Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Let us hold off on this. There may be some amendment on the Republican side. I doubt there will be, but I don't want to have a series of amendments on both sides. I think that would be agreeable, but I would not want to be bound to it at this moment.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it has been represented that the appropriate Senators have signed off.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am advised further that as to 2260, where the Senator from Massachusetts had asked for some time to take a look at it, we have his assent at this time.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think we have worked out a procedure where there will not be either a side-by-side or second-degree amendment offered. The Senator from Tennessee would like an opportunity to speak for 10 minutes on it, and we will hear Senator Alexander for 10 minutes and then proceed to a vote on the Byrd amendment. So I ask unanimous consent at this time that Senator Alexander be recognized for 10 minutes, that we then proceed to a vote on the Byrd amendment, and then we proceed to take up the Dodd amendment and seek to proceed with the order we have established.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:05, there be 10 minutes equally divided with respect to the two pending LIHEAP amendments, provided further that following that time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments: Senator Reid, 2194; Senator Gregg, 2253 as modified; Senator Dodd, 2254; Senator Clinton, 2292; Senator Coburn, 2232; provided further there be no second-degree amendments in order to the listed amendments prior to the votes, and prior to the vote it be in order for Senator Specter to modify the Gregg amendment on his behalf. And I further ask there be 2 minutes for debate equally divided between each of the votes listed after the first vote. Mr. President, I ask that after the first vote, the votes be 10 minutes instead of 15 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I wish to make a comment or two. I commend the Senator from Iowa for his foresight on moving ahead on the pandemic issue. He and I have been discussing it for several days. I think it is difficult to proceed without knowing what the administration's plans are. As the Senator from Iowa correctly notes, action has to be taken. When the administration decides on a plan and picks a figure, there is going to have to be congressional action, and we are nearing the end of this session. A supplemental or an emergency appropriations bill is always difficult to structure. So there are sound reasons to take a look at it now and make some judgment. We have been in touch with the White House on a number of occasions to try to find out what the position is of the administration. So far they are unprepared to give us an answer. We are working to see if it is possible to structure an appropriation, subject to the Secretary's discretion, and how it will be in consultation and would be an emergency. There is no doubt there ought to be planning now for this emergency. What the proper figure is I don't know. That is a figure that would be more within the scope of understanding, knowledge, and projection of the administration, and the experts at CDC and NIH. I wanted to make those few comments. We are going to carry this over until tomorrow. I know the administration will be aware of what is happening on the floor today, and perhaps that will motivate them or enable them to come forward to help us grapple with this issue and find some realistic and practical solution at this time.

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

Mr. SPECTER. I understand this has been cleared, too, with Senator Harkin.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, so that there will be no doubt and all Senators will be on notice, we will start the vote at 4:15, and the first vote will be 15 minutes, with 5 minutes additional, limited to 20 minutes, and each vote thereafter will be 10 minutes with a 5-minute addition, limited to 15 minutes, and the request will be made that Senators remain in the Chamber to complete the votes on those five amendments. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Tennessee if he would be agreeable to a time limit of, say, 30 minutes equally divided?

