Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President. I previously announced for the benefit of Members and the public that the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources scheduled a hearing to receive testimony on the following measures: S. 725--To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Collbran Reclamation Project to the Ute Water Conservancy District and the Collbran Conservancy District; S. 777--To authorize the construction of the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System and to authorize assistance to the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, for the planning and construction of the water supply system, and for other purposes; H.R. 848--To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of the AuSable Hydroelectric Project in New York, and for other purposes; H.R. 1184--To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act for the construction of the Bear Creek Hydroelectric Project in the State of Washington, and for other purposes; and H.R. 1217--To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act for the construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Washington, and for other purposes. In addition to these bills the subcommittee will also consider S. 1230, a bill to amend the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 to provide for Federal cooperation in non-Federal reclamation projects and for participation by non-Federal agencies in Federal projects; and S. 841, to authorize construction of the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System in the State of Montana, and for other purposes. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, October 7, 1997, at 2 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Those wishing to testify or submit written statements for the record should contact Betty Nevitt, Staff Assistant, at (202) 224-0765 or write to the Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to encourage the members of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Development to address the issue of occupancy standards when the public housing reform bill goes to conference committee. Earlier this year, Senator Faircloth and I introduced the State Housing Protection Act which transfers from HUD to the States, the authority to set occupancy standards. Yet, the committee did not address the matter when it considered its public housing reform bill. Mr. President, Senator Faircloth and I have worked on this issue for 2 years. In the 104th Congress, Senator Faircloth and I blocked HUD from imposing national occupancy standards until it completed an official rule. Soon thereafter, we introduced a bill with Representative McCollum which prohibited HUD from setting a national occupancy standard. The House included that bill in its 1996 public housing reform bill, but it died in conference committee late last year. In May of this year, the House passed its public housing reform bill which included a section that prohibits the Secretary of HUD from establishing a national occupancy standard. Senator Faircloth and I have tried to change the current policy on occupancy standards because we believe that HUD generally has pursued an occupancy standard policy that encourages overcrowding, thereby depreciating housing stock that is scarce to begin with. We believe that HUD is poorly serving lower- income families and defeating its own purpose. Again, I encourage the members of the conference committee to seriously consider restricting HUD's ability to set a national occupancy standard.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I just wanted to respond to Senator Moynihan, to the Senator's comment about the $43,000 stipends. According to the article in the Washington Post, which I submitted for the Record a moment ago, by Stephen Barr writing about the Woodrow Wilson Living Memorial--and I quote now: The Center annually selects about 35 fellows who receive an average stipend of $43,000 and spend their time studying and writing. Also if one does math of the $12,500,000 budget, roughly, of the program, I believe about $1.7 million of that is allocated for the stipend. And if you divide that number it averages out to something over $40,000 a year. So that is where I got my information that the average stipend is about $43,000.

Mr. KYL. Of course.

