Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this is an amendment which reduces the Federal administrative costs for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services by $15 million. It is a very small reduction which will still leave in that account some $640 million, an increase of $57,570,000 over last year. The reason for this amendment, which is more in the nature of a technical amendment, is it brings this bill in conformity with the budget resolution. We anticipate savings of $15 million from a certain item in the budget. We have found that the savings noted by Finance for fiscal year 2006 amounts to only $90 million. We are $15 million short. With the astute reading of the staff, this was noted, and we would be subject to a point of order if we were out of kilter. So we are offering this amendment. I believe this would be the basis for at least one of the 5:30 votes this afternoon. The majority leader talked about other judicial nominees being on the calendar. That is up to him as to whether he will put those on the agenda for votes. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, that is the only amendment which this manager has to offer at this time. It is 3:22. We have 2 hours 8 minutes before the 5:30 vote. There are frequent occurrences on the floor of this Senate where 8 minutes is valuable, and sometimes 2 minutes. Somebody asked unanimous consent on Thursday night for an additional minute, but it was objected to. Objection was withdrawn with 5 minutes to argue about whether we would have a minute. We have a lot of time. We could get some important work done if Senators who are now returning from their home States will come to the floor and offer amendments. 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 dispensed with.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, Senator Harkin just called my attention to the fact that a quorum call has been underway for a protracted period of time. Senator Harkin and I are very much opposed to quorum calls during our watch. I ask Senator Harkin if it is too early to call for a third reading or final passage.

Mr. SPECTER. Would 4:15 be an appropriate time?

Mr. SPECTER. If we have third reading, we will not need a cloture motion. I am persuaded by the eloquence of the Senator's argument.

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

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for his lenient response. I thought it worth noting that a quorum call had been on for a while. Even the generosity of Senator Harkin has its limits on how much of a quorum call he will sustain. Amendment No. 2197 Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the pending business?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, a very short statement about the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill. A cloture motion is being filed this evening, which will call for all germane amendments to be filed by Wednesday at noon. I see some doubt as to whether we are filing a cloture motion. Soon, the cloture motion will be filed. But we have a very complex bill in hand. We are asking Members to file their amendments and bring them down for arguments so we can proceed to finish this bill in a timely manner--no later than by the end of this week, and hopefully sooner. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lisa Bernhardt and Vicki Ball be given floor privileges during consideration of the fiscal year 2006 Labor-HHS appropriations bill.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I say, this is a license for Senators not to bring amendments to the floor on this bill, but this license is short lived. It is not going to last too long. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, at the outset, I thank the distinguished majority leader for calling this bill to the floor. In the past, we have had difficulties scheduling the Labor-HHS bill. Sometimes this very important appropriations bill has not received full Senate action. So I thank Senator Frist for arranging the business of the Senate to take up this bill. I also thank the majority leader for his exhortation of Members to be organized, to bring their amendments to the floor. This is a very complicated bill and one where we expect a great many amendments. One of the institutional problems of the Senate has been that when a bill is pending, the Senators do not come forward promptly with amendments to move the bill along. For countless hours, we have sat on this floor with the two lights on in a quorum call, which is our technical way of saying, you do not have a quorum of Senators on the floor, a majority; but what it really is, is a delaying practice, when there is nobody present to carry forward the business of the Senate. In consultation with the majority leader, I announced last night, while a majority of the Senators were present, that we were going to be pressing ahead on amendments, and that I was going to urge the leader to go to third reading, which is a technical word for final passage, if amendments were not offered. Senator Harkin, the distinguished ranking member, whom I thank for his cooperation on this bill--he and I sent out a letter stating the same thing. The scourge of the Senate is the quorum call, where we do not transact the business of the Senate. But when this bill moves into next week, there will be a press by the managers--by Senator Harkin and myself--to move to third reading or final passage, if Senators do not come forward to present their amendments. Mr. President, this bill contains the largest appropriation of any bill to come before the Senate, including the Defense bill. It calls for expenditures in excess of $604 billion. That includes the payments for Supplemental Security Income payments at the Social Security Administration, Medicaid, and Medicare. When it comes down to the discretionary spending, this bill contains $145,693,000,000. It is an extraordinarily