Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, one more reminder. This is a 20-minute vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the absence of any Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think the idea offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, that all of the earmarks be specified in the conference report, is a very sound idea. The earmarks from this bill have traditionally and always have been properly identified. I am very pleased to accept the amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it would be my preference to stack the votes, unless the Senator from West Virginia would like to have a vote now.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the purpose of the advertisements, I have one in my hand, is to set the stage for recruiting people, as represented to me, to use the vaccine when it is developed. This ad, for example, pictures a man which says: I'm fighting to stop a killer. HIV is a killer. I'm a witness. I have buried babies, I have buried old people and young people, people like me, people like you. HIV is serious. So my life's work is helping others learn about it and prevent it. Today, thousands of research, medical professionals, and volunteers are committed to discovering a vaccine that prevents HIV and stopping this epidemic. To them I say, I'm with you. This ad tries to stimulate awareness of what is being done, an ultimate tool in finding people who will be volunteers. NIH has run this ad. What I suggest to the Senator from Oklahoma is that we set the amendment aside and take a closer look at the purposes NIH has in mind in using it. Then we can revisit it and decide whether to accept it or whether to contest it and have a vote on it.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Department of Health and Human Services opposes this amendment saying that they are important for their work and best practices. I note that a similar amendment was offered on the Transportation, Treasury, and HUD appropriations bill and that it was agreed upon by a voice vote. Before taking a definitive position, I would like to conduct a further inquiry with HHS. In preparation for this bill being on the floor, we have an idea of the amendments which are going to be offered, and we have information provided by the administrative agency. I understand the logic of the position of the Senator from Oklahoma. I do not want to abandon the agency without giving them an opportunity to present in a fuller way their ideas. We will consult with them and come back to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. SPECTER. All right. In deference to the Senator from West Virginia, we will accede to his request. It would be my hope--I talked to Senator Harkin about this--that to the extent we can, while we have people here ready to offer amendments--we have just worked out a time agreement with Senator Dodd, 45 minutes equally divided for his amendment--while we have Senators in the Chamber ready to proceed, we do so to the extent we can, unless there is a circumstance which requires a different outcome. I understand Senator Alexander may have a related issue. I have just been informed about that. May I suggest to the Chair that we hear from Senator Alexander to see how it impacts on the vote before we move ahead with the vote?

Mr. SPECTER. I ask to set it aside and move on to the next amendment.

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 for fiscal year 2006 and, therefore, is not in order.

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 now call up a second Durbin amendment on scientific integrity and yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending Coburn amendment be set aside and we proceed with another amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I do.

Mr. SPECTER. I do.

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

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. 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. 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. Madam President, I yield back my time.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside temporarily and the vote in relation to this amendment be determined by the majority leader after consultation with the Democratic leader and that we move ahead to the amendment to be offered by the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, listening to the passionate presentation by the Senator from Connecticut, I agree with virtually everything he said but nothing more than when he said that Senator Harkin and I have thankless tasks. It is very hard to reply to what the Senator from Connecticut has had to say about the importance of Head Start without agreeing with him, and his reminiscences back to January following the 1980 election when 18 new Senators came to the Senate--16 Republicans and 2 Democrats. I was one of 16, and Senator Dodd was one of 2. His class has maintained 50 percent representation. Our class is down to one-eighth, 12\1/2\ percent. Senator Dodd and I formed the Children's Caucus. He wasn't a chairman anywhere because he was in the minority. He wanted to have a gavel--at least half a gavel. I chaired the Juvenile Justice Subcommittee. We talked and formed a caucus. I think we did very good work. I think some of the work we did has followed its way into Head Start and very important juvenile programs. As Senator Dodd has said, it is a thankless job to manage this bill, to make allocations of $145 billion among education, health care, and labor and work safety. We have done the very best we could in our allocations. It has been crafted, as I said, jointly by Senator Harkin and myself. Over the years, I have been and still am a steadfast supporter of Head Start. We have in this budget almost $7 billion for Head Start, a very substantial sum of money. Between fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 2004, we have doubled Head Start. Nothing would please me more than to be able to accede to the request by the Senator from Connecticut, which is, as he accurately stated, a moderate request. Yesterday, the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, offered an amendment on Pell grants which I thought was a good amendment. We had Senator Byrd's amendment this morning for increased funding on education title I, which is a good amendment. It is difficult not to be able to support these amendments. But in my job, it is necessary to take the allocation which the budget resolution gives us and make the allocations as best we can. If Senator Dodd had some suggestion as to an offset--that is, where we could move some money from one account to another on the basis of priority--I would be glad to consider whatever he had to say. But I am constrained to stay within the limits which the budget resolution has provided. That requires, much as I dislike to, raising a budget point of order. Much as I dislike doing so, I raise a point of order under 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment would put the authority and outlays in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation and, therefore, is out of order.

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.