-some billion we spend annually on all of these programs. The purpose of the Workforce Development Act of 1995 is to develop a single, unified system of job training and training-related education activities designed to ensure that: One, there is a logical relationship among formal education, job- specific training, and the jobs available in our economy. Two, individuals who need assistance in obtaining employment are easily able to identify the resources available for that purpose. Three, there is a clear accountability for Federal dollars. To achieve this goal, Mr. President, the Workforce Development Act repeals all or a major portion of nearly a dozen Federal education employment and training statutes and some 90 programs that they authorize. The funds would be combined into a single authorization and distributed to States as block grants, but with accountability measures that ensure there indeed will be a means of monitoring what is to be achieved. Maximum flexibility will be provided to the States to design their own work force development systems, based on the following principles: One-stop delivery of job training services; support for school-to-work activities for youth; the development of benchmarks by which to measure results. In addition, private sector employers will be involved at all levels of the training system, including the Federal, State, and local levels. Finally, the legislation provides for a transition period during which States may be granted broad waivers from current regulations to begin consolidation. I think this legislation takes bold steps to reform our training and education programs. I think it is a valuable part of any welfare reform effort. More importantly, it is important for us as a country to be able to address in a far more realistic and effective way, how to help States design the programs that best fit their individual needs. At this point, I would like to speak specifically to the question that was raised in the press conference where Senator Kennedy indicated we were trying to pit welfare beneficiaries against laid-off factory workers and unemployed defense workers. I think it is important to clarify the provision which has been the source of a serious misunderstanding. The Workforce Development Act contains a section on activities for which work force training funds may be used. It is the same list as included in the committee-passed bill, but with one addition. That addition--workfare--is the source of the current confusion. [[Page S 11844]] It has been represented that this term was added to create a loophole, whereby all work force training funds could ultimately be diverted to welfare payments. That is simply not the case. I, too, would oppose the diversion of work force training funds to welfare payments. It was for that reason that I strongly opposed provisions included in an earlier draft of the Work Opportunity Act which would have permitted up to 30 percent of the work force development funds to be used for other activities in the bill. That transferability provision was deleted. So let me be very clear. Under no circumstances, may funds be taken out of State job training systems to be used to pay for welfare benefits or food stamps. On the contrary, any training activities conducted under a State's welfare or food stamp program must be carried out through the State job training system. That preserves the concept that training activities within a State will be carried out through a single system. The reason ``workfare'' was added to the list of permissible activities was to link a very specific existing food stamp employment and training program into the statewide job training system. Six States currently carry out workfare programs as a component under their food stamp employment and training program. The purpose of workfare is to improve the employability of individuals not working by providing work experience to assist them to move into regular public or private employment. In essence, it is another form of on-the-job training. The sole reason that this activity was added to the bill was to ensure that those States that currently conduct the food stamp workfare program can continue to do so through the statewide workforce development system established under title VII. In general, the overall food stamp employment and training program has not been a very effective job training program, Mr. President. Nevertheless, it remains a part of the food stamp initiative--an initiative which I believe is important. I am prepared to add clarifying language to assure that the intent of this language is completely clear. I hope, Mr. President, that my explanation clears up any misunderstandings about this issue. Before I yield the floor, I just want to say that I regret at this late hour to take such a long time on an issue to which we will return in September. But I am convinced, Mr. President, that there is an opportunity for both sides of the aisle to come together in a significant way to address welfare reform. I think it is an important issue. I, in no way, believe that the legislation that has been put forward by the Republican leader, Senator Dole, is one that minimizes or ruins our support system for those in need. I think, as a matter of fact, it strengthens it; it shows that there is an ability to work through some issues that are of concern on both sides of the aisle. At the end of the day, we are going to have a stronger, more effective, and more constructive program. I think that is an opportunity and we should seize it. I think we will when we come back in early September and address the issue.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I do not know how much time I have.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I certainly would welcome the support of the Senator from Massachusetts for this legislation. I look forward to seeing if we cannot work these things out in September.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I hate to----

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I hate to delay this, but I have some things I wish to say in answer to the Senator from Massachusetts, and it would seem to me important to kind of set the record straight on some of the job training aspects of this. If I could have just 5 minutes, that would be fine.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I am happy to yield.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I will be happy to yield.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I thank the Senator from Kentucky. