Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we will now proceed to the amendment of the Senator from Nevada. It is the anticipation of the managers following that amendment that we will have two rollcall votes. I ask unanimous consent that after the yeas and nays have been ordered, the first rollcall vote be 15 minutes plus 5 and the second a 10-minute rollcall vote, 10 minutes plus 5.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, my comments will be very limited as to the pending amendment. Last year, in the conference report, there was a direction that the Department not fund any grant that will compete directly with the private sector, and further that the Department report to the Committees on Appropriation of the House and the Senate on the activities undertaken on this project. It is my understanding that no funds were used on this project last year. It is a little hard to evaluate the factual basis as I listen to the arguments of the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Nevada. However, my own judgment in looking at the record is that it is unlikely any funds are going to be spent which would--we will include the same kind of conference language next year, this year, that we had, which should maintain and should respond to the concerns about any grant which will compete with the private sector, and it leaves the Department of Education at their discretion to use this system if they conclude it will help Chinese students of any age to learn English. On the basis of a very limited record, my vote will be cast with the Senator from Tennessee. In the absence of further debate, can we proceed to two amendments?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment provides for an additional $75 million from the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. The bill currently contains $797,521,000. It has an increase of $10 million over last year. As is the case with so many of the items, it is a very good program. We would like to have more money, but we simply do not have an offset. If the sponsors of the amendment have some offset and want to talk about priorities, we will be glad to listen, but on this state of the record, we are constrained to oppose the amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SPECTER. I appreciate the Senator's interest in this issue and recognize that he has legislation pending in Congress to address the needs of affected Idahoans. I say to my friend and colleague that I will work with him to identify necessary improvements and to respond to findings contained in the NAS report. I also urge the administration to work diligently to help those still in need.

Mr. SPECTER. We will keep a sharp eye on this program in conference. If there is any way to increase the funding to any extent, Senator Harkin and I will be very sympathetic.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this vote be 10 minutes, with a 5-minute extra.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we will find a time which is convenient to the senior Senator from Oklahoma. On to the pending amendment, it is always difficult in the floor debate when we talk about facts to know what the facts are. My training is that we want to find out the facts, so we have a trial and present witnesses, the witnesses testify, and then we find out what the facts are. I do know this about CDC because I visited the facility about 5 years ago and found it in shambles. I have seen a lot of Federal installations. I have never seen one as ramshackle as the Centers for Disease Control. We saw premier scientists with their desks in the corridors. We were advised that there were many toxic substances which were not properly secured. It was a mess. I then consulted with the Secretary of Health and Human Services--this goes back a few years, as I say--and no attention had been paid to it. Senator Harkin later made a similar visit, and that year, on an immediate basis, my recollection is we appropriated $175 million. Then we took a look at their plans for very extensive renovation when we had appropriated seriatim substantial sums of money. When the Senator from Oklahoma says that monies have not been spent, it is represented to me that contractors will not contract with the Federal Government unless they know the money is in hand. Understandably, unless there is authorization and appropriation, nobody wants to do business with some Federal employee who makes representations without having the cash in hand. That is the advice which is coming to me. The landscaping is said to be very modest, which would not include a Japanese garden. I would like to inquire more to find out about it. From what I have seen of the officials at the Centers for Disease Control, Dr. Julie Gerberding is an extraordinary public servant. I know that when I have wanted some information on the problems of pandemic flu, I had to find her in Bangkok, where she was making an international survey. I know when we had a deadly botulism in western Pennsylvania a couple of years ago, I called her up and she came on a weekend to Beaver County, Pennsylvania. I do not think it was just because the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee was calling; that is the kind of service they perform. They wrestle with HIV, SARS, and hurricanes, and now they are wrestling with pandemic flu. Among the many people in the Federal Government whom I have dealt with--and there have been quite a few in the course of my time--I would rate Dr. Gerberding, who is the head of it, very highly. Having mentioned Japanese gardens, I have just been handed a note from my staff that says it does have a Japanese garden. Well, I wish to inquire further. Maybe there could be a less expensive exotic garden than a Japanese garden. I do, at my risk, commend the Senator from Oklahoma for his tenacity and for his sharpness in digging up wasteful spending. I do believe that on this one, he is on the wrong track, but the Senators from Georgia are present, and I know they want to be heard. I think the distinguished ranking member wants to be heard. So I will yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I do.

