Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

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. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I agree with much of what the Democratic leader has said about the importance of education. In fact, I agree with all of what he has said about the importance of education. But again, for the reasons which have been advanced during the course of this debate yesterday and today and on this amendment specifically, I believe we have accommodated a good balance. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, by way of reply, the amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada as to Hispanic students is adequately covered in other specific programs. For the reasons which I have specified earlier in the course of this debate, and the issue raised by Senator Byrd, seeking to move the funding for title I to the fully authorized amount, is characteristically not a matter of the appropriations process to meet the full authorization. Yesterday, in response to the Senator from West Virginia, I had referenced the appropriations bill for the year 2002 when Senator Byrd chaired the Appropriations Committee and the appropriated amounts were less than the authorized amount. In title I, the authorization was $13.5 billion. The appropriation was $10.35 billion, $2.850 billion under. Similarly, the appropriation for improving teacher quality education was $325 million under the authorized amount and the century community learning centers was $250 million under the authorized amount. In the analysis as to the increases requested by President Bush, on the 3 years of his budget request, increases have been made from $40 billion to some $53 billion for a 33-percent increase. That contrasts very fairly with the 3 years of President Clinton's budget increases for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998 which went up from $26 billion to $32.5 billion or 23 percent. Picking a higher sequence, the budget requests for 1999, 2000, and 2001 went from slightly under $30 billion to slightly over $40 billion, here 33 percent. I believe on the record it is demonstrable that the support in the budget increases requested by President Bush have been at least as good as or better than the years of President Clinton and no one ever said that President Clinton had shortchanged the education budget. Similar credit is due to President Bush that his budget requests have not shortchanged the education budget. To repeat what I said yesterday, my preference would have been to have had a larger allocation for this subcommittee. I would like to have had more money. I would like to have seen more funds in title I, but on the allocation which this body passed, the Congress passed on the budget resolution, the allocations which we have received on the so-called 302(b) allocations, an appropriate appropriation has been made in these accounts. Again, I urge my colleagues to come to the floor. We will be voting on the Reid amendment at noon. The plan is to vote on the Byrd amendment shortly after we reconvene from the policy luncheons. It is our hope Senators will come to offer amendments and advise us where they stand on the amendments. More than 40 amendments have been listed for possible argument. If we are to complete this bill in a timely manner, again, it is necessary for Senators to come to the floor to offer their amendments with the intent, at least of the managers, this manager, to proceed to third reading and not to sustain long-term, long-range time-consuming unproductive quorum calls. In the absence of any Senator on the floor 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, I thank my colleague from Nevada for those charming, complimentary remarks. He exits the Chamber with grace. He has to present a judge from his State. We will miss him. I would prefer his being here so all of the contentions I will make will be presented directly to him. There are many demands on every Senator. I understand why Senator Reid cannot be present. When the Senator from Nevada advanced this amendment for $210 million additionally for education programs for Hispanic students, I asked him how they came up with this figure. I do so in the context of chairing this subcommittee which has had many hearings and has analyzed the needs of Hispanic students in the context of many other needs this subcommittee has to fund. Without going through the entire list, I had referenced the fact that the bill contains increases for some 26 programs and decreases for some 6 programs. In making an evaluation as to what are the needs of the Hispanic community, we have taken into account that there are many other programs which have been funded which are directed to the Hispanic community or programs where the local education agency has funding which can be directed to the Hispanic community, depending upon the needs for that community in a given area. The needs for the Hispanic community may vary materially in San Antonio, TX, which is more heavily populated with Hispanics than, say, my hometown of Russell, KS, a small community on the plains of Kansas with 5,000 people where the need is different. One of the major education allocations of this bill is $12,350,000,000 on Title I grants to local education agencies. This is directed to take care of the achievement gap between students in low- and high-poverty schools. This covers to a very material extent communities where these funds can be allocated for Hispanics. Our bill also includes some $300 million for the Gear Up program originated by a distinguished Member of the House of Representatives from Philadelphia, Congressman Chaka Fattah, who coordinated the program with me, with the thrust coming from the House but most of the funding thrust coming from this subcommittee, where we now have some $300 million in this GEAR UP Program, and 70 percent of the 1.3 million students served by this program are