Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, as I said, I think it is preferable, as a procedural matter, to take up the amendments one at a time so we can conclude debate on the amendments. I believe this amendment is a good amendment. It would permit the Secretary of Education to treat as timely filed applications from El Paso, CO, school district and Window Rock, AZ, for impact aid. There is no cost involved. There is sound explanation as to why they were not timely filed. In order for the Secretary of Education to make the payments, there needs to be legislative action. The Senator from Colorado has provided the vehicle for doing so. I support the amendment and urge its adoption.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their prompt arrival in the Chamber to vote. We had an 18\1/2\-minute vote. I don't think we have had too many under 20 minutes, recently, at least, so we are moving right along. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the amendment on impact aid, I urge its adoption, or you can articulate it for unanimous consent to be adopted. One way or another, let's adopt it and move on.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have been sitting in the Chamber without accomplishing much for more than 45 minutes now. We had, in my view, more quorum calls and more time which was not spent on the bill than we should have. We have a great many amendments pending, and we are going to be pushing ahead. We are filing cloture today, and we are going to be pushing ahead to try to get this bill finished at the earliest time. Whether it is Thursday, Friday, or when this week, I do not know. We have been awaiting for more than 30 minutes the arrival of a Senator to offer another amendment. And very candidly, I am tired of waiting. So that concludes the action on this bill today. We will begin tomorrow morning with a series of amendments. We had wanted to vote on a number of amendments which were pending, but we cannot because too many Senators have other commitments. That is something that is hard to understand sometimes: why we are notified midafternoon that Senators are too busy to attend to the business of the Senate and to vote. I say in gest that I am going to run for majority leader on a platform to have a 4-day workweek, from Monday noon until Friday noon. That would double the workweek of the Senate. The second plank of my platform--I notice the two Senators from Georgia are amused; anybody would be amused--to hold down these votes to 15 minutes and 5 more minutes, we did pretty well on that. We had an 18\1/2\-minute vote. So that is a little progress. The junior Senator from Georgia is nodding in the affirmative. But we have to do better. And to advocate a 4-day workweek, which would double the work of the Senate, is said only facetiously. I would have only one vote, my own. I would have maybe two or three if I didn't run on that kind of a platform. Seriously, we need to get on with this bill. But it is now past 6 o'clock, and that concludes our activity on the bill. I think the custom of the Senate is to move to morning business at this point. I am advised we have not yet filed cloture, Mr. President, so I suggest the absence of a quorum so we technically stay on the bill until the final signature is added so that the cloture motion can be filed.

Mr. SPECTER. That is acceptable, provided those on the floor can muster a no which either exceeds the ayes or is so recognized by the Chair to be the predominant voice vote. I call for the question on a voice vote.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have been proceeding reasonably well on handling amendments. We had a short period between 12 and 12:30 where we did not have amendments pending. I understand we will have an amendment presented at about 6 o'clock this evening. But that leaves us with an hour and 22 minutes. The distinguished Senator from Texas wishes to speak for 10 or 15 minutes. We can accommodate his schedule. We have quite a number of amendments which have been filed and others where there has been an indication that there will be amendments. I urge my colleagues to come to the floor. Floor time is hard to find. When this bill moves ahead tomorrow or the day after or Friday, the bill is going to be finished this week, however long it takes us. We are anxious to conclude the work of the Senate. Now is the time. I yield to my distinguished colleague from Texas 10 to 15 minutes, as he chooses, and ask unanimous consent for his recognition to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would suggest, if I may, that we conclude action on this amendment, with a brief reply by this side, so we can move ahead with the amendment, anticipating its adoption. I think that would be a more orderly process. So technically, I do object--with that suggestion.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before Senator Durbin begins, may I again remind my colleagues at the conclusion of this debate, which I would expect to be somewhere in the nature of 20 minutes, we will proceed to a rollcall vote. We expect it to be 15 and 5, limited to 20 minutes, and then we are anxious to have other amendments offered to proceed at that time.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Illinois for that statement. Perhaps we ought to just formalize it in a unanimous consent agreement that the vote will occur at 10:45.

