Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I don't see any other Senator on the floor to offer an amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. The statement by the Senator from Minnesota is accurate.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is agreeable with me. I had intended to say that as to the Dayton amendment, I raise a point of order under section 302(f) of the Budget Act, as amended, that the amendment provides budget authority and outlays in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocations under the fiscal year 2004 concurrent resolution on the budget and is not in order. And if the Senator from Nevada is saying he wants to raise two motions to waive en bloc, that is fine.

Mr. SPECTER. Yes, I had previously stated that I would raise points of order.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would be agreeable to doing that. With respect to the Dorgan amendment, I raise a point of order, under section 504 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, that the amendment exceeds discretionary spending limits specified in this section and is therefore not in order.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to the Dorgan amendment No. 1553 occur today at 5:45; further that following that vote, the Senate vote in relation to the Dayton amendment No. 1554; provided that no amendments be in order to either amendment prior to the votes; finally, there will be 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to the second vote.

Mr. SPECTER. What was that?

Mr. SPECTER. Correct.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, if the Senator has an amendment relating to this bill, it certainly will be welcomed. I ask the Senator from Minnesota if he would be willing to defer offering the amendment to give the Senator from West Virginia an opportunity to speak for 10 minutes in advance of offering that amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, may I inquire of the Senator from Minnesota whether the amendment relates to this bill?

Mr. SPECTER. The amendment does relate to this bill?

Mr. SPECTER. Correct.

Mr. SPECTER. The point of order would be under section 504 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004 that the amendment exceeds the discretionary spending limit in this section and is therefore not in order. The Senator raises a very tempting offer. I might almost be tempted to say that any amendment that gets to the floor before 3:59 we would be willing to accept, meritorious or not. That is very much in the eye of the beholder. Of course, I can't quite do that. But I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his diligence in coming to the floor and speaking on an earlier amendment and offering this amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. SPECTER. I will.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had commented earlier today that there was an expectation of voting at 5:45 p.m., that there were a series of meetings at the White House and other places which would keep Senators away from the floor until that time. I just responded to the question from the Senator from Nevada that it is the likelihood, but it is not locked in, that we will vote at 5:45 p.m. How many votes we will have we are not certain at this point. I thank the distinguished Senator from Minnesota for offering this amendment. The issue on special education is one of great importance. The Federal Government does have a responsibility to come to the 40 percent level. We have been far from it, but we have made very substantial progress. I think it is accurate to say even enormous progress. Over the course of the past several years, we have made major increases. When I became chairman of this subcommittee in 1995, in conjunction with Senator Harkin, we made special education a priority, and for the fiscal year 1997, we increased special education by approximately $800 million. The next year, $700 million. The following year, $500 million. The year after that, $580 million, $450 million, $1.2 billion, $1.3 billion, and this year there is a projected increase of approximately $650 million. If you take a comparison from the year 1994, the special education appropriation was slightly over $2 billion, $2.05 billion. This year we are projecting it at $9.85 billion, which is almost four times as much, almost 400 percent, slightly less. So we have moved up very materially. I do not have the statistics prior to the year 1996 on the Federal share per student spending, but in 1996, it was 7.3 percent. We have now advanced that to 18.7 percent. We are almost halfway to 40 percent. If we were to fully fund IDEA, it would take another $11 billion to $12 billion on top of the amount of money which we have allocated. While I have deep respect for the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota, I think it might even be possible he does not have an expectation that we are going to have $11 billion or $12 billion more for this item, much as we would like to and much as the Federal commitment is there. But I think the progress has been enormous. I make a special compliment to the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, who has been at the forefront of this item, going back to his earlier days in the House and his earlier days as Governor of New Hampshire seeing the importance of this item. It is an item of great importance for me. We are making a lot of progress. It would be nice to do more, but I think everyone understands we are far from being able to add an additional $10 billion, $11 billion, $12 billion here. Again, for purposes of information, I will be constrained to raise a budget point of order when we take up this matter for a vote at the appropriate time. Mr. President, let me again issue a call for amendments. Third reading may be as remote as full funding for IDEA, but it is an idea whose time may come, if not this afternoon, perhaps this evening or perhaps tomorrow morning. Amendment No. 1552 Mr. President, I have not made any manager's comments on the amendment offered by Senator Mikulski and Senator Collins on the nursing issue. That is an item of great concern. There is a tremendous nursing shortage in the United States. The Mikulski-Collins amendment seeks to raise the funding from $112.7 million to $175.7 million for a $63 million increase. I note that there have been increases of a very substantial nature. In 2001, there was an increase of 23 percent. In 2002, there was an increase of 10.6 percent. In 2003, there was an increase of 21.6 percent. And the items are funded on a level this year. It is relevant to note that on the funding for the National Institute of Nursing Research that there has been an increase this year from $130.5 million, approximately, to $135.5 million, for a $5 million increase. I think it is also appropriate to note that we assisted the nurses in their effort to have standing to anesthesiology where we finally worked out an arrangement where it would be up to the Governor of each State to authorize payments, Medicaid-Medicare, to nurses who are so certified so that they did not have to necessarily be an M.D. anesthesiologist. The nursing issue is one of tremendous concern. As I look over the Mikulski-Collins amendment for an additional $63 million and I look over the items which we are funding in an effort to see if we couldn't make some accommodation, it is a matter of staying within our 302(b) allocation or cutting somewhere. I do not think anyone would like to cut low-income home energy assistance or community health services or Head Start or the NIH. As we wrestle with the import of the Mikulski-Collins amendment, we are seeking a way to, if it is possible, have some offset which would enable us to find a way to increase funding for nursing. But an offset is going to require a cut somewhere, and that is the managers' responsibility to try to balance out all of the competing interests. Mr. President, if there still is no Senator on the floor and no one has heeded my latest call to come to the floor, in the absence of any Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, while the majority leader is in the Chamber, it would be appropriate to comment about the colloquy which the majority leader and I had on August 1, the last day of session before the August recess. As the majority leader stated, this bill would be the first matter taken up on September 2, which we did take up, and gave everyone notice. I made the comment at that time about the problems I have observed with quorum calls taking up so much time, and I stated that it was my hope as manager--and which was concurred in by my distinguished ranking member, Senator Harkin--that we would have amendments prepared to go. We got off to a start yesterday with two amendments. We were unable to find any more amendments. We have a couple lined up this morning. It is my hope that Members will come to the floor with their amendments and be prepared to go and that we can work through orderly time agreements and proceed, with the hope of finishing up this bill-- at least a major part of it--by the end of the week. As I said on August 1, I would like to see the Senate proceed to a third reading when there are a lot of quorum calls and amendments which are not prepared to be offered, especially where there is adequate notice, as there has been for more than a month on this bill, and as matter of general Senate business of what I hope would be accomplished here. I understand, after discussing the matter with the assistant leader for the Democrats, that there is one amendment where the Democrats may need to bring all of their people in who might otherwise be absent. That single amendment might have to go over to next week. If that is so, at least we should complete the bill with the exception of that amendment, or as much of it as we can. Let me urge my colleagues to come to the floor with their amendments and notify the managers of the bill about amendments they have so we can proceed in an orderly way. It is my hope that we can work into the evening to debate amendments, subject to the decision of the majority leader, and stacking votes perhaps in the morning, if we are not to vote in the evening, with the same procedure available tomorrow night because there are some 40 amendments pending. It is obvious we are going to have considerable work to do and considerable debate to address these amendments. In advance of the August recess, I conferred with the distinguished chairman of the full committee, the President pro tempore, the ranking member of the full committee, and many of the members of the Democratic caucus who I knew would have amendments to offer so that we ought to be in a position to move forward. Again, I urge colleagues to come to the floor with their amendments.

