Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. You can't get any smaller than a one-room school.

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. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished assistant leader for the Democrats for those comments. I know from working with Senator Reid for many years that he is consistently cooperative. I agree with his characterization of the importance of this bill and the complexity of the bill. When he commented about 40 amendments mostly from that side of the aisle, that is consistent with the preliminary report which I have heard. It also accurately states that the amendments are 60-vote amendments, as required under the budget resolution. When he comments about my greater experience, I may have been here a little longer, but I don't have any more experience than Senator Reid does. Those who have been in the Senate or who have observed the Senate know we have an amazing capacity for moving promptly when we decide to do so and when we decide to make relevant comments. If we can stay on the bill, I think we ought to take whatever time we need on this bill. I don't disagree with that a bit. But it is possible to work out time agreements. I do not disagree with the statement of the Senator from Nevada that it would be difficult--perhaps even unlikely--to finish the bill this week. But it can be done. The last time I managed this bill was in June of 2000. We finished the bill on June 28 in advance of the conventions that year. When this Senate starts to move in a definitive way, this Senate has the capacity to move expeditiously. I had been in the middle of my opening statement and had come to a number of the main categories. But I am going to abbreviate this opening statement because I have conferred with the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the ranking member of the full committee, who has advised that he is prepared to move immediately with an amendment. To repeat, there is nothing like using the time on the Senate floor for amendments as opposed to statements. As important as opening statements are to the bill's managers, an opening statement is a statement. And if we move to amendments, I think that would be the most effective use of the Senate's time. We might also be establishing a new record on moving to an amendment within a half hour of the opening of the Senate, especially on a day when, as the majority leader announced, there will be no rollcall votes. But any amendments which will have votes ordered on will be taken up according to the majority leader's schedule, no earlier than tomorrow. I yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. SPECTER. I do.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have listened closely to the comments by the distinguished Senator from Iowa. At the outset, I will say our working relationship has been excellent. We have had what both of us describe as a seamless change of the gavel. Each of us says we liked it better when we were chairman than ranking member, but we have worked on a bipartisan basis to see to it that the public interest was taken care of when we have worked on this subcommittee. This bill has been produced on a bipartisan basis and our staffs work very closely together. We have set an example for bipartisanship on this very important bill. When the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from West Virginia talk about increases in funding public education, I agree with them that it would be highly desirable to appropriate more for education. There are limits, though, as to what we may do. As the manager of this bill and chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, it is my duty and responsibility to work within the allocations which have been given. The Senate has passed a budget resolution and allocations have been given to each of the 13 subcommittees. As the manager of the bill, it is my responsibility and duty to stay within those limits. When the argument is advanced that the appropriation is not as high as the authorization, that is correct, but I reply that that is characteristic. In the Senate, we have authorizing committees and we have the Appropriations Committee. It is the standard practice that the authorizers come in at a figure which is characteristically higher than what the appropriators will put up. That is done to give more latitude to the appropriators to see how close we can come or think we should come, as a matter of priority, to what the authorizers have said. It is the exception to the rule that the appropriators come to the authorizing level. When we take a look at the specific figures in this bill, the bill authorizing No Child Left Behind was passed by the Senate on December 18, 2001, by a vote of 87 to 10 and signed into law on January 8, 2002. The appropriations bill was passed, the conference report, on December 20, 2001, on a vote of 90 to 7 and signed into law on January 10, 2002. As we look at these dates of enactment, December 18 for authorization and December 20 for appropriations, we tend to forget how late we worked into December in the year 2001. I have a strong belief that if the 13 appropriations bills are not finished by September 30 of this year, we are likely to be here on the eve of Christmas in the year 2003. I think it is a fair statement that we forget how late we worked in the year 2001, how we had targeted October to finish, and then Thanksgiving to finish, and then we are back, and how impossible it is to make any plans into November, into December, when we have other commitments we would like to undertake, State travel for one thing. I mention those dates really to focus on the authorization of title I, which was $13,500,000,000. The appropriation was $10,350,000,000. So the authorization was $2,850,000,000 over the appropriations. That was a year when Senator Harkin was the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Byrd was the chairman of the full committee. I think they did a great job in coming as close as they did on appropriations, but the critical factor is the appropriations were not as high as the authorization. Then on other facets of Leave No Child Behind, improving teacher quality authorization was $3,175,000,000. The appropriation was $2,850,000,000. So the