difficult bill to structure because it involves three of the most important Departments of the Federal Government: Health, Education, and Labor. When we talk about health and education, we talk about the two greatest capital assets our country has. Without health, we cannot function. Without education, people cannot move ahead to attain their potential. So we are talking about rock bed issues of great importance to the American people. The Department of Labor funding, similarly, is very important, providing for workers' safety, for the arbitration and adjudication of disputes between management and labor, to have a cohesive workforce and labor peace, which is indispensable to move ahead on the work of our country. We have an extraordinary staff in Bettilou Taylor and Jim Sourwine on the majority side, and Ellen Murray on the minority side--a staff which is veteran and experienced, having served for more than a decade with great expertise in the field. Senator Harkin and I have worked on a bipartisan basis. Very frequently, you see clash and clamor and arguments and distension and disagreement and bickering. That does not happen with the work of this subcommittee. We have changed the gavel. When it passes from his hands to mine, or mine to his and back, it is a seamless transfer because we have a common objective and we work together. But that does not assist us very much when we take a look at the kind of funding we have in our tight subcommittee allocation. When you have $145 billion to work with and the many lines which must be funded, it just does not go very far. There is a great concern about Federal expenditures, and it is a justified concern. We do spend too much money. Our deficit is too high, and our national debt is too high. But it is a matter of establishing priorities. In my judgment, having been in this body, now in my 25th year, and being on the Appropriations Committee for all of those years, the priorities ought to be directed differently. When you talk about health and education, the two fundamental capital assets in our society and our daily lives, the funding is simply inadequate. Nevertheless, with the professionalism of our staffs and with the work Senator Harkin and our Full Committee Chairman Senator Cochran, along with the cooperation of all other members of the Senate, we have amalgamated all of their priorities into this bill. The highlights of the bill have been summarized in a comprehensive statement prepared by Bettilou Taylor. In the course of this relatively brief presentation, I will summarize the highlights. This budget contains $29.4 billion for the National Institutes of Health which is $1.050 billion over last year's budget. This is a tough item to increase by more than $1 billion, but we have done it with a very sharp pencil. We have done it because the National Institutes of Health has the greatest opportunity to improve the health of Americans. During the tenure that Senator Harkin and I have chaired this subcommittee, we have increased funding from $12 to $28 billion. Now we are trying to push it up to 29-plus because of the enormous advances which have been made in medical science as a result of what NIH has done. There is great attention paid to cancer--appropriately so--and to heart disease--again appropriately so--and to Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's. But there are many lesser known diseases which have a tremendous impact. Chairing this subcommittee has put me in the position of being the recipient of calls from many people who are concerned about so-called orphan diseases which may affect a relatively small number of people but are very important. These diseases are worth articulating. I doubt that our C-SPAN 2 audience is very extensive on a Friday morning--it is 6:48 A.M. in California--but when people listen and hear some concern about their particular ailment, it is quite a psychological boost. I will take a minute or two and run through the diseases NIH is working on: autism; stroke; obesity; Alzheimer's; Parkinson's; spinal muscular atrophy; scleroderma; amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which is Lou Gehrig's disease; muscular dystrophy; osteoporosis; cancers, including breast, cervical, ovarian, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, prostate, pancreatic, colon, head and neck, brain, lung; and then moving on, pediatric renal disorders; multiple sclerosis; deafness and other communication disorders; glaucoma; macular degeneration; sickle cell anemia; heart disease; spinal cord injury, sudden infant death syndrome; arthritis, schizophrenia, and other mental disorders; polycystic kidney disease; hepatitis, Cooley's anemia; primary immune deficiency disorders, autism, stroke, and obesity. I would add to this list mesothelioma, an ailment I have become familiar with during the course of the past 2 years, as we are working on an asbestos reform bill where so many people are afflicted with this deadly disease which is contracted from exposure to asbestos. We are going to ask the National Institutes of Health to devote more resources. I say ask--not order, but ask--because NIH, on a professional basis, makes the determination for the allocation of funding to keep it out of the political realm. But from what I have seen on mesothelioma, with thousands of people suffering from a disease which causes death, we need to find better ways of dealing with it. Our bill on asbestos reform would provide a standard of payment, the creation of a trust fund of $140 billion, for which I salute my colleague Senator Hatch, who preceded me as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for structuring this idea which we are carrying forward. It seeks to assist people who cannot get compensation because their companies are bankrupt. Approximately 80 companies have gone into bankruptcy because of asbestos claims. That is one illustration of the potential for the