Mr. SPECTER. We would be glad to accommodate the senior Senator from Oklahoma. We can handle that amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Of course. The Senator and his staff are welcome to whatever information we have. We want the Senator to know what it is every step of the way. I believe in full disclosure. Let us find out what the facts are. It has always been a point of mine that if one comes to an agreement on the facts, they can almost always come to an agreement on policy that flows from the facts. We will set up a meeting jointly.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, my colleague and I were just discussing the amendment. I believe it is acceptable. I yield to my colleague.

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

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have a request from Senator DeMint for 15 minutes of morning business. This would be a good time to accommodate that request.

Mr. SPECTER. I do.

Mr. SPECTER. I would think it mandatory that the Senator's staff be present.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, we are going to move to the amendment by the Senator from New York.

Mr. SPECTER. The Senator from Georgia has the time.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I concur with the Senator from New York about the tremendous importance of special education. That has been a priority of mine since becoming chairman of the subcommittee. In the 1996 fiscal year, the Federal contribution was 7.3 percent. Since that time, through fiscal year 2005, we have raised it to 18.5 percent. We are still a good bit shy of approximating a 40-percent figure, but when we look at the funding for IDEA, there have been very marked increases as we have moved along, with an increase one year of $1.3 billion, another year $1.1 billion. We are now at a position where the total funding for IDEA has come up very dramatically but candidly is not as far as I would like to see it. We now stand in a range of funding of $10.7 billion. The amendment offered by the Senator from New York increases funding by $3.959 billion, almost $4 billion. Like the amendment offered by Senator Dodd for Head Start, I would like to see the money for IDEA. Last year, Senator Dayton offered an amendment for $11 billion which-- even that draws a smile from my colleague from Connecticut. Or the amendment offered by Senator Byrd for $5 billion, or the one yesterday for Head Start. A few years ago, after managing this bill for some time, I made a determined effort to become chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. It seems to me a good place to be so when these votes came up I would be free to cast a vote to exceed the budget limitations, since it takes 60 votes. That means if you take 44 Democrats and Senator Jeffords and 14 votes possible, you can be with the good guys and still not bust the budget. That luxury is not enjoyed by the manager, however. It is one of the footnotes in the manager's book, you cannot raise a point of order and vote against a point of order. It presents a very difficult voting record for reelection to vote against Head Start, against education funding, against Pell grants, and against special education. I have stayed with this Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Education because it is important. Senator Harkin and I have led the way on funding for NIH. We have some very important funding for the Centers for Disease Control. But I think we have done a great deal with this budget, to the maximum extent possible. Each year it becomes much more difficult. The increase of $100 million for special education this year is insufficient. I wish there were more money that could be advanced. I am well aware that the education for special education, disabled, and handicapped puts people in the mainstream of American life and improves the quality of their life. It is important. But when we have a budget resolution that is thought out--and I voted for the $5 billion Senator Kennedy wanted to add to education which would have given money. It was a 51- to-49 vote. I was importuned by the Republican cloakroom with great pressure to change my vote and make it 50 to 50 so that amendment would go down. I stayed with Senator Kennedy's amendment. If we had had $5 billion more, we could have accommodated what Senator Clinton wants and what Senator Dodd wants and some of Senator Byrd's request, but we do not have the money. My duties require me to raise a point of order, which I now do formally, but I will desist because I see Senator Dodd on his feet for a short speech.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I raise a point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides budget authority and outlays in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation under fiscal year 2006 concurrent resolution and therefore is not in order.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is now a series of five amendments which have been accepted on both sides. I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate turn to a series of five amendments which have been accepted on both sides. I start with an amendment on behalf of Senator Frist, No. 2278, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SPECTER. We are now prepared to proceed with the Dodd amendment. I ask unanimous consent that we limit the time on this amendment to 45 minutes equally divided.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.