Mr. SPECTER. I do.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleagues for the promptness on that vote. The report was made to cut off the vote at 1 minute 6 seconds in excess of the 20 minutes, which is pretty good for voting in this Senate. We will hold the votes to 20 minutes. We have the Senator from Massachusetts lined up to offer an amendment on Pell grants. We anticipate voting on it at 2:15, but they will have time before the customary adjournment at 12:30 for the policy luncheons to start debate on another amendment. I have talked to a number of Senators about offering an amendment if that opportunity presents itself. We do want to push ahead. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have listened to the presentation by the Senator from Massachusetts, and I do not disagree with anything he said. When he talks about the need for more education funding, I agree with him. When he talks about the importance for the productivity of the United States on the economics sphere, when he talks about the importance of education for military preparedness, he makes very valid points. And when he talks about fairness, those are very important considerations. I applaud the work he has done in the field of education over his very distinguished career. He served for many years as chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and now he is the ranking member. He has addressed these issues of education funding year in and year out with logic and passion. As chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee, the job I have, and our subcommittee does, and that of our excellent staff, is to make allocations, with a budget of $145 billion, as to where we are going to allocate the money. The Senator from Massachusetts has asked for an increase of $836 million, but there is no offset. That means he has not found something in a budget of $145 billion which would pay for his amendment which would increase Pell grants by $836 million. I would like to increase Pell grants by $836 million myself. The fact is, I would like to increase them by more than that, if I could make the allocation. But the subcommittee is limited by what its allocation is and what the budget resolution provides. That is $145 billion to allocate among all the education programs sponsored by the Federal Government, all of the health programs sponsored by the Federal Government, all of the programs of the Department of Labor, and about $10, $11 billion on related agencies. It is important to note that this budget contains $812 million over last year's budget. So that in looking at the Pell grants and in coming to a total figure of $13.177 billion, a very significant increase of $812 million over last year which is hard to find in this budget. But that is as far as we could stretch to provide the money. When you talk about Pell grants, this has been a very high priority item for this Senator. I took over the chairmanship of the subcommittee after Republicans took control of the Senate in 1994. In 1995, the Pell grant awards were $2,340. We have increased them every year: from $2,340 in 1995 to $2,470 in 1996; to $2,700 in 1997; to $3,000 in 1998; to $3,125 in 1999; to $3,300 in the year 2000; $3,750 in 2001; $4,000 in 2002, and $4,050 in 2003. We had to maintain it at the same level in 2004; in 2005, the same. That is where we stand. We had to allocate last year $4.3 billion to pay off an estimated shortfall in the Pell grants. So we have paid a lot of attention to Pell grants and have put this on a very high priority basis. There are quite a number of other programs in our education budget which are directed to the same kinds of considerations so eloquently articulated by the Senator from Massachusetts. Student loans are a very big point. This is well known. I think it is worth noting that the new student loan volume for 2006 fiscal year is in excess of $62 billion, which is $10 billion over the amount which was available in fiscal year 2004. It is also important to note that there are a number of other programs which are directed to the same beneficiaries who are recipients of the Pell grants. We have, for example, $805 million for the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant program, which is an increase of $26 million. We have $66 million for loan cancellations. The Perkins loan program supports more than $1 billion in low-interest loans to undergraduate students, and there is funding for loan cancellations. We have $990 million in the Federal Work-Study Program. We have over $65 million for Leveraging Education Assistant Partnership programs. We have quite a number of programs. Tax credits and deductions in 2006 are valued at a savings of $3.2 billion for students and families through the HOPE Scholarship tax credit; $2.1 billion under the Lifetime Learning Credit; $1.8 billion for the above-the-line deduction on higher education expenses; and $810 million in deductions for interest paid on student loans. These are a variety of programs which are targeted and directed at people who need help, who have loans, who can't pay their loans. None of that is to say that the Pell grants are not vital and that we wouldn't be in a preferable position nationally if we had the funds to increase the Pell grants. If the Senator from Massachusetts or anyone has any idea as to how to stretch these dollars further, I am interested to hear. If anybody has an idea of increasing funding in any particular line as a priority over some of the other $145 billion we have in this bill, I would be interested to hear and weigh that too. But on the basis of this record, we have stretched the dollars as far as we can. As much as I agree with everything the Senator from Massachusetts has said, and as much as I would like to raise the Pell grants, the budget resolution does not give me, as chairman, the discretion to do so. For the edification of anybody who may be watching on C-SPAN 2, listening to this debate--and I have at least a few relatives listening--the next movement is to raise a point of order, although this may not be the appropriate time with further debate to take place. But I do think it is in order now to propound a unanimous consent request which will formalize the informal agreement which Senator Kennedy and I arrived at earlier for 2:15 vote. I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Kennedy amendment on Pell grants; provided further, that there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to that vote and that no second degree be in order to the amendment prior to the vote.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to vitiate the yeas and nays on amendment No. 2197 and proceed to adopt the amendment by voice vote at this time. I cleared this matter with Senator Harkin.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I put all Senators on notice that we will soon be starting the debate on an amendment to be offered by Senator Durbin. We had expected to go on the bill at 10, with morning business scheduled from 9:30 to 10, but morning business has run a little late. One of the Senators asked for an extension of time, which was not objected to. Now Senator Stabenow has asked for 5 minutes, which we will agree to. Senator Harkin and I are on the floor, and we are anxious to proceed with the business of the bill. I know Senator Harkin would like to make a comment.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Tuesday, October 25, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. for a hearing regarding ``Guns and Butter: Setting Priorities in Federal Spending in the Context of Natural Disaster, Deficits and War.''

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 25, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 25, 2005, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Mr. Matthew Slaughter, of New Hampshire, to be a member of the Council of Economic Advisers; Ms. Katherine Baicker, of New Hampshire, to be a member of the Council of Economic Advisers; Mr. Orlando J. Cabrera, of Florida, to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; Ms. Gigi Hyland, of Virginia, to be a member of the National Credit Union Administration Board; and Mr. Rodney E. Hood, of North Carolina, to be a member of the National Credit Union Administration Board.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David McClendon, Health fellow to Senator Cochran, be granted the privilege of the floor during debate on the fiscal year 2006 Labor-HHS appropriations bill.