appropriation was $325,000,000 less than the authorization. Again, that was during the tenure of Senator Harkin as chairman of the subcommittee and Senator Byrd as chairman of the full committee. I compliment them for what they did. I think they did a great job, but they did not have an appropriation quite as high as the authorization. The other aspect of No Child Left Behind was the century community learning centers. Here, the authorization was $1,250,000,000 and the appropriation was $1 billion. So, again, it was slightly under by $250 million. But again, Senator Harkin and Senator Byrd did a very good job in coming as close as they did. So the point I am making is it is not unusual for the appropriation to be less than the authorization. When Senator Harkin very effectively makes the analogy to the snow, the rain, and the heat, I want to agree with him about that, but President Bush was not responsible for the snow, the rain, or the heat, nor was Senator Harkin, nor Arlen Specter, nor Senator Byrd. But when we take a look at what has happened during President Bush's tenure, where Senator Harkin says President Bush was not responsible for the increase in appropriations, President Bush was responsible for his budget request. President Bush's budget request for the year 2002, his first year, was $44.541 billion, which was $4.5 billion over the previous year. That is a very substantial increase. If you look at the increase in what President Bush has requested for 2002, 2003, and 2004, he has made a request of more than $53 billion, which is $13 billion more than President Clinton's request in the year 2001, which was an increase of $13 billion, which was roughly an increase of one-third over the $40 billion which President Clinton requested in 2001. No one would say President Clinton shortchanged education. I don't think Senator Harkin or Senator Byrd would suggest that, and Senator Specter is not making that suggestion. If you look at where President Bush was in his first 3 years, his request in the year 1996 was a little over $26 billion, and his request in 1999 was a little over $32.5 billion. That is a $6.5 billion increase by President Clinton in 3 years, an increase of about 18 to 19 percent. No one would say that President Clinton shortchanged education. But in his first 3 years in office, his increase was 18 to 19 percent compared to President Bush's increase of about 33 percent. If you look at President Clinton's increases in other years, President Bush compares very favorably and nobody would say President Clinton underfunded education. A fair interpretation would be that President Bush has not underfunded education. Having an increase in his request from $40 billion to more than $53 billion, a 33-percent increase, is a very substantial increase and better than what President Clinton did in the 3 years from 1996 through 1999. I notice that the distinguished Senator from Hawaii is in the Chamber. I wonder if I might inquire, is Senator Akaka prepared to offer an amendment?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am delighted to yield to the distinguished assistant leader of the Democrats.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to reply briefly to the comments by the Senator from Nevada. It is very important to move on education in America; the legislation on Leave No Child Behind is very critical legislation on that important subject. But as we have heard the discussion move forward, there is a lot more commentary on President Bush than on the American schoolchildren. I suppose that is to be expected in the political context with a Presidential election coming next year, but the real focus, I suggest, is on the issue of adequacy of the funding. The program for funding the No Child Left Behind legislation has been moving on with substantial increases in funding. Earlier today, the argument was made that the funding has resulted from the action of a Congress which was under the control of the Democrats. I suggest that ignores the recommendations and the budget requests President Bush has made and the budgets which he has submitted to the Congress of the United States which have been acted upon with both Democrats and Republicans. When we look at the requests of the President to meet the legislation on No Child Left Behind, on the three budgets which he has submitted requests for fiscal year 2002, fiscal year 2003, and fiscal year 2004, there has been an increase in what he has asked for of some $13 billion-plus, moving from $40 billion to more than $53 million. If you take the 3-year period from 1996 to 1999 with the fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999, the funding increased from some $26 billion to about $32.5 billion, which was an increase of 23 percent. If you take the last 3 years prior to the budget submitted by President Bush, you have the funding from $29.700 billion to $40 billion, an increase of a little over $10 billion--there again, a 33-percent increase. So even when the Democrats controlled the Congress, the appropriations made were under the authorized amount which is a commonplace occurrence. If we focus on what has been done to increase funding for education and what has been done to move along the legislation on Leave No Child Behind, President Bush has made a showing at least comparable and superior to that which President Clinton undertook, and no one ever said that President Clinton underfunded education. Perhaps the focus ought to be on what is the adequacy of the funding as opposed to the consistent critique of President Bush for political purposes. I yield the floor. Health Care