National Institutes of Health funding. I compliment Dr. Zerhouni, Director of NIH, for doing an excellent job under very difficult circumstances. The bill contains $2 million for embryo adoptions which raises the issue of stem cell research. This was the legislative vehicle in 1997 which provided a prohibition against Federal funding for stem cell research where the embryo is destroyed. The House of Representatives has passed legislation which would remove that prohibition. Senator Harkin and I have a bill pending in the Senate which would duplicate the House effort to eliminate that restriction. Consideration was given to offering an amendment on this bill. Because this is the bill which has the prohibition, it would be a logical spot to remove it. But it would cause a multifaceted controversy with about five different positions to be inserted. The majority leader has agreed to make this a priority item at the beginning of the next session of Congress where all facets of the issue may be explored. There have been some recent developments that there may be a way to use stem cells without destroying the embryo. If that can be done, it would be spectacular. But the success of that kind of research is a long way off. I personally would like to see Federal funding devoted to all aspects of embryo research because the potentials are extraordinary. Embryonic stem cells are so superior to adult stem cells. There are also cord blood stem cells. But the real opportunity for medical advance lies in the flexible embryonic stem cells which can, for example, be injected into a diseased heart, where the embryonic stem cells could have the potential to replace diseased heart cells. So it is my hope that we will be able to move ahead on this line. The subcommittee has held 17 hearings on this subject, starting in December of 1998, a few days after embryonic stem cells burst on the scene. Our most recent hearing was earlier this week, on October 19, to coincide with the announcement in South Korea that they were starting a worldwide research program with adjunct facilities in San Francisco and England. While I applaud the efforts of the South Koreans or anyone to advance medical research with stem cells, it is regrettable that the United States has not maintained a lead in this line. The objections to embryonic stem cell research come from the contention that these embryos have the potential to create life. The conclusive answer to that argument is that there are some 400,000 embryos that are frozen and are going to be destroyed. Senator Harkin and I and the subcommittee have taken the lead in putting up some $2 million for embryo adoption. If all of these embryos could be adopted, produce life, I would not have any interest in advocating scientific research on them. But if they are going to be thrown away, it makes a lot more sense to use them than to destroy them. But to the extent that adoption can be promoted, this subcommittee supports this approach. Some of the other items worth noting specifically: almost $10 million for a cord blood stem cell bank, which does provide a line for some advances on medical research with stem cells; $2 million for start-up costs on administering asbestos claims, anticipating passage of an asbestos reform bill--not counting any chickens there; it is a complex bill, and the majority leader has committed to bringing it up as one of the first items next year; it is a vital item, but this bill anticipates some costs along that line--$1 billion for the mesothelioma registry and tissue bank, which we like to see NIH supplement on mesothelioma research; $225 million to continue construction projects for the Centers for Disease Control. We are calling upon the Centers for Disease Control repeatedly to take on major emergency tasks. Right now they are involved in trying to find a potential response for pandemic flu. Senator Harkin and I visited the Centers for Disease Control several years ago and found the physical facilities in a state of total disrepair. It would not be inappropriate to note that the Presiding Officer is a distinguished Senator from the State of Georgia who has filled my ear with the importance--and pleasantly so--of maintaining that funding for CDC. We have $225 million in the bill to improve the facilities at the CDC. This is illustrative of the difficulties which this subcommittee faces in responding to so many urgent needs. We have to have our pencils very sharp to establish priorities. It is my wish, hope, projection that the Senate, as a whole, would establish the priorities in our overall budget which will give more recognition to health, education, and labor issues. This bill contains $2.183 billion for low-income energy assistance. That is a figure which is the best we can do, but is palpably insufficient. I anticipate an amendment, which if no one else offers one, the chairman will, to increase funding for LIHEAP. It is an emergency matter. It is an outgrowth in large measure of Katrina. With the prices of oil and gas going sky high and so many of our seniors facing the alternative of either heating or eating, this is an item which grips much of our country and needs further attention. We have $300 million for Children's Hospital graduate medical education; $1.8 billion for community health centers; $454 million for health professions; $104 million for Healthy Start. That is a program I take special pride in because it was initiated in the early 1980s after I visited the Alma Illery Hospital in Pittsburgh, and saw for the first time a 1-pound baby, a human being about as big as the size of my hand. Healthy Start was named after Head Start to give these infants of minuscule physiology a chance to live. We incorporated some of Dr. Koop's ideas on four prenatal visits and one postvisit. That fund has grown and has taken on a very important role of taking care of the weakest in our society--1-pound babies. We put the budget for Head