Mr. KYL. That is fine. I will speak for a few minutes. I know Senator Bumpers is anxious to present another amendment, and I don't intend to take a lot more time. But I would like, Mr. President, to get to the essence of what we are trying to accomplish here because the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee has made some constructive suggestions in the end, however, which do not capture the spirit of this amendment. The whole point of this amendment is to prioritize among scarce resources. It is true that we have funded Indian programs this year to the extent that we thought was possible, and that represents an increase over last year, and it represents an increase more than the other programs within this budget were increased. But, Mr. President, that is not to say much, because the needs of our Indian communities are so significantly greater than the amount of money that we can provide that this is a scant comfort, I think, to those in our Indian communities. I detailed, and my colleague Senator Campbell from Colorado detailed, some of the things which we learned in the hearings yesterday jointly held which discussed the dire situation on our Indian reservations today regarding gang violence and the need to, obviously, do much, much more in a concerted way to alleviate that problem now. So, while it is true that we could take money from some other Indian program and apply it to this program, I don't see that as a solution given all of the other needs that exist on our Indian reservations. While it is also true that we have allocated $13 million toward a very specific program--not to the BIA but the money goes to the BATF, a totally different program for training--while it is true that that money is in this budget, that is not an adequate substitute for what we are trying to provide for in terms of very special operations requirements to deal with the problems of gang violence. Just to reiterate a couple of things--I will not take long--but there are half as many law enforcement officers per capita in Indian country as there are in the small communities outside Indian country. We are not just talking about training people. We are talking about hiring people to be on the job and doing their job. In terms of the detention facilities and all of the other personnel that are required, in every category it is far less than needed in Indian country, and that is one of the reasons, as I pointed out from the testimony, that you have this difficult problem of gang violence. So when the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee says, well, one thing we could do is simply take money from another part of the Indian budget and put it into here, that is true, but that is really in a sense robbing Peter to pay Paul. What we are suggesting, the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee and myself, is to prioritize in a larger sense from the entire budget that we have under consideration here, this Interior appropriations budget. What we are asking, Mr. President, is this question: As between the funding that is being provided by the Federal Government, the Federal component to the Woodrow Wilson Program and this particular need, which one is more important in today's America? Which one does the Senate justify better to the taxpayers of America? Both Senator Campbell and I have been very clear that we are not attempting to kill the Woodrow Wilson Center. As a matter of fact, it receives more in private funding than it does in Government funding. We are simply reducing the amount of Federal Government funding to the level recommended by the House of Representatives. Last year, its budget was something like $12.5 million, and, as I said, more than half of that was from the private sector rather than from this Interior appropriation. So this is not an effort to kill that center. But I do think that because of the criticisms leveled at the center, among others, from the National Academy of Public Administration, I think a study of significance and objectivity, because of some of those criticisms I think it is wise for us to ask whether or not a priority of spending taxpayer dollars should put those moneys into this program as opposed to the one which everyone here has said deserves support, our attempt to deal with Indian gang violence. The distinguished Senator from New York talked about some of the leaders of the Woodrow Wilson Center, including the current director who is about to step down. But one of the conclusions of this important study about the center is as follows: The director's performance is deficient in a number of areas. For example, he has not effectively articulated what the Center does. Mr. President, if the director of the center cannot articulate what the center does, I wonder just how good a memorial to President Wilson this really is. And since my colleague from Washington State compared this to the Washington Monument, for example, I will do a little comparing myself. It is true that the Washington Monument does not pay a scholar $43,000 a year to write an esoteric paper, but I think it inspires 250 million Americans every year in ways that probably can't be measured but help us to appreciate what our country stands for and to remember the great Presidents of this country. I would rather that the Woodrow Wilson Center do a better job, frankly, of inspiring Americans and reaching out to all 250 million Americans instead of its very narrow focus on the somewhat esoteric papers that are written there. Our colleague from New York talked about the fact that one of the scholars noted: Where else can you work among intellectuals and get paid for working in a castle? It is a nice way of saying that it is a very nice thing to be a recipient of this funding. I am sure for