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, my question to the Senator from North Dakota, precisely stated: Does he know of any situation where there is any such school, where the State head of education has submitted that issue to the U.S. Department of Education for a waiver and had it turned down?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I have been asked to make his introductory statement, and as indicated by the President pro tempore, we are taking up H.R. 2660, which is the appropriations bill for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. As a procedural matter, in accordance with the custom of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of Calendar No. 175, S. 1356, the Senate committee- reported bill, be inserted in lieu thereof, and the bill, as amended, be considered as original text for purpose of further amendment, and that no points of order be waived by reason of this agreement.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the bill which we are considering today is the largest of all of the appropriations bills, consisting of some $472 billion, even larger than the Defense appropriations bill, although a major portion of that is on mandatory spending--Medicare, Medicaid, family assistance, and other mandatory provisions--which leaves $137.6 billion to fund the three departments: the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education. The amount of the discretionary spending is $380 million below the President's budget request and $435 billion below the amount the House of Representatives had to spend on Labor, HHS, and Education programs. It is important to note that the House and Senate bills also have an additional $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2004 which was achieved by pushing back advanced appropriations from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2003. On August 1, the last day of the session before the August recess, the majority leader, Senator Frist, and I had a brief colloquy where the majority leader announced at that time for the information of all Senators and others that the first order of business of 9:30 on Tuesday, September 2nd, would be this appropriations bill. The Senate has an enormous agenda to take up during the month of September. As is well known, the fiscal year ends on September 30th and if there is to be any realistic chance of completing all 13 appropriations bills, with only two having been completed so far--the Department of Defense appropriation and the military construction bill--we are going to have to take up these bills in an orderly and expeditious way. When I say ``expeditious,'' I do not mean in a hurried way. It is a matter of taking up the amendments so we can move through them. In advance of the August 1st departure date, I conferred with the distinguished ranking member, Senator Harkin, who agreed with that approach. I conferred with the ranking member of the full committee, Senator Byrd, who agreed with that approach. I conferred with the chairman of the full committee, the distinguished President pro tempore, about the processing of this bill. I talked to many of the Senators on both sides of the aisle who would be expected to offer amendments. It is my hope amendments will be offered, that we can work through time agreements. The distinguished assistant leader of the Democrats is here and has been very diligent in moving the legislative matters through. It would be my hope we would have the amendments come to the floor, offered, that we could get time agreements, and we could proceed to vote on whatever amendments may be offered. I am advised by staff there are 45 amendments pending--amendments which we know about. That is a large number but it is well known that amendments tend to be refined as Members consider the matters. We have a major job ahead of us. But it would not be out of reason to consider amendments today. We are advised that two Senators on the other side of the aisle have amendments which they are prepared to offer. If those come to fruition, we can move right ahead with the debate at an early point. In the colloquy on August 1, reflected in the Congressional Record, I made a point that the grave difficulties which I have seen in my tenure in the Senate occur when the quorum calls consume a great deal of the Senate's time, when those two lights are on, signifying that there is no business pending before the Senate. I expressed the view that if Senators were not prepared to offer amendments, that the majority leader ought to consider moving to third reading, that is final passage, and try to move the bill along. I fully understand that requires cooperation from the other side of the aisle. If the other side of the aisle decides we are not to move to third reading, there are ample procedures available to preclude the majority from moving to third reading. But, having given that notice more than a month ago that we would be taking the bill up at this time, 9:30 on September 2, and that the expectation was to move ahead, if we were to have any chance of completing the appropriations bills by September 30 that this bill would have to serve as a flagship for the month of September. I might add that the Senate has a very crowded agenda. There is already considerable speculation in the media about what will happen in the Congress, the House and the Senate, now that we are back from the August recess and we face many contentious matters. There is no doubt that an overlay, the international issue of Iraq, is very much on all of our minds. I was very glad to see the Bush administration sent a signal 10 days ago that there would be consideration to United Nations participation in Iraq. The precise formula was not indicated. I think that can be achieved, maintaining U.S. military command. There have been strong requests for a statement from the administration as to what Iraq is going to cost. All of us would like to know what those parameters are and what the expenses are going to be. That is a difficult matter to calculate because of the uncertainties over Iraq in so many respects. There are efforts being made to bring other nations into the operation there, into the policing operation, and a special effort to bring in Muslim nations, Pakistan and Turkey illustratively, to give the Arab world more confidence as to what is going on. Certainly, if we are successful in bringing other nations in, that will have a material impact on what the cost will be to the United States. Beyond the issues of Iraq and other matters for the Department of State on international expenditures, there is the issue of prescription drugs, where legislation has been passed by both the House and the Senate which will have to be submitted to conference. The Energy bills will be a major matter with Congress really on the spot to respond to the blackouts affecting 50 million people. From the Judiciary Committee where I serve, there are a