Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Which is the first amendment?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Vermont believes very deeply about the importance of the IDEA program and the necessity and desirability of the Federal Government to fund it. The difficulty is--and we wish we had more funds in the education budget, although this budget has $4.5 billion more than last year, and $100 million more than the President's figure--but when it comes out of the construction account, or any other account, they are very carefully calibrated to provide the appropriate balance. The construction account is one of the President's priorities. We have met that, as with class size, subject to the discretion of the local school boards. If they make a finding they do not need additional buildings or additional teachers, they may use it for what they choose. It may be that they could use it for the purposes articulated by the distinguished Senator from Vermont. So it is with reluctance that we are opposing his amendment. And I move to table.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we would ask the proponent of the amendment to step forward to debate.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I agree with my distinguished colleague from Vermont that it would be desirable to put more money into the program for individuals with disabilities. But in constructing this bill, we have tried to fashion it in a way that it will be signed by the President. We have put the money into construction to meet requests with the proviso that if the local boards do not need it for construction, or want it, they can use it as they choose. If we had additional funds, I would be delighted to acknowledge Senator Jeffords' request. But in its present form, we cannot take those funds without increasing the chance of a veto. This carefully constructed bill ought to stand. Therefore, I move to table the Jeffords amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that no second-degree amendments be in order prior to the vote.

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent the time be set on the Wellstone amendment at 1 hour, with the Senator from Minnesota having 40 minutes and our side having 20 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. Would the Senator from Minnesota be willing to enter a time agreement of an hour, 40 minutes for the Senator from Minnesota, and 20 minutes for our side?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that time on the Kerry amendment be 1 hour equally divided. We have already talked about this. I understand there is agreement.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 28, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., on airline customer service.

Mr. SPECTER

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.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, we would be delighted.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Senator about what the amendment relates?

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 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.

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. 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending business be set aside so the Senator from Pennsylvania may offer an amendment.

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. 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. We did.

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.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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. 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.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this bill accommodates the President's request for $1.4 billion for class size reduction. It is joined with $1.3 billion for school construction, trying to structure a bill which could be signed. But we leave, in the final analysis, the judgment to the local boards as to whether the local boards decide that they do not need construction or if they do not need class size reduction. That is what is objected to by the Senator from Washington. We have gone more than halfway to meet the President in putting up this money. In addition, the Murray amendment would add $350 million, which exceeds our allocation. We think we are stretching and stretching and stretching. If the President is going to veto this bill, then let him do so. We expect to present this bill to him long before the end of the fiscal year, and then we will debate it before the American public. I make a point of order that the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.