those who get it, it is. Undoubtedly, some of the papers presented are very worthy. One of the other criticisms that was leveled at the center from this review of the organization by the National Academy of Public Administration noted the fact that some of the employees of the program and program staff and fellows could benefit from more cooperative activities and that they be urged to make some interactions obligatory rather than voluntary. They said that the center ``does not fully motivate fellows toward cooperation and gives them the option to work in isolation from others. Some are called `phantom fellows' because they seldom appear at the Center let alone interact with staff members.'' So apparently not all of the fellows who receive this stipend are participating in the activities described by the Senator from New York. I am not here to criticize the Woodrow Wilson Center, but what I am saying is that it is a troubled program. That cannot be denied. Now, advocates of it, proponents of it will say it is going to be improved and it has performed a mission in the past. After all, we would not want to do anything to suggest we do not honor Woodrow Wilson. Obviously, none of us are suggesting that. But when on the one hand you have a program that has been troubled and a program which can be sustained by private funding as opposed to support for Indian gang activities, which, as the Senator from Colorado noted, is probably not going to be supported by private giving--it relies exclusively on the Senate and House of Representatives to provide the funding for those programs in Indian country--I think in setting the priorities, we can say that this $4.8 million is better spent on saving lives on the Indian reservations, as my colleague from Colorado put it, rather than continuing to fund that degree of support to the Woodrow Wilson Center. Mr. President, again, I compliment the Senator from New York for his vigorous advocacy of the center. It is not our intention to kill it. I compliment the distinguished subcommittee chairman for noting that there are ways in which other Indian programs could have their funding reduced in order to support these important gang activity programs. Again, I do not think that is a good option. We need more money than we can possibly appropriate to Indian activities rather than simply taking it from one Indian activity and putting it against this particular problem. I think at the end of the day the answer here is take this $4.8 million from the Government-sponsored portion of the Woodrow Wilson Center and apply it to dealing with the problem of gang activity as part of the BIA budget. I appreciate again the support of the distinguished chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Campbell from Colorado.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I just wanted to make one comment and then close the debate and ask for the yeas and nays. I want to reassure my colleague from Utah that our amendment does not eliminate the Woodrow Wilson Center. It is not our intention to eliminate the Woodrow Wilson Center. And nothing in it does eliminate the Woodrow Wilson Center. The majority of its funds come from the private sector. One could argue that removing this $4.8 million would have a significant impact upon the Woodrow Wilson Center, but several times in the presentation you talked about eliminating it. I just want the record to be clear that our amendment does not do that. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KYL. As my colleagues can see from the reading of the amendment, it is a very short, very simple amendment, that simply takes $4,800,000 from one project and provides it to another for dealing with the problem of gang violence on our Indian reservations. I ask for my colleagues' support. The amendment is cosponsored by the distinguished chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Campbell, and the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch. This amendment, as read, would provide the Bureau of Indian Affairs law enforcement with $4.84 million for antigang activities, equipment, and personnel. The offset would be from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars fund. The Senate Judiciary and Indian Affairs Committees held a joint hearing yesterday, Mr. President, which examined the growing problem of gang violence in Indian country. Therefore, I think it propitious that we are able to offer the amendment today to help alleviate the problem that was identified in that hearing. We heard from representatives of several Indian tribes, as well as the Justice Department, about the problem of gang violence on our reservations. Here are some of what we found. According to the Justice Department, violent crime nationwide has declined significantly between 1992 and 1996. The overall violent crime rate has dropped about 17 percent, and homicides are down 22 percent. That is the good news. Here is the bad news. In the same period of time, homicides in Indian country rose an astonishing 87 percent, Mr. President. The Indian Health Service tells us that the homicide rate among Indians is the highest among any ethnic group in the country--2\1/2\ times the rate among white Americans. Numerous tribes, including the Navajo Nation in my State of Arizona, record homicide rates that exceed those of notoriously violent urban areas in our country. The FBI reports a dramatic increase in violent crime attributable to gangs in Indian country, nearly doubling between 1994 and 1997. The BIA's law enforcement division identified 181 active gangs on or near Indian reservations in 1994. By 1997, that estimate had risen to 375 gangs with approximately 4,650 gang members. The Navajo Nation alone reports at least 75 active gangs. Think about that for