number of matters which will be coming to the floor, litigation matters, most prominent of which is the legislation pending on asbestos. A bill was reported out of committee, largely along party lines. During the month of August, considerable work has been done by many of us, including an effort to bring in a very distinguished Federal judge, Edward R. Becker, Chief Judge Emeritus of the Third Circuit, to analyze the issues in an effort to be helpful. Obviously the matter is a congressional matter, but Chief Judge Becker has special expertise in the field by virtue of being the judge who wrote the major opinion on the issue of class certification. That is mentioned as one of the many items. The key to the success of our Senate will turn on getting started with this bill and moving ahead. I think it is not unreasonable to think, if we have cooperation on all sides, that this is a matter which could be completed during the course of this week. The bill which is now before the Senate contains funding for medical research in the amount of $27.9 billion for the National Institutes of Health. This is $1 billion over the fiscal year 2003 appropriation, and will continue the work of thousands of researchers across the United States. The distinguished ranking member of this subcommittee, Senator Harkin, and I have taken the lead in the course of the past 5 years in more than doubling the allocations on the National Institutes of Health, from $12 billion to more than $27 billion. The increase of $1 billion is a sum which I personally would like to see increased. We are considering an amendment which would have a significant increase in the National Institutes of Health funding. When you take a look at the diseases which are affected, they touch virtually all Americans either directly or through families or close friends: autism, stroke, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal muscular atrophy, scleroderma, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, diabetes, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, heart disease, arthritis, schizophrenia, Cooley's anemia, kidney disorders, spinal cord injury, cancers of many varieties, including but not limited to breast, cervical, lymphoma, prostate, pancreatic, brain, lung, and colon. The increases in funding here have had a very material effect for enormous advances in research which moves toward the prevention or cure of many of these matters. This bill includes $944 million for obesity prevention and nutrition initiatives. We see more and more that there is a need for programs designed to increase physical activity, promote healthy lifestyles and good nutritional benefits. This is an increase of some $34.2 million over funds available for fiscal year 2003. In the course of the preparation of this budget, obviously the subcommittee and then the full committee have considered a wide range of priorities. I think it should be noted that when there is the contention raised about cuts in the funding for this subcommittee, it is not accurate. For fiscal year 2003, the total discretionary budget was $134.6 billion. The total budget for fiscal year 2004, which we are considering today, as I have said, is $137.6 billion. So that is essentially flat funding but not a decrease. My preference would have been to have had a significant increase in the funding for this subcommittee, as I argued in the full committee, and repeat that argument here on the floor. But we live within the constraints of the budget resolution which was enacted and with the allocations which have been made pursuant to the budget resolution. So on some of these items there are increases, on some of these items there are decreases, but the overall budget does not have a cut. It is essentially flat. The budget also contains $63 billion for the prevention and reversal of heart disease. Americans of all ages live with the effects of cardiovascular disease. Heart disease is the Nation's No. 1 killer, with over 960,000 deaths attributed to this disease each year. To address this initiative, the bill includes $5.7 billion for cardiovascular research, prevention, and education. That is obviously an increase which we think is well warranted by the impact of heart disease on the lives of Americans. The bill includes $4.6 billion for programs for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It includes $250 million to continue planning, design, and construction of new facilities, as well as repair and renovations of the existing structures. Several years ago I made a trip to Atlanta to the Centers for Disease Control because I had heard a great deal about the deplorable conditions there. I found that was true. Senator Harkin made a similar visit. Upon returning, we added $170 million to the funding. In the ensuing years, we added $250 million in each of 2 years. This is the third year for this increase in funding. The Centers for Disease Control is at the forefront of so much of what we are doing trying to combat AIDS worldwide, dealing with the SARS epidemic, and planning for potential terrorist attacks. The Centers for Disease Control is one of the areas which urgently requires adequate funding. This bill also contains funding for infectious disease initiatives. More than 35 new emerging infectious diseases were identified between 1973 and the year 2000. Recent experiences with the West Nile virus, SARS, and monkey pox illustrate the vital need to strengthen this Nation's capacity to identify and combat emerging infectious diseases. The bill includes $2.2 billion to improve United States research capabilities and to detect and control emerging infectious disease threats in the United States and around the world. Also included in the bill is funding for the National Cord Blood Stem Cell Bank Program--some $10 million to create a National Cord Blood Stem Cell Bank to be used for patients who need transplants but lack suitable family donors. The stem cells found in cord blood are useful in treating a variety of blood disorders. Following a report from the Institute of Medicine, the subcommittee took the lead in appropriating funds to deal with medical errors reduction. This bill contains $84 million, an increase of $29 million over the previous year's amount, to determine ways to reduce