Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. We can.

Mr. SPECTER. We will sequence that prospectively fourth in line for another 10-minute vote. The expectation is there will be a short time for debate, expected to be 10 minutes equally divided.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I agree a great deal with what the Senator from Illinois has said about funding on HIV/AIDS. Just a few months ago, the Senator from Illinois and I offered an amendment of $700 million on the foreign aid bill. Before it became generally recognized that there should be major U.S. appropriations for AIDS, the President included in his State of the Union speech a program for $15 billion. As much as I would like to see another $900 million-plus added, we simply do not have it in the budget resolution. We are now up to the amount of $137.6 billion in the budget resolution and in the allocation. I think it is important to note that we have in this bill in excess of $14 billion. I ask unanimous consent that a table be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. I do.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, inquiry: Do I now have 5 minutes to respond to the Durbin amendment?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have an additional $4 billion from other Departments. I ask unanimous consent that a chart be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I believe in short order we will be able to work out an additional portion of the unanimous consent for the vote on the Head Start amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, that arrangement is satisfactory. I want to be sure we do not go to the vote on Senator Byrd's amendment before we give Senator Durbin a chance to offer his amendment with a brief reply, if necessary, on this side. I reiterate, perhaps supplement, what has been said that we are going to be looking for at least six more amendments to debate tonight. We will be discussing with the Members during the votes their intentions, with an effort on all sides to pare down the list to the maximum extent possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader and the Democratic leader for their statements. I am prepared to move ahead with the vote on the Byrd amendment. We have Senator Durbin waiting to offer an amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are making enormous strides with some $19 billion. Much as I would like to see another sum added, we simply do not have the money in our resolution. I refer to a letter from Dr. Joseph O'Neil, Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy, to Senator Frist dated July 17 specifying--and I will not take the time to read it now--that the $2 billion on this particular program is all that can be usefully expended. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. I missed most of the debate myself.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Jersey yield for a question?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the program for low-income home energy assistance is a vital program. Pennsylvania, my State, compares about the same as the State of the Senator from Rhode Island in terms of weather. It gets very cold. I am well aware of the fact that for many people, especially seniors, it is a matter of heat or eat. Since I have been on the subcommittee, we have made enormous progress in increasing the funding for LIHEAP. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for noting the allocation which Senator Harkin, the ranking member, and I had put in at $2 billion. When the Senator from Rhode Island cites statistics on the number of people who will not be covered, it is true. If his amendment is adopted, there will be some people who won't be covered. If a vastly increased sum of money were added, we would simply have to make the allocations. We had an allocation last year of $1.7 billion with a $300 million amount in the contingency fund. This year the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, and I decided to put the full $2 billion in the main account so you wouldn't have to get the contingency to activate those expenditures. I would like very much to have more money in this account. I fought hard on the budget resolution for more money for this subcommittee. If we had more money, nothing would give me greater pleasure. I don't think I have voted against any increase in funding for LIHEAP in the time I have been in the Senate. There are very heavy responsibilities on the manager of the bill. One is to get the bill moving. If we don't get this bill through by September 30, we lose $3 billion. So it is with great reluctance that I have to oppose the amendment from the Senator from Rhode Island, because I would like to see this funding granted, but it does exceed the budget resolution. And therefore, with reluctance, I raise a point of order.