a moment, Mr. President. Just one Indian tribe in the State of Arizona has 75 active gangs. There is a small reservation just east of the Phoenix area that has 19 active gangs on it. These are among Indian kids. On the Menominee reservation in Wisconsin, there was a 293 percent increase in the number of juveniles arrested between 1990 and 1994. And between 1995 and 1997, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the District of New Mexico has noted an evolution in juvenile killings from reckless manslaughters to vicious, intentional killings. The crimes can be heinous. On May 15, 1994, a 20-year-old Subway sandwich shop clerk was gunned down while on the job on the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community in Arizona. That is the reservation I just alluded to a moment ago. Shot six times, including once in the face, young Pat Lindsay later died. His attackers stole sandwiches, chips, and $100 from the sandwich shop. On South Dakota's Lower Brule Reservation in 1996, four gang members broke into a police officer's car and threw in a Molotov cocktail. Mr. President, why is it that Indian country is particularly susceptible to gang violence? Part of the answer lies in demographics. The American Indian population is fast growing and increasingly youthful. Based on the 1990 census, 33 percent of the Indian population was younger than 15-years-old versus 22 percent of the general population. On the Gila River Indian Community in Arizona, about half of the reservation's population is expected to be under the age of 18 by the year 2000. Another reason for the growing problem is socioeconomic. American Indians lag in comparison to the general population, experiencing cultural disruption, poverty, chronic unemployment, and disproportionate rates of alcoholism and substance abuse. These create an environment in which gangs can flourish. Insufficient law enforcement and detention capability also contribute to the problem. Juveniles may be arrested, but tribes often lack the detention facilities, the probation officers, adequate social services, including substance abuse programs, creating a revolving door for these young people. So, Mr. President, the needs for this funding are apparent and urgent. I realize of course the need to offset the additional funding proposed in this amendment, this $4.8 million. The offset we are proposing comes from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Funding for the center would be set at the level recommended in the House-passed version of the Interior appropriations bill--$1 million. The reduction, I said, amounts to $4.8 million. The Wilson Center was the subject of a Washington Post article in July. And I ask, Mr. President, unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. I do not know whether it is at the desk yet, but I think it is not.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, as reported in this Post article, the Wilson Center selects about 35 fellows each year who receive an average stipend of $43,000 to spend their time studying and writing. The only requirement of the fellows is that in addition to fulfilling their study objectives, they provide a 5-minute presentation on their project to their colleagues and staff. A review of the center's operations by the National Academy for Public Administration earlier this year portrays the center as a splintered operation, ineffective, and drifting. The House Appropriations Committee's report on the Interior bill notes that the only accomplishment the academy could cite for the center was obtaining new office space on Pennsylvania Avenue. The House committee concluded: [T]he Center has operated so long without a clear mission that it may be impossible to reestablish one within an organization that has no relevance to real world public policy issues. It seems to me that we could put this $4.8 million currently allocated to an operation that has been widely recognized as drifting and ineffective toward the real and growing problem of gang violence in Indian country. That is what this amendment is all about, Mr. President. I express my appreciation to Chairman Campbell and to Chairman Hatch for joining me in this amendment and for their leadership on this issue generally. I hope this amendment will be accepted and that we will begin putting the resources we need into fighting the growing problem of gang violence in Indian country. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few minutes perhaps to close the debate. I think perhaps most of the things have been said.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished Chairman of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Forest and Public Lands of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on an issue related to the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. In the first year of operation of Fee Demonstration projects, flaws in the program's application are coming to light. These are flaws that I believe can be corrected through a clarification of the policy articulated by Congress in 1996. I am generally pleased with the overall results of the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. As various Fee Demo projects have been implemented, some problems have occurred. Public acceptance of new or higher fees has been enthusiastic in some quarters and hostile in others. However, the program has shown promise overall. Constituents have brought to my attention the threat of private sector displacement by recreation managers in some National Forests. As private permit terms expire, it appears at some Fee Demo sites there is an intent to discontinue reliance on the private sector for delivery of recreation goods and services. In other instances, the agencies are choosing to go into