medical errors. I note the presence on the floor of the distinguished ranking member of the full committee. I think it might be appropriate to try to move the sequencing along, so I am going to interrupt my opening statement so I can confer with the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I agree it is important to discuss. The information handed to me at the staff level represents that since the act was passed in 2001, funding for high quality professional development for teachers and school administrators has been increased by 32 percent during the Clinton administration in the seven years following the Elementary and Secondary Education Act authorized in 1994, which also called for set standards to develop and implement assessments. The total increase provided for title I grants to LEAs was $2.4 billion or 38 percent. In contrast, at the level proposed in this bill, the total increase since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Program in 2001, would be $3.6 billion or 41 percent. So I think the funding in this bill is providing for improvements. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. I am glad to yield.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, my response is that I agree with the Senator from North Dakota, there has to be flexibility. I am not conversant with what is going on in Kansas rural schools today, but I can become conversant. And perhaps the Senator from North Dakota is conversant on what is going on with rural schools in North Dakota. But if they still have a small school, where a single teacher is all there is in a one-room school, and they have four students to teach in four different grades, I don't think it is realistic to bring four teachers in with specialties. You might have to have more than four because they teach arithmetic, geography, English, and history, and many subjects. What I intend to do is to find out what is going on there.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send a substitute amendment to the desk. For the information of all Members, this is the text of the Senate-reported bill.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is more argument to be made, more debate to be made on this amendment. But when there is another Senator ready to offer an amendment, and we have not had a quorum call at all, which is unusual when a bill starts the first day after a recess, with no votes scheduled, I will utilize our time and ask unanimous consent we temporarily set aside the amendment. Is that satisfactory with Senator Byrd?

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.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and my colleague from West Virginia. Amendment No. 1543 to Amendment No. 1542

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. Mr. President, at the outset I thank the Senator from Hawaii for coming forward at an early time to offer an amendment. And in thanking him for offering the amendment at an early time, I urge my colleagues who have amendments which they intend to present to come to the floor and offer the amendments. There are more than 40 amendments which have been suggested. How many of them will reach fruition to be offered we are not yet sure. But we have proceeded for almost 2 hours without having a quorum call. And if we are to proceed to complete this bill at an early date, hopefully notwithstanding the difficulty even this week, we are going to have to proceed with other amendments. If there is staff available to inform the managers' staff as to what amendments may be in a position to be offered later this afternoon, that would be helpful. If we can get an idea as to what Senators may be arriving in town later today--we understand the absence of a vote will enable Senators to come to town without the pressure of a vote, but if staffers could tell us whether Senators will be in town for offering amendments later today, that would be very helpful so the managers can plan their activities. With respect to the amendment offered by the Senator from Hawaii, I think there is a real merit in what has been proposed to have information to promote economic and financial literacy among all students in kindergarten through grade 12. This item, although authorized, was not subject to funding by the subcommittee. Because of limitations in overall funding, the decision was made not to fund any new programs. I note that the U.S. Departments of Treasury and Education released a report which identified a number of options for incorporating financial education into schools, some of which would include financial concepts to material being asked on tests, urging textbook publishers to include more financial educational content, incorporating financial educational materials into classroom lessons, and training teachers on the importance of financial education. I think it is very significant to know that there are funds available for States, some $345 million, for innovative educational State grant programs which could accomplish precisely what the Senator from Hawaii seeks to accomplish. Those $345 million in innovative educational State grants could well incorporate the ideas for which the Senator from Hawaii asks. In addition, there is already an appropriation of $2.850 billion in teacher quality State grant programs which could be used for this purpose. So in opposing the amendment by the Senator from Hawaii, it is not because we do not think it seeks a worthwhile objective, but there are funds available in other lines which could fund this program. So it is with reluctance that I am constrained to say that our rule not to fund new programs because of overall limitations of funding would not have an exception for this amendment. Once we start to make exceptions on new programs, we obviously cannot adhere to that exclusionary rule. To repeat: There are funds available from other programs, funds available from other appropriations which could accommodate the ideas of the Senator from Hawaii. I note no other Senators on the floor seeking to offer amendments. In fact, I note no Senators even on the floor not seeking to offer amendments. We have a cozy twosome, Mr. President, the Senator from Wyoming and this Senator. Again, I urge my colleagues, among a list of some 40 prospective amendments, to