Mr. SPECTER. Under the regular order, we will then proceed to a vote, objection having been heard. We will entertain Senator Alexander's amendment at the earliest time the managers can. May I remind my colleagues that this is going to be a 15-minute rollcall vote, with 5 additional minutes. We had an 18\1/2\-minute vote yesterday. Let's see if we can beat that record. I know we are going to proceed. I will talk to my colleagues, and we will work out the sequence.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have been advised by staff that this has been signed off by the Senator from Massachusetts as well as others. But of course, if he would like a chance to review it--

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment is offered on behalf of Senator Levin and will allow aliens of extraordinary abilities who will represent the United States at an international event to complete the citizen requirement process in less time.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this has been cleared with Senator Harkin. It relates to the Diversity Visa Fairness Act and strikes the language that allows aliens to only be eligible for immigrant visas during the fiscal year in which they apply and makes the applicants eligible for immigrant visas despite the end of the fiscal year.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now call up amendment 2268.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have listened with great interest to the comments by the very distinguished Senator from West Virginia. It is always a treat to listen to Senator Byrd, hear a little Roman history, hear a tune from time to time, and hear the lengthy experience that Senator Byrd brings to this august body. He was elected to the House of Representatives in 1952. Before that he had been a legislator for the State of West Virginia. He was elected to the Senate in 1958. We were reminiscing the other day about his having served with President Truman, only for a few days, because President Truman did not run in 1952. President Eisenhower did. And Senator Byrd always very carefully denominates the service ``with'' as opposed to ``under.'' That is exactly correct. I share his insistence on parity. When they wrote the Constitution, Congress was article I, not the executive branch. It did not come in until article II, and the judiciary, not until article III. But the Supreme Court has sort of rewritten the Constitution more than once. Now, if we were to rewrite the Constitution, they would be article I. I don't know where the Congress would be, they have taken away so much of our authority. We have lost our authority under the commerce clause. The Supreme Court wrote an opinion in a case called United States v. Morrison involving the legislation on protecting women against violence; notwithstanding a mountain of evidence, a voluminous record, they said it was insufficient, and they disagreed with our ``method of reasoning.'' It surprised me, in preparation for the hearings from Chief Justice Roberts, to know that Congress had a defective method of reasoning. I didn't know that until I read that in the Supreme Court opinion. Somehow when you move from the columns of Congress, the Senate, lined up directly with the columns of the Supreme Court, you lose some reasoning capacity in the interim--which I doubt very much. Then when they interpreted the Americans with Disabilities Act, Justice Scalia said they were tasking the Congress, getting us to do our homework, that we had not made a sufficient record. So when I listen to Senator Byrd talk about the Constitution and about our duties, it is with great interest. I recollect a few years back when Senator Byrd chaired the Committee on Appropriations and I had the audacity to challenge his mark. It was not done by any Senator. I thought I had that standing. I looked at my Commission of Elections, and I had that standing. I got 3 votes out of 29: Senator D'Amato, Senator Kasten voted with me. Senator Kasten was not here at the 1992 elections, so it was a long time ago that Senator Byrd looked across the table in S-128, the appropriations room, and said: Someday you may be chairman, you may set the mark. I am not too far away and have not gotten there yet to be chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. We wrestle with these appropriations budgets. It is really a tough job. This subcommittee of the bill we have today for $145 billion has to fund education and health, which are our two major capital assets. If you do not have good health, you cannot do anything. If you cannot have a good education, you cannot move ahead in this world. Senator Byrd and I have both benefited from a good education. I didn't come from a school quite as small as his. I went to high school in a town of 5,000, Russell, KS, where Bob Dole had gone to high school. However, education is the key to the future and I know that, and I appreciate that. We have struggled mightily to make the best allocation we can with the priorities ahead. As I listened to Senator Byrd talk about title I of No Child Left Behind, I would like to see the funding increased on No Child Left Behind. I would see our priorities on a budget of $2.6 trillion arranged differently if I set the priorities. Maybe someday I will get to be chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and can set the priorities. But even as I say that, there is so little of that money in discretionary spending that so much of the authority of the Committee on Appropriations is taken away. We have to do the best we can. We labored mightily to craft the best priorities we could. There will be a number of amendments. There was an amendment offered yesterday by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, on Pell grants. I would like to have had more money for Pell grants. I said if Senator Kennedy can show the priorities of what could be cut, I would be glad to consider that. As I listened to Senator Byrd today, I would like to have $5 billion more and accept his amendment and see