direct competition with the private sector. The Forest Service will now be offering so-called Heritage Expeditions, which may evolve as whitewater rafting expeditions, archaeological digs, or expeditions into Indian Country--activities offered in abundance by community recreation programs, outfitters and guides, environmental educators, lodges, marinas and dude ranches throughout rural America. If this type of activity is allowed under Fee Demo, more and more concessions may likely be taken from private sector operators and placed into the hands of federal employees to operate. At a time when federal employment rolls are being steadily trimmed, new employees will be required at recreation sites to collect fees, perform maintenance, plan and participate in interpretive and recreational activities. I do not believe this was the intent of the Fee Demonstration Program. This problem seems to be developing in other states. We need to send a clear message to the land management agencies involved in the Fee Demo project that Congress did not authorize this program to enable the agencies to displace or discourage existing and future investment by the private sector.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to receive testimony on various measures pending before the subcommittee. The measures are: S. 725--To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Collbran Reclamation Project to the Ute Water Conservancy District and the Collbran Conservancy District; S. 777--To authorize the construction of the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System and to authorize assistance to the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, for the planning and construction of the water supply system, and for other purposes; H.R. 848--To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of the AuSable hydroelectric project in New York, and for other purposes; H.R. 1184--To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act for the construction of the Bear Creek hydroelectric project in the State of Washington, and for other purposes; and H.R. 1217--To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act for the construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Washington, and for other purposes; The hearing will begin at 2 p.m. on Tuesday, October 7, 1997, in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Persons interested in testifying or submitting material for the record should contact Betty Nevitt of the subcommittee staff at (202) 224-0765 or write to the Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Gorton amendment which would give the States more flexibility and resources to create quality education reform plans that address the specific needs of their particular students. As reported recently by the Heritage Foundation, the Federal Government annually spends $100 billion in direct and indirect education costs, of which only $13.1 billion makes it to local school districts. If the majority of these funds went to the States and local school districts, I believe the concerns of parents about the quality of their children's education would be more effectively addressed than by the faceless bureaucracy in the Department of Education. Polls taken in Arizona and across America consistently demonstrate that Americans consider the quality of education to be their most serious concern. Further, a survey reported in the Washington Post in September 1996 shows that Americans consider the decay of the public schools to be the country's most pressing problem. A surprising 62 percent of those surveyed felt that ``the American educational system will get worse instead of better.'' In my view, nothing is more important to the future of our country than whether our children are academically well-prepared. We fail the fundamental tests of parenthood and good citizenship if we let our children down by failing to impart to them the skills and values they need to govern themselves and this country, and to compete in the global marketplace of the 21st century. Yet, poll after poll shows that Arizonans and Americans alike are concerned about the dumbing down of the politically correct education their children are receiving, the safety of the schools they attend, the general lack of discipline meted out in those schools, and parents' inability to choose to send their children to the school that best fits their kid's individual needs. The State of Arizona has taken some important steps to address these concerns and to come up with solutions. For instance, Arizona, using a creative legislative approach, recently enacted a law creating an income-tax credit available for donations to private schools. The private schools will pool the tax credit money in a scholarship fund to be used to finance full or partial scholarships for any students on a first-come, first-served basis. The Gorton Amendment, by giving states even more control over their education resources, would allow States more latitude to implement creative education reform plans specifically tailored to their particular needs. What the Gorton Amendment would do, with some exceptions, would bundle all funds from the Federal Government which go to support K-12 education and send those funds directly to school districts. Why do we need the Gorton Amendment? There are too many Federal education programs. So many in fact, no one seems to be able to agree on exactly how many there are. One count discovered 760 education programs totaling several billion dollars. With such a large number of programs funded by the Federal Government, it's no wonder there is such a concern about undue Federal influence over the operation of local schools, or whether they are being administered in an efficient way. The people best equipped to make