come to the floor to offer amendments. In the absence of any Senators who are coming to the floor to offer amendments, this is an appropriate time to return to the opening statement which I interrupted to yield to the Senator from West Virginia who offered an amendment. In addition to the categories already identified, this bill provides for biodefense to continue the Nation's efforts to address bioterrorism, a very important subject, in the amount of $3.6 billion. On this subject, it is worth noting that during the August recess, I traveled to many fire departments and locations of first responders in my State of Pennsylvania to see the level of preparedness of many of the fire departments. We have allocated in Pennsylvania alone some $68 million for first responders and some $77 million in grants are available. In visits to many communities, there was a very refreshing sign of voluntarism in the volunteer fire departments but really a need for more volunteers. In Sunbury, PA, the suggestion was made that the schools might incorporate in the curriculum a program for seniors, maybe even for juniors, which would provide high school education on being a first responder and might even inculcate a spirit among high school students of a desire and an interest in volunteering, going back to the statement widely quoted of President John F. Kennedy: Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country, to try to bring high school students into the first responders line. We are going to be exploring in this bill the possibility of an earmark which might be devoted to an educational program in high schools to encourage students to become volunteers in fire departments or other first responder units. Again, I ask my colleagues to come to the floor to offer amendments. There is no Senator on the floor to offer an amendment. With some reluctance, having passed 2 hours and 5 minutes without a quorum, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry. Would it be in order now for the amendment to be offered by the Senator from West Virginia?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Julie Carter of my staff be accorded floor privileges during the consideration of the bill.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ms. Lisa Bernhardt and Ms. Kathleen Pierce be granted privileges of the floor during the consideration of this bill and any votes thereon.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. If I might make one addenda, Mr. President, and that is the option of third reading if people do not have amendments to offer. One of the banes of the Senate procedure is the quorum call, those two lights up there when nothing is happening on the floor. I have long been an advocate that, if amendments are not offered, we ought to go to third reading. When people have more than a month to prepare, I think that is a fair position to take. When I last managed this bill in June of the year 2000, we finished the bill on the Senate floor on June 28, which tied a record going back to 1974. We cannot do that; we are already past June 28. But I think we can get this bill done. But let the record show: Let the buyers beware. Let Senators be on notice that this manager intends to push for third reading if we have quorum calls up there. People ought to bring their amendments to the floor and we will debate them and vote on them and work the will of the Senate and work through promptly. Again, I thank the majority leader.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for his generous comments. I thank him, further, for listing the appropriations bill for Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education immediately on our return on September 2. I have conferred with the ranking member of the Democrats, Senator Harkin, about our plan for managing the bill, and have conferred beyond that with Senator Byrd, the ranking member of the full committee, and with many of the Democrats who will be expected to offer amendments. It is a very complex bill governing the Departments of Health and Human Services and Education and Labor, and traditionally it brings a great many amendments. That is to be expected. It is my thought that we can identify the amendments at an early stage, that we can work out time agreements, and that we can vote on the amendments. I have already talked to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about doing some of that work in August, where we will be identifying amendments. We have an excellent staff on both sides of the aisle already working. It is our expectation, beyond our hope, to have a very prompt consideration of the bill and to get it completed at an early date. I don't want to say any timeline because this body is too unpredictable, even with planning and with management, but it is our hope to get short time agreements and, with the consent of the leadership, to have the votes stacked. If there are arguments, to go over and make use of the evening time and proceed to get the bill completed. There is one very strong incentive on all sides for completing the bill and that is that we have $3 billion more if we have a bill than if we have a continuing resolution. We do not have too much money to start with, and very important items on health, education, and worker safety, et cetera. So we intend to proceed on that basis. I appreciate the opportunity to address my colleagues. As the majority leader has said, people are already on planes en route, some worldwide. I have my plans very well set. I am on a train in 25 minutes. August is to be spent by this Senator traveling his State. There is rumor that I have an election coming up in 2004, both a primary and a general election. I have a lot of work to do and will be attending to it. When we return at the start of September--to the Senate business, Senator Harkin and I hope to set the pace to try to get these appropriations bills done, to cooperate with the majority leader. If there is to be a completion by September 30, the end of the fiscal year, this is the giant, once the Department of Defense appropriations bill has been finished. So we will be hard at work, trying to get through the bill and have the Senate work its will and get it completed in the public interest. I, again, thank the majority leader.