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from California. As a former member of the Ethics Committee, I certainly can sympathize with the comment Senator Dorgan made preceding my comments-- that there is no joy in the process in serving on the Ethics Committee. But I also know the difficulties that are imposed in the process that this Ethics Committee has to undertake, and I am flatly and strongly opposed to any effort to inject the full Senate into the committee process in midstream, and at this point. It saddens me that we have reached this point, Mr. President. It should be a cause of great concern to all of us on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I would feel this same way whether it was a Member on the other side of the aisle or a Member on this side of the aisle. We should not be debating the case at this point, but the process. The Ethics Committee has one of the most difficult jobs in the Senate. It is never easy to sit in judgment of a colleague. But it is essential to the working of the Senate and to the public confidence in government that some of us take on that role. I regret that the committee is now divided on how to proceed in this case. I have enormous respect for both the chairman, Senator McConnell, and the vice chairman, Senator Bryan. There is an honest difference of opinion with legitimate concerns on both sides. I believe it is a serious mistake to turn that honest disagreement into a partisan battle. I do not believe that there is any effort for a coverup. I do not believe that it was designed to be done behind closed doors. And I really regret that we have reached this particular point. The investigation of charges against Senator Packwood has now been underway for 31 months. The committee has spent thousands of hours and interviewed hundreds of witnesses. It has conducted what may be the most thorough and exhaustive investigation in Senate history. Now we are at the end of this process, and the committee apparently is preparing to render its verdict, as it should. Mr. President, I see no purpose in further delaying this matter by ordering the committee to conduct public hearings on this matter that could go on and on and on. It is time to make a decision. That is the real question that the committee and the full Senate must address. Is Senator Packwood guilty of the charges leveled against him? And, if so, what is the appropriate punishment? I believe we must answer that question in a fair and prompt manner. The committee should lay out all the evidence it has gathered, and then it should present its verdict to the Senate and the American people. We can then focus our energy not on committee procedures but on the committee product. Mr. President, that is the way it should be. I yield the floor.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, if I may, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Georgia. I was in a markup all morning and did not hear his speech. I have the highest regard for the chairman, Senator Thurmond, and the ranking leader of Armed Services Committee, Senator Nunn. I know they know these issues well, and have great dedication to them. I appreciate the Senator's comments.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, the cold war is over, and in some ways we all long for the old certainties it provided. The Armed Services Committee has grappled with the difficult task of matching our national security interests to the new realities of international politics, and I commend them for their hard work in this area. But I also want to take this opportunity to express serious concern about certain provisions in this legislation which, in my view, would discard a generation of progress toward arms control that serves our national security needs. In terms of arms control--and, in terms of our Nation's solemn commitment to its treaty obligations--I have strong reservations about the paths charted by the committee legislation. I hope the Senate fully appreciates the weight and implications of proposals now before us. I know that there are some negotiations that are going on regarding language, and I am pleased to hear that. By my count, this legislation puts at risk at least four important arms control agreements. It puts us on a path toward abrogating two treaties which the United States has ratified with the advice and consent of the Senate--agreements which, in accordance with the processes of our Constitution, our Nation has pledged to honor. It also takes policy steps that may jeopardize our chances to successfully conclude and implement at least two other important agreements that our Nation long has pursued. The stakes are high: The Anti-Ballistic Missile [ABM] Treaty has been in force in the United States since 1972. This bill would put us on a path to abrogate the ABM treaty by setting a date to deploy national ballistic missile defenses and by unilaterally imposing a line of demarcation to separate ballistic missile defenses, which are covered by the treaty, from theater defense systems, which are not. This important demarcation issue is the subject of ongoing negotiations--and, yet, this bill would have us act alone. Perhaps, as its critics suggest, the ABM Treaty no longer serves our national interests. But if that is so, we should review our commitment to the treaty through a deliberate process--we should not simply take steps toward no longer complying. The safeguards agreement between the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] has been in force since 1980. This is another aspect of language in the agreement that I find troubling, and perhaps this has been addressed. This legislation would walk away from that agreement by setting unrealistic criteria that must be met before any IAEA safeguards inspection can take place. When the Senate ratified the safeguards agreement, we believed that placing many of America's nuclear materials under safeguards would strengthen our ability to press other countries to accept safeguards as well. Our national interests are well served when other countries accept safeguards, and our interests are at risk when safeguards are rejected, as we have learned bitterly in Iraq and in North Korea. If the Senate today walks away from our safeguards commitment, what message are we sending to those whose nuclear ambitions we oppose? The third concern I have is that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty [CTBT] to ban nuclear testing is on schedule for completion in 1996. Our negotiators have pursued this agreement for decades, and their hand was significantly strengthened by the decision of the United States during the Bush administration to impose a moratorium on our own nuclear tests. Yet, this legislation would commit funds to prepare the United States to resume testing, even before our own self-declared testing moratorium has expired. If we take this step, we will signal to the world that we are not serious about a test ban, and we will put the treaty's successful conclusion in serious jeopardy. Finally, we all are aware of the importance of START II, the basic agreement for implementing President Reagan's vision of deep cuts in the strategic nuclear arsenals of the United States and the former Soviet Union. The treaty now is pending before the Senate and before the Russian Parliament for ratification. Yet, the legislation before us today would halt for at least a year the retirement of U.S. strategic nuclear weapons, would substantially restructure our nuclear forces to retain greater capacity, and would strengthen our ability to quickly reconstruct weapons in excess of our treaty commitment. At a time when hard-line elements in the Russian Parliament are searching for reasons to kill the START II treaty--and when certain elements in Russia have stated clearly that they expect the United States to adhere to its commitments under the ABM treaty--any actions such as those proposed in this legislation would, I fear, significantly diminish the prospects for Russian ratification of the treaty. Perhaps this again is something that we do not want to undertake at this time. But I think that we ought to have then a more full-blown discussion of the importance of the START II treaty. Mr. President, I will oppose efforts that endanger these important agreements that serve the interests of our Nation. The provisions I have discussed do not serve our national security or foreign policy interests. I believe in a strong national defense, but I also believe that arms control has a place in America's national security strategy and that America should not lightly abandon its solemn treaty obligations. I urge my colleagues to think long and hard before proceeding with the courses of action this bill proposes.