decisions regarding the education of our children are the parents, teachers, principles, school board members and administrators of our local schools. It's not that Members of Congress don't have an interest in the education of children. It's just that we don't have the best information upon which to base decisions. Congress is simply not close enough to the problems school districts face to be able to dictate through Federal mandates how they should address their concerns. This is not to say the Congress does not have a responsibility assisting in the education of America's children. However, we also must see to it that those who are closest to our students have the resources they need. Also, we must ensure that they are not hamstrung by the rules and regulations set by a group of individuals who have never set foot in their school. In sum, Mr. President, the Gorton amendment would empower States, school districts, and parents to take a more active role in the education of their children.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Daschle amendment expressing the sense of the Senate in support of Pell grants. I would say to my colleagues, however, that I think we have already achieved what is intended here when the Senate considered my amendment last week. Even though my amendment to increase Pell grant funding was not adopted, the Senator from Pennsylvania, the distinguished chairman of the Labor-HHS appropriations subcommittee, assured the Senate that, to the extent the committee could yield to the Pell grant number in my amendment and the House bill--a figure that was $528 million higher than in the Senate's Labor-HHS bill--Senate conferees would do so. Let me read back Chairman Specter's remarks from the Record: I might say to my colleague from Arizona that with the additional arguments he has advanced today in a very cogent way, to the extent we can yield to the House figure, we will try to do so when we get to conference. Mr. President, in many ways, the vote on the Daschle amendment should be an easy vote for Members of the Senate. It expresses support for the very important Pell Grant Program, but does not say where the increased funding will come from. It is not binding on the Senate. By contrast, it was my amendment last week that expressed more than non-binding support. It would have provided the actual dollars to extend Pell grant eligibility to additional categories of needy students, including independent students without dependents. I am sure it is not the minority leader's intent to merely add the cost of that expansion to the budget deficit--to the debt that our children and grandchildren will ultimately have to repay. But if education is as high a priority as we all believe it is, we ought to be willing to put funding for Pell grants ahead of other programs. That is what I attempted to do last week with my amendment to fund Pell grants with offsets from the LIHEAP Program. I can understand that some people did not agree that LIHEAP should be cut. Those who believed LIHEAP was a higher priority than education and Pell grants voted against my amendment. But then why not identify some alternative source of funding? Mr. President, I have a letter from the chairman and ranking member of the authorizing committee--a letter that was sent to Chairman Specter and Senator Harkin--pledging that, if the additional Pell grant money were provided, the Labor and Human Resources Committee would work to authorize the increase in assistance for independent students. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL. As I noted before, Chairman Specter has already indicated that he will move toward the higher numbers for Pell grants in conference. And the Labor Committee has indicated that it will act on the necessary authorization. So I think we have already accomplished what is intended here in the Daschle amendment. Nevertheless, since this represents another opportunity to express support for Pell grants, I will support it. However, I do hope that the conference committee will offset the increase from savings in other programs, and not just add the cost to the deficit.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KYL. Let me ask this question of the Senator from Oklahoma. Since this is boiling down to a question of whether the taxpayers of the United States should pay for a union election or whether the union should pay for its own election, why was it that the consent decree that some of our colleagues seem to be focusing so much attention on was entered into in the first instance? Why was the U.S. Government involved in dealing with the Teamsters Union in the first instance? And why was it that a special officer to oversee the election had to be assigned for that, or the parties agreed to have that officer oversee the election to ensure that it would be a fair election? Why was the U.S. Government obligated to provide these funds for this labor union, for a private labor union election?

Mr. KYL. Obviously. The last question I ask is, why, if it is the union's elected officials' fault that the taxpayers had to spend this money in the first instance because they had allowed the fraud and alleged corruption to come into the union and tossed out the ability of the union to conduct its own election on behalf of its members, why, once the taxpayers paid for an election, should they have to pay for it a second time? The taxpayers didn't do anything wrong; it was the union officials.

Mr. KYL. If I could ask this question. So the reason that my constituents in Arizona had to help pay for this union election is because of past fraud and alleged illegal conduct of the union. That is why they are having to pay for this union election, or why they paid for the last union election; is that correct?