Mr. SPECTER. Sure.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SPECTER. The 1 percent is for dropout, and the term used is related activities. So it is focused on dropouts. Some $80 million is available for dropouts.

Mr. SPECTER. I will.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before the distinguished Senator from Nevada leaves the floor, and I know he has other commitments and will not hear my reply to his presentation, the question that I would address to the Senator from Nevada is how he picks a figure of $210 million? As I will outline in the course of my presentation, there are quite a number of programs which are directed to this issue. The appropriations subcommittee has considered many programs. We have increased some 26 programs and decreased some 6 programs, what we consider to be a balance. I ask my colleague from Nevada how he comes to a figure of $210 million when comparing it to all the other programs in this bill which are directed to this generalized effort?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Terrorism: First Responders'' on Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 2:00 p.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Witness List Panel I: The Honorable Christopher Cox, United States Representative, R-CA, 48th District; The Honorable Jim Turner, United States Representative, D-TX 2nd District. Panel II: The Honorable Warren Rudman, Chair, Independent Task Force on Emergency Responders Washington, D.C.; Mr. Richard Clarke, Senior Adviser, Independent Task Force on Emergency Responders Washington, D.C.; Paul Posner, Ph.D., Managing Director of Strategic Issues, United States General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, be authorized to meet on Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in SR-253, for a hearing on the Columbia accident investigation board's report on the space shuttle Columbia accident.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, be authorized to meet on Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., in SR-253, for a hearing on the proposed lease of Boeing 767 tankers by the USAF.