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, this should not be interpreted as a vote for or against raising the minimum wage. This is simply a sense of the Senate that at some point we should debate and consider such an amendment. And such we shall, but not until the Labor and Human Resources Committee has had the opportunity to debate it and vote on it in committee, which I think is the proper procedure. I believe this is not the time or place to address this matter, and I will move to table the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I move to table the Kennedy amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise not to debate the pros and cons about whether we should increase the [[Page S 10955]] minimum wage. The bill currently before the Senate is the State Department reorganization bill of 1995, a very important piece of legislation. The amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts is a sense of the Senate that we should debate and vote on whether to raise the minimum wage before the end of the first session of the 104th Congress. I would like to point out, Mr. President, that minimum wage legislation comes under the jurisdiction of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, of which I am chairman and the Senator from Massachusetts is ranking member. I believe it is important to hold hearings on this issue in our committee. The minimum wage is just one part of the Fair Labor Standards Act. That Act is a comprehensive piece of legislation which covers everything from child labor laws to overtime laws. I think it is one that needs extensive and thorough review and hearings. It is a very important piece of legislation. The minimum wage is just one part of that. Congress has not conducted a serious oversight of the entire statute for several decades. I believe it is of fundamental importance and the responsibility of our committee to do so. Clearly, the law needs to be brought up to date to reflect significant changes in the workplace over the last 50 years. I am committed to holding hearings in the Labor Committee to review all aspects of the FLSA, including the minimum wage. I think it is premature, however, to be bound by this sense-of-the-Senate amendment and have it viewed as a debate on whether one is for or against an increase in the minimum wage. That is not what this debate is about. I think the Senator from Massachusetts, as the ranking member, knows that our committee has had a very full agenda. There are a number of important issues we have been working on, including health care, job training, FDA and OSHA reform, and several reauthorization bills which have to be completed this year. Unfortunately, I think, despite the importance of FLSA reform, the schedule has just not permitted us to hold hearings yet. Hearings that I think we need to have and should have and, as I have said before and I will say again, I am committed to holding. I would remind my colleagues that the Senator from Massachusetts, now the ranking member, was chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee for the last 2 years. There was no real sense of urgency at that time, when my Democratic colleagues on the other side of the aisle were in the majority, to address this issue. I really have to wonder why, all of a sudden, on this State Department reorganization legislation, the Senator has offered a sense of the Senate which could be interpreted, I think wrongly, as a vote for or against an increase in the minimum wage. For that reason I think this is not the time or the place to have this type of debate. I yield the floor.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 1860 be called up, and I ask for the yeas and nays for that amendment as well as amendment No. 1858 in the proper ordering of the listing of amendments. [[Page S 10754]]

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business, not to exceed 45 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I will just add in support of what the ranking member of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Kennedy, has said in acknowledging the support of the leaders, both the majority leader and the minority leader in the Senate, who have been instrumental in helping us move forward with this legislation and final passage. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has just concluded its action on the Ryan White CARE Reauthorization Act of 1995. As a result of this act, many individuals and families in this country who suffer from the HIV virus will continue to receive compassionate treatment and support services. As you know, I have not been alone in my support for this legislation. I wish to thank my 65 Senate colleagues who are cosponsors of this legislation. In particular, the ranking member on the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Senator Kennedy, has been instrumental in the development and eventual passage of the reauthorization bill. The development of this legislation has been difficult at times, requiring the personal commitment of many individuals from various organizations. Without mentioning each, I wish to acknowledge their efforts. Finally, I thank Labor Committee staff who developed and helped orchestrate the passage of this act. In particular, I wish to acknowledge the dedication of Michael Iskowitz and Seth Kelbourne on Senator Kennedy's staff and Doctors Marty Ross and James Wade on my own staff.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield back any remaining time, and I ask unanimous consent that the votes be 10-minute votes.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. The first amendment is 1858, which would prohibit funds from being used to promote or encourage intravenous drug use or sexual activity, both homosexual or heterosexual.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. My amendment, No. 1858, is an alternative to the one that was put forward earlier by the Senator from North Carolina and approved by the Senate. My amendment prohibits funds under the act from being used to directly promote or encourage intravenous drug use or sexual activity, both homosexual or heterosexual. It assures that funds are used [[Page S 10759]] for treatment and support services only, not for prevention activities. This amendment is targeted to making sure that CARE Act funds are used for what they were designed for. Specifically that is for the treatment and support services for patients and families afflicted with AIDS. I would like to also address my second amendment, No. 1860, which addresses the issues of funding equity. My amendment is an alternative to one that was put forth by the Senator from North Carolina, that was just rejected. This amendment provides that Federal spending for AIDS and HIV activities may not exceed spending for cancer activities, taking into account both discretionary and entitlement spending. These are the two amendments that we will be considering; first 1858 and then 1860. I will be happy to reserve the remainder of my time but I am prepared to yield it back.