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I had sought recognition before the Chair ruled on the unanimous-consent request. I wonder if I could engage in a colloquy, a brief colloquy, regarding the request.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Relatively speaking, the Senator from Iowa is certainly correct. We would simply then engage in a philosophical debate as to whether or not, if that number continued to drop to one-third and one- tenth and so on, whether the program should continue. My view would be this was a temporary program designed to meet a temporary need, that it was never designed to pay for 100 percent of the bill for heating, and therefore there is a point at which the need for the program should go away, when the prices have been reduced to a certain point. He and I obviously simply disagree about what that point would be.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maine, who is going to speak next, but I ask if I can have just 1 minute to respond to one point the Senator from Iowa just made. I think it is important for me to respond to it. He said, first, that the inflation-adjusted prices are about the same and then challenged my assertion that the liberal welfare state program, as I described the LIHEAP Program, which I said the need for had largely been eliminated, is similar, in terms of welfare, to the Pell grant funding and suggested perhaps I was failing to appreciate the similarity in both programs being welfare programs. I simply wanted to respond to the Senator from Iowa in this fashion. What I said was that once a welfare state program is instituted, it is very difficult to get rid of it even if the need for it has been eliminated or reduced. That, in my opinion--and I know the distinguished Senator from Iowa disagrees with this opinion--but in my opinion, the LIHEAP Program is a program which was originally intended to be temporary. That is a fact. But it has now become permanent notwithstanding, in my opinion, the fact that the need for it has largely been eliminated or reduced, thus demonstrating a program instituted for very good reasons but, in my view, which no longer is justified--as distinguished from the Pell Grant Program. I think none of us would argue the need for that has been reduced or eliminated. So my point is not that one is welfare and one is not welfare in the broadest sense of the term, as the Senator from Iowa noted, but rather that the need for one has largely been eliminated, yet it is very difficult if not impossible for us to eliminate these programs once they have begun. To the point that the energy costs are about the same as they were, I can only cite the statistics from the Clinton administration budget submitted in 1995. And I am quoting now. [F]uel prices have decreased by 40 percent in real terms; the cost of electricity has dropped by about 13 percent in real terms; and the percent of income spent for home heating for households at or below 150 percent of poverty guidelines has dropped by about one-third. That is the reason for my assertion that the energy costs have indeed gone down dramatically.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I was just going to comment on a couple things very briefly.

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. At this time, let me explain the reasons for my amendment to increase Pell grant funding. I submitted a statement for the Record yesterday. But I would like to discuss it in a little bit more detail today. There is particular reason for us to take this action which would bring us closer to the administration's request and into line with the recommendation from the House of Representatives. It seems odd to me that the Senate would not be willing to support Pell grant funding at the same level as recommended by the Appropriations Committee in the House of Representatives. This amendment would conform the Senate funding level to the House funding level, and there is a particular reason for this amendment coming up. That is, a problem that was created in a previous law with respect to two different groups of students that are funded. I would like to discuss that in a little bit more detail. First, let me note the numbers. This amendment would provide an additional $528 million for the Pell Grant Program. It would boost funding to the level recommended by the House Appropriations Committee. The Pell grant funding would go from $6.91 billion to $7.438 billion. The offset is from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which I will discuss in just a moment. The Pell grant funding amendment, as I said, is intended to finance changes in eligibility--that is, to correct problems that have arisen as a result of the current law phaseout of certain independent students at income levels that are lower than those for dependent students. Like the House bill, this funding level is contingent upon the authorization committee providing authorization. We have letters from both the chairman and ranking members of the House and Senate authorizing committees indicating that should the additional funding be approved they would work for that authorization to be established. It is also my understanding that the administration is in agreement with the House of Representative numbers with respect to the Pell grant funding. So I think we ought to put at least as high a priority on Pell grants as the President and the House of Representatives in this version of the Labor-HHS bill. Here is the problem that was created. In the Higher Education Amendments of 1992 we established a separate allowance for independent students without dependents--independent students, not dependent students--independent students who do not themselves have dependents. The problem is, the separate allowance established under the 1992 act. It creates a substantial disparity among these groups of students very much to the disadvantage of the independent students without dependents. The proposed change in eligibility which the funding in my amendment is intended to finance would bring the proportion of students in this group who would be eligible for Pell grants closer to the proportion that existed prior to the establishment of the separate allowance in the 1992 act. Students, incidentally, in this group are typically older students with annual family incomes of between $10,000 and $20,000. I obtained from the Department of Education a statistical list for the States of the number of students who lost eligibility under the separate allowance that we created in the 1992 act. Just for the benefit of