minorities, including almost 30 percent who are Hispanics. I point to this GEAR UP Program as illustrative of a program which can accommodate the kinds of concerns which the Senator from Nevada is talking about. Our bill also has some $665 million for the English Language Acquisition State Grant Program, which is designed to help students who have limited English proficiency. Here again, this funding is already available for Hispanics on the line where the Senator from Nevada seeks to add additional funding. There are many other programs in this bill. For example, $13 million in this bill is being directed to the high school equivalency program which can be used for Hispanic students; some $15 million directed to college assistance migrant programs, which again can be used for Hispanic students. On the English Language Acquisition Grant State, which was already identified, there is some $665 million, and with respect to Hispanic- serving institutions, more than $93 million is being directed to colleges and universities which have 25 percent or more Hispanics. In the context of these appropriations, it was the conclusion of the subcommittee, and then the conclusion of the full committee, that the interests of Hispanic students were adequately taken care of. When I asked the Senator from Nevada how he picked a figure of $210 million, his response was, it is not excessive but it would be helpful; that it might be good to have even more money. That might be said about any program which is on the agenda, to add more money. The Senator from Nevada said we were considering giving substantial money to Turkey. Well, why not give a portion of that money to Hispanic students? That is a very frequently advanced argument. If we took the cost of the B-2 bomber, how many items in some other line could that accommodate? The reality is that the Federal budget is gigantic. It is $2.2 trillion. Does anybody know how much money that is? Not really. It is a staggering amount of money. It is said that if one took a large hall like the Senate Chamber there would be insufficient space to stuff $10,000 bills for that sum of money. The Congress of the United States has, as a principal function, the job of appropriating, figuring out where the money goes. There may be some disagreement about how much money should have been offered to Turkey to aid in the Iraq war, and we will hear a great deal of talk in this Chamber about Iraq, not Iraq's educational program but how much money is being allocated to Iraq. I submit that the long-range interests of the United States are very well served, and when we are successful--and we will be successful--in establishing order in Iraq and establishing, I think, a democracy in Iraq. Democracies are contagious. The only democracy in the Mideast today is Israel. The Saudis' leadership are in fear of democracies becoming popular, as are the ruling elites in all of the other Mideast countries. I do not intend to prolong a debate about Iraq. It is my hope that the President's efforts to bring in other nations, which is the banner headline in this morning's press, will reach fruition. I hope there will be people from other countries, especially Muslim countries, Pakistan and Turkey, to share in the responsibility and to give the Arab world confidence so that the United States will not carry that burden and our own personnel will not be subjected to the casualties which are currently present. I mention Iraq in response to what the Senator from Nevada says about the money which we have proposed to give to Turkey. So we are trying to make an allocation of a gigantic sum of money, $2.2 trillion. It comes to this subcommittee to make an allocation on discretionary funding of $137.6 billion. I think we have exercised real care and thoughtfulness in making these allocations. I would like to see additional money for many items in the line, but there has to be an evaluation and an assessment of priorities. I am aware of the political impact on having my vote, and the votes of other individual Senators, be against expanding this Hispanic education program. It is worth a brief comment on the so-called 30-second commercial, where individual votes are picked out and are featured at election time to say to one group or another, and in this case Hispanics, why Senator X or Senator Y ought to be defeated because there was a vote against a specific matter. That does not tell even a part of the story as to how that vote is cast in the context of other programs which are devoted to this very important issue, as I think this record shows, which I have explained, and why it is with reluctance that I oppose the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Nevada. Yes, it would be good to have more funds here and more funds in many other places, but it is an overall evaluation which we have to take into account. I believe a fair analysis of this program overall shows that there are adequate funds being directed for this important purpose. How you pick $210 million in this amendment as opposed to $310 million or $410 million or $10 million remains an open question, when we add up the millions of dollars which are devoted to programs and items in this appropriation bill which are directable to this important objective. I am advised other Senators will be coming to speak on this amendment. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee has asked that all Republican members of the committee be available for a meeting at this time. So in the absence of any other Senator wishing to speak and in the instance of my own presence being required at another meeting, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, after conferring with the distinguished assistant Democratic leader, we have agreed upon a time for the vote. I ask unanimous consent that at noon today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Reid amendment No. 1547 with no amendments to the amendment in order prior to the vote.