Start at $6.8 billion; $1.6 billion for worker protection programs; $5.25 billion for job training; almost $13 billion for title I education to disadvantage students; $10.7 billion for special education, State grants. The Federal Government has an obligation to do more, and each year we have increased funding for special education programs and have stretched the funding to the maximum to come to that figure; $13.2 billion for Pell grants; $4.3 billion for the Pell grant shortfall; $306 million for GEAR UP, an idea which originated with Congressman Chaka Fattah, from Philadelphia. This is a mentoring program and was brought to my attention by the Congressman some 6 years ago. Over the years we have spent some $2 billion on this program and these are funds very well spent--to take young people in the minority community who have not had the benefit of a sound family life, who need some guidance, taking them at the eighth grade and moving them through high school. The results have been astounding. It has been projected on a nationwide basis. We have $94 million for youth offender programs; $45 million for the new youth gang prevention initiative; $22.5 million for youth violence prevention at the Centers for Disease Control. This program will be looking at the terrible incidence of youth violence plaguing my hometown, Philadelphia and plaguing my adopted hometown, Washington, DC, as well as so many other cities in America. There is $400 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The list goes on. I know my distinguished colleague, Senator Grassley, is awaiting an opportunity to speak. This highlights the contents of this bill where we have stretched the dollars as far as we can. We understand that our colleagues will have other ideas for amendments, and we urge them to come forward. I do not make the determination as to when we go to third reading or final passage because I am not the majority leader, but I have consulted with Senator Frist, and if the bill is stalled by prolonged quorum calls when we move into next week and we do not have amendments offered, I am going to use my best efforts to move ahead to final passage. One other item which I have discussed with the leadership is the length of time on the rollcall votes. We have a rule for 15-minute votes, and there is a practice of a 5-minute extension. I note the distinguished Presiding Officer nodding in agreement. Sometimes the votes go 10, 15, 20 minutes over the original 20 minutes and consume a lot of time. When we have 95 Senators in the Chamber waiting for the next vote, when we have votes stacked, that just is not right. There was a day not too long ago when the time limits on voting were strictly enforced. Let me tell you and the few people watching on C-SPAN, Senators came and voted. If they know they can stretch out the vote, they are going to stretch out the vote. And if you know you have to be here on time, you will be here on time. It only takes one vote cutoff to impose strict discipline even on the 100 feudal barons who occupy the Senate. I ask the 101st Senator, Bettilou Taylor, is there anything more? She says no. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my full statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have been asked by the distinguished majority leader to propound a unanimous consent request.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of my colleagues, tomorrow we are starting on the appropriations bill of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. It is a very complex bill. We are advised preliminarily that there will be many amendments offered. Senator Harkin and I sent out a ``Dear Colleague'' letter urging all Members who have amendments to have them ready to file. I have consulted with the majority leader. I have long advocated that if we have quorum calls and amendments not ready to go, that we go to third reading and final passage. I am not sure how effective that approach will be, but I am going to try it. I have been talking about it for a long time. The majority leader is encouraging on it. But I want to put everybody on notice that we are going to press very hard and also on the vote on 15 and 5. Again, I am not the majority leader. I know that. Whether it will be enforced is another matter. But this is a tough bill, and there are many people who are working on it who need to go back to the confirmation process of Harriet Miers. We have a lot of work to do. I want to be as emphatic as I can--that if you have amendments, get them ready because I will press for third reading. Thank you.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Sure.

Mr. SPECTER. Well, that ends the debate. Six weeks is a short time in the fiscal year the way we function around here, but it could be a very long time for people who need money to keep their bodies and souls together. Let me direct a question to Senator Harkin. The Senator from Alaska, having yielded the floor to me, how about Senator Stevens' idea of the States making up the shortfall, on the assurances from the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the President pro tempore and Senator Harkin and myself--the ranking member and chairman of the subcommittee--that we will provide the additional funds when we go to conference so that any shortfall will be made up, that we will exercise our very best efforts and think we can be successful--we have some leverage, too, in conference--that the moneys will be paid in the interim and the shortfall will be made up?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. SPECTER. I will amend my statement to that effect.

Mr. SPECTER. We can work that out, Mr. President. I yield to the Senator from Iowa. I yield the floor so he can have the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, would the Senator from Alaska permit me to ask the same question to the Senator from Iowa? If I may have the attention of the Senator from Iowa.