some of the Senators who are here, I might note some of the numbers with respect to the States involved here. In California, for example, 24,314 students lost eligibility as a result of what we did. My amendment would provide a way for these students to go to school. In Iowa, the State of the distinguished ranking Member, 4,247 students lost eligibility as a result of what we did. My amendment would reassert their eligibility to provide the funding for that. In the State of Michigan, the number of students who lost eligibility, according to the Department of Education, is 15,254; In the State of Minnesota, 7,432; In the State of Pennsylvania, the State of the distinguished chairman of the committee, 9,535 students lost eligibility as a result of what was done. My amendment will restore the funding so that these students will be eligible--will have the funding to get the Pell grants to get their education. So we are talking here about a significant number of students that will not be helped if our amendment is not adopted. The offset, as I said, is from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the so-called LIHEAP Program. I know there are some Members who rather reflexably react to any reductions in this program because there is a contingent of their constituency that relies on this program and that reacts very badly if there is an attempt to cut it. But, Mr. President, I think in this case we have to balance the interests of those people with the people who have lost their eligibility under the Pell Grant Program. And, if we do not act, these students are not going to have the opportunity to advance their education. So let's talk for just a minute about this tradeoff and about the LIHEAP Program. The LIHEAP Program was set up 16 years ago as a temporary program for just a few months to help people get over the energy crisis. The energy crisis is long gone. This is a typical program of the liberal welfare state. It gets established, and then can never be disestablished notwithstanding the fact that the reason for it has long ago disappeared. The world is a very different place than it was in 1981. Gone are the long lines at the gas pumps and the skyrocketing energy prices. It seems to me, as we prepare for the 21st century, that we should look beyond programs designed to cope with an energy crisis of nearly 20 years ago--a crisis that has come and gone --and focus instead on how to prepare young people for the high-tech more competitive economy of the future. That is what this amendment does. Mr. President, fuel costs have not only stabilized since 1981, they have declined significantly in real terms; that is, in inflation- adjusted terms. For example, I would refer to figures from the Clinton administration itself. In its 1995 budget submission the Clinton administration recommended substantial reductions in the LIHEAP Program because it too recognized that the fuel costs had gone down significantly. As noted in the President's budget, ``fuel prices have decreased by 40 percent in real terms; the cost of electricity has dropped by about 13 percent in real terms; and the percent of income spent for home heating for households at or below 150 percent of poverty guidelines has dropped by about one-third.'' The President's budget went on to propose a 50- percent reduction in funding for the program that year. Last year, President Clinton proposed outyear costs in LIHEAP--a $90 million reduction in 1999, and a $181 million reduction in the year 2000. The Office of Management and Budget advised my office that the declining figures were due to the standard percentage reductions applied to programs that were not considered a high priority--because of the statistics that I cited earlier from the Clinton administration. So, Mr. President, you have the Clinton administration recognizing that we need to increase the Pell grant funding, you have the Clinton administration recognizing that the LIHEAP Program can no longer be justified at its present level, you have the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee recommending that we end this disparity between the two different groups of students funded by Pell grants, and it seems to me that we have an opportunity here with very little detriment to increase the funding for these students. The States themselves as I have noted, have already shown a significant ability to meet the energy needs of those that require assistance. For example, many States refuse to allow public utilities to shut off power to delinquent customers. And they have set up payment plans and other options. So we do not need the old subsidy to deal with the problem that may exist for some people. It just seems to me given the States' track record, obviously, that they care as much about their low-income citizens as people here in Washington, DC, do. Given their track records and the stable or declining price of energy, this is a good time to begin, as the President recommended a couple of years ago, to begin cutting back on LIHEAP so that we can target these resources to other more pressing needs. In closing, Mr. President, the bipartisan budget agreement that we passed in July was intended to create new opportunities in education for middle- and upper-income families. It will through a variety of new tax breaks and tax credits. But we have the chance today to target additional Pell grant assistance to more lower- and middle-income people so that all American families will have the same opportunity to secure a brighter future. For those, as I said, who react somewhat automatically against this amendment because, as one friend put it, they come from a cold State, I simply think it is very hard to explain why you voted against the level of Pell grant funding recommended by the House of Representatives and the President of the United States simply because you wanted to preserve a 16-year-old temporary subsidy program, the justification for which has long since disappeared. This amendment literally represents a choice between an old welfare state subsidy and a brighter future for more young people through education that they might not otherwise receive. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment to add more money to the Pell Grant Program. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate that. I also appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Delaware preceding this. I think he makes very cogent points on a different subject. Mr. President, I don't think the yeas and nays have been ordered on my amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.