Mr. SPECTER. We are going to vote on this tomorrow, Mr. President, but now we are set to go.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I raise that question because this is an issue of some complexity. Nobody has been a greater proponent of higher education than this Senator. It may be that the whole approach on making deductions or changes based on taxes is an inappropriate way to deal with the funding of higher education. What we have here is an effort to stop funding on a change in a formula which involves a substantive change in law. We have very few amendments offered. We have to reach some substantive objective by limitation of funding. If it is something which is fairly direct, I would think it appropriate. But where you have something which is as complicated as this matter is--there have been no hearings on it, there has been no opportunity for the Secretary of Education to come in to offer an opinion, there has been no opportunity for the Secretary of the Treasury to come in and offer an opinion. We have an article from U.S. News & World Report which I can't even get a copy of. I sent over for a copy a few minutes ago so I could have an opportunity to read it and so I would be in a position to know a little something about what the Senator from New Jersey offers an amendment to effect, as he calls it, a ``swing'' of billions of dollars. I would not like to swing on billions of dollars on a U.S. News & World Report article I can't even get a copy to read. The Senator from New Jersey has an amendment. It would have been helpful to have had it in advance of the moment when he offered it. If he is relying on an article, it would have been helpful to have the information. I am very much concerned about what is proposed to be an offset here. The last part of his amendment, which I have just seen, provides that the funds appropriated under this act to the National Institutes of Health--$200 million--shall not be available for obligation until September 30, 2004. Anybody who tampers with the funding of the National Institutes of Health for any amount of money is going to draw strenuous objection from this Senator. The ranking member, Senator Harkin, and I have worked for many years to double NIH funding from $12 billion to $27 billion. On a murky amendment such as we have today and not knowing where it goes, I would strenuously object to it on the grounds that it ought to be considered in an authorizing committee, and that before we tamper with the National Institutes of Health on this funding, even though it may not amount to a great deal of money, because I don't know how much they will obligate, the $200 million has the potential to be very substantial. But I would strenuously urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. I hope to have an opportunity to read U.S. News & World Report before the night is over.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 9:45 a.m. on Wednesday, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the following amendments in the order stated: Harkin 1580, Schumer 1595, Reed 1595--I have two 1595s--the three Reed amendments, 1592, 1596, and Corzine 1602. I further ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to the vote in relation to each amendment beginning with the second vote; further, that no amendments be in order to any of the amendments prior to the vote.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have been asked by the majority leader to make the following statement. For the information of all Senators, this morning the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2660, the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill. There are a number of pending amendments that will need to be disposed of and it is therefore my hope that we can reach an agreement to vote in relation to those amendments. Many of these amendments have been fully debated and will require a rollcall vote. I understand that on the other side of the aisle there is a reluctance to vote on any of the amendments until an agreement is reached with respect to the Harkin amendment. I encourage Members to allow us to move forward on the bill until that issue is resolved. There are a number of amendments that were pending prior to the Harkin amendment. Again, these amendments have been debated previously and are at this stage ready--should be ready for the Senate to work its will. Therefore, I hope we can begin to schedule those votes to allow further progress on the bill. Rollcall votes are anticipated throughout the day and it is still my expectation to complete the Labor-HHS bill as early as possible this week. Also, I would supplement what the leader has said, that there is no reason we can't finish this bill if we can get a schedule of votes. It conceivably could be done today but certainly no later than tomorrow if we move ahead and break this logjam as to when the votes are going to occur. The leader concludes his own statement: As a reminder, today the Senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 for the weekly party lunches to meet. In addition to the comments I have read on behalf of the leader, as the manager of the bill I would supplement what the leader has said to urge us to move forward. There is a certain reluctance, understandable reluctance, on the part of the Members on this side of the aisle, to be, in effect, dictated to as to when we are going to vote. I understand the problems faced by the Democrats, where they have a number of people running for President who are out of town. From my personal point of view, I would like to accommodate them and I would like to move on. But it draws considerable consternation and ire to be told when we are going to vote. I had a colloquy yesterday with the Senator from Iowa, a colleague and a very good friend with whom I have worked very closely for more than a decade. There is scarcely a disagreement between Senator Harkin and myself. As we change control of the gavel, we use the expression, ``change seamlessly.'' But I pointed out, we have a majority, and under the rules of the Senate, the majority is supposed to determine the schedule. It is not a very big prerogative. We can't impose our will beyond a filibuster. And the Senators on the other side of the aisle are competent, able, resourceful as they articulate their views and carry their policies forward. That is something we understand. But when it comes to a matter of the schedule it is my hope that the majority's prerogative to establish the schedule will be respected. When I commented about our being in the majority, my esteemed colleague, Senator Harkin said: Well, it's only 51 to 48 and 1. There have been closer elections. There have been elections by 1 vote, not by 2\1/2\ votes. So it is my hope that we can at least be accorded the prerogative of running the schedule. If people on this side of the aisle dig in their heels, like people on the other side of the aisle, and people on the other side of the aisle dig in their heels, we are not going to be able to conduct the people's business. I see the Senator from Nevada waiting to speak. I will conclude. The Senator from Nevada has been in the Chamber more in the past several years than anybody else, managing the business of the Senate. He has done that when he has been in the majority and he has done that in the minority. I know he does his utmost to try to work these matters out. So it is my hope that reason will prevail and we can find a way to get out of the entrenched positions, move ahead, do the public's business, and finish this bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, let me add, I personally don't object to voting today, but there are a lot of people on this side of the aisle who do as a matter of protocol and principle. That is why I am going to leave the Chamber in a few minutes and, along with the President pro tempore, who is the chairman of the full committee, discuss the matter with the majority leader. But as I understand the position of the Senator from Nevada and his side of the aisle, it is that they insist on the vote today. Am I incorrect about that?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada has articulated some wisdom this morning in his comments about pride. I think of the statement ``pride goeth before a fall.'' I think we can retain our pride and also get this worked out.

Mr. SPECTER. And vote, but not necessarily today.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. For the information of all Senators, tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of this bill, and we have already specified the amendments which are going to occur. Following those votes, the Senate will continue to work on the bill. The majority leader has stated his intention to complete the bill tomorrow. There are a number of pending amendments. The chairman and ranking member will be here throughout the day to work through the amendments. Senators can expect rollcall votes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senate report No. 108-113 be star printed with the changes at the desk.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.