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

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. The bill does not duplicate the requirements which have been set forward in the budget request. We could put in additional language. If the Senator would like to have that language, I would certainly consider that, but I think it would be duplicative and unnecessary. Under existing law, under title I, the 1-percent requirement is present for dropout prevention. That is the law.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will be delighted to work with the Senator from New Mexico to provide whatever assurances he would like, additional assurances, that the $88 million will be for dropout prevention. That is the law, but, again, I will be glad to work with my distinguished colleague to satisfy the concerns he has raised.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, by way of brief recapitulation, the thrust of the amendment by the Senator from Nevada on Hispanics I think has been covered by the enumeration of programs I outlined earlier during the course of this debate. There are very substantial funds available in the bill, as it stands now, which can provide assistance for Hispanics. I concur with the Senator from Nevada that this is an important item, but I do believe the Education appropriations accommodate this very key interest for the specified reasons given earlier in the course of this debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I do not seek to enter into a disagreement with the distinguished Senator on the point he just raised. But as manager of the bill, I feel constrained to raise the point of order at an appropriate time. I thought I would give the Senator from North Dakota notice of that.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the answer to that?

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire for those comments. Before replying to Senator Mikulski and Senator Collins, we have another amendment which is ready to be offered. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so there may be an amendment offered by Senator Inhofe and Senator Dorgan.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, at the outset I say I am very sympathetic to the considerations raised by the Senator from North Dakota. But the issue is where do we find the money? As I look over a long list of items where we could make offsets and could have cuts, there is not an item or a line that is desirable. Should we cut money from the National Institutes of Health? Or from community health centers? Or from many other lines? The judgment of the subcommittee, backed up by the full committee, is that we made the proper allocation. I appreciate the comment made by the Senator from North Dakota that we did reinstate the funds. The administration had made a request which would have reduced the funding from last year by $187 million. The subcommittee and the full committee have put that money back. I think it is worth noting, since 1996 when the funding was $693 million, to fiscal year 2003 when the funding is $1.188 billion, that is a 71.5- percent increase. Regrettably, that is about as far as we can go. At the appropriate time, for the information of the amendment's sponsors, I am constrained to raise a point of order. The leadership has advised the preference is not to vote until about 5:45. That does not lock in a vote but that is the leadership's position because a number of Senators are off the floor at this time. I, again, urge my colleagues to bring amendments to the floor. We have a list of about 40 amendments. In a relatively short amount of time that quorum call sign is going to go on. As I have said on a couple of occasions, on August 1 and before the recess, the majority leader and I had a colloquy and talked about going to third reading. My experience at the Senate has been there have been long delays. Senators do have amendments but wait to bring them. I know that requires planning, but the Senate has been on notice for more than a month that this bill would be taken up on September 2. If we are to complete action on this bill, we are going to have to have the cooperation of the Senate. If this bill is not signed by September 30, this bill will lose $3 billion. That is what it will cost if this bill is not signed by the President by September 30. If there is to be any realistic chance of having the appropriations bills finished by and large by September 30, there is going to have to be cooperation by Senators who have amendments but who haven't brought them to the floor. We were assured one Senator would be here at 4 o'clock. Now word has come that the Senator is not going to be ready. That puts the managers, who have the responsibility for moving this bill ahead, at a severe disadvantage.

Mr. SPECTER

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 Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 3, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in closed session to receive a classified Operations/Intelligence briefing regarding ongoing military operations and areas of key concern around the world.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I note the distinguished Senator from Iowa advancing toward the podium. I yield to him.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if we are not far enough down the road to know how it is going to work out, I don't think we are far enough down the road to criticize it. I think we are far enough down the road to make inquiries. But I think it is premature to criticize this bill for lack of flexibility, premature to criticize this bill for lack of funding to accommodate more flexibility until we see that the U.S. Department of Education has denied an application by North Dakota or Kansas or some rural State, which has a good educational system and has it taken care of, that is being turned down on the flexibility request. The issue has been raised. I think it is an important issue. As the chairman of the subcommittee, I will make inquiries to see how the flexibility rule is being carried out to date or how it is proposed to be carried out, to have hearings, if necessary, in the subcommittee. We ought to anticipate the problem, but it is too soon to criticize.

Mr. SPECTER. As a procedural matter, with an objection having been lodged, if I may have the attention of the Senator from West Virginia, the procedure would be appropriate if the Senator from West Virginia would allow me first to send a substitute amendment to the desk and then the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia would be in the nature of a second-degree amendment and would obviate the objection which was made earlier procedurally.

Mr. SPECTER. This certainly is not clear, if anybody is watching on C-SPAN, but that would set the procedural status in the correct shape.