more money go to title I and No Child Left Behind, but the money simply is not there. I have to disagree with my distinguished colleague when he says there has been a betrayal of the promise. I don't think the authorization constitutes a proposition. The authorization is always higher than the appropriation. In the dark ages of the past, my colleague--Senator Harkin is returning to the Senate--the dark ages of the past when Senator Harkin was chairman of this subcommittee, Democrats took control in that fateful time, the spring of 2001, and controlled the budget process 2001 and 2002 for about a 17-month period. I took a look at what the figures were at that time. I noted the authorization on title I for fiscal year 2002 was $13.5 billion, and the appropriation was $10.35 billion. I understood that because we crafted that bill together. When I say the ``dark ages'' I say it only in jest. Senator Harkin and I have worked coordinately. With all the bickering that exists in this Senate--and it is a lot--there is a deep trench here that crosses the aisle on many days in the Senate but not when Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter or Bob Byrd and Thad Cochran or Ted Stevens work on a bill. We cross the partisan line. Senator Harkin and the Democrat-controlled Congress could not fund it all the way up to the authorization. And in 2003, again, when Senator Harkin was chairman of the subcommittee, the authorization was $16 billion and the appropriation was $11.689 billion. I took a look at the funding for the 5 years of the Bush administration and compared it to funding in the 5 years of President Clinton's administration. As to title I, under the Bush administration, the budget request for fiscal year 2006 is $13.342 billion; President Clinton's last year at $8.357 billion. There was an increase during the Bush years of $4.985 billion. With President Clinton, I compared from 1997 to 2001. In 1997, the budget request by the President was $7.165 billion, and President Clinton's last year it was $8.357 billion. So there was an increase during President Clinton's watch of $1.192 billion. I cite those figures only to point out President Bush has not done too badly by comparison to President Clinton. They both struggled as well. When we look at the total funding on education, President Bush's budget for 2006 is $56.219 billion, going back to 2001 as a base, $40.088 billion, the education budget request by President Clinton has increased $16.131 billion. If you take a comparable period for President Clinton and use the fiscal year 2001 figures of $40.088 billion contrasted with fiscal year 1997, $25.829 billion, there was an increase of $14.259 billion. Now, these figures are subject to differences of inflation. They are not exact. But it ought to be understood, or at least the point I seek to make is that it is not a political matter. When it comes to education there is recognition by both parties that it is a very high priority item. On the comparison, I find fault with neither party. Both Presidents have tried to do what they could with a lot of conflicting problems. Certainly, when Senator Harkin was the chairman of the subcommittee, he did his best. We worked together. When I had an idea, I would bring it to him and we would try to work it out. When he had an idea, he would bring it to me and I would try to work it out. We have been talking about the avian flu issue, which we will talk about later. I was in my hideaway--that is a small Senate office for somebody watching on C-SPAN2, where you go to hide to try to get some work done, instead of your office where you are surrounded by many assistants who want answers to their specific problems which are the most pressing of the day. The phone rang. It was Senator Harkin trying to prepare an opening statement for the Harriet Miers confirmation hearings. We have other work to do besides this big appropriations bill. It was quiet until the phone rang. It was Senator Harkin. Would I take a call from Senator Harkin? Of course, I will take a call from Senator Harkin, put him through. We talked about avian flu and what we are going to do. He had some good ideas on avian flu, and we will discuss that in some detail a little later today. Wherever he has an idea, and I am the chairman, I am all ears. If I can accommodate Senator Harkin, I am going to do so. He was hard to get off the phone this morning. That happens from time to time. He was giving me a very heavy pitch. I tried to interrupt him at one point and said: Tom, I hate to say this, but I think you are right. It didn't stop him, he kept going, kept going. About 30 seconds after I said that, he stopped, and said: Yes, you said I was right. I said: That's right, Tom. Can we finish this conversation and continue it in the Senate when we have the issue before the Senate? In conclusion--the two most popular words of any speech--while I would like to agree with Senator Byrd and I would like to see $5 billion more, we do not have the money under the allocation. If anybody has any ideas about how to rearrange the priorities, I am willing to listen. It is customary for the allocation, the appropriation, to be under the authorization. That happens whether Democrat or Republican. You do not put on a villain's hat necessarily because you are in one party or the other. We will continue the struggle and continue to try to do our best on education. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his contributions. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now call up a second Durbin amendment on scientific integrity and yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. SPECTER. With respect to tomorrow's schedule, we will have a cloture vote anticipated to be at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on October 26 2:30 p.m. to hold its second hearing on Eco-terrorism specifically examining Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (``SHAC''). THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. committee on foreign relations