Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are debating allocation of Federal funds among quite a number of very worthwhile programs. When you talk about basic State grants, concentration grants, an effort for targeted assistance, they are all very meritorious. The difficulty our subcommittee has in making an allocation is in trying to establish priorities. We have $925 million allocated for school construction. The Senator from New Hampshire has a laudable purpose. The Senator from Mississippi articulates laudable goals. But we have done the best we can in the appropriations process in making the allocations among many priorities that we think to be appropriate. Title I has in excess of $11 billion going to needy children, which is the largest allocation. We have been debating the issue of school construction for a long time. The former Senator from Illinois, Carol Moseley-Braun, brought this forward several years ago, as has Senator Harkin. My conclusion is to support what the subcommittee report has and, reluctantly, to oppose what the Senator from New Hampshire wants, and what the Senator from Mississippi would like to have, because their goals are laudable. I think it is important, as the Senator from Iowa points out, that there was leveraging of these funds. It is never easy to say where a Federal responsibility ends and where a State responsibility begins. Ideally, the funding perhaps should come from State and local government, not the Federal Government at all. We have been in the field, and we have added very substantial dollars. There is now in excess of $41 billion. We added $6 billion last year. One of the difficulties with school construction is that the $925 million allocation is questionable, as to how far that will go on the school needs of America. We had a very tough debate on this issue last year when Republicans controlled the Senate and President Clinton, a Democrat, was in the White House. We ended up with an allocation for school construction of $1.175 billion, but we put in language that if, after due deliberation, the school boards on a local basis decided they did not want the money for school construction, they could use it for other educational needs--virtually a block grant. That language and that approach has been maintained here. I am not saying local boards are going to turn down school construction money. But in the event that does happen, the school districts will be able to make the allocations as they see fit on a local basis. Senator Harkin has been a strong advocate for school construction beyond any cap. I was supportive of Senator Carol Moseley-Braun when she advanced this idea several years ago to sort of give it a start. Although you could allocate these funds in many different directions, arguably with forceful positions, it is my stance that we have made an appropriate allocation and this $925 million is appropriate. So I am going to support the chairman and the subcommittee report, which we have submitted. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. If I might respond, I think we can dispense with it in the course of 6 or 7 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my distinguished colleague from Louisiana for yielding, at least before she starts her presentation, to my colleague from Pennsylvania for a resolution.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Or Saturday.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I join the Senator from Nevada in urging our colleagues to come forward. It has been very slow making progress. There were some 62 possible amendments listed. Most of those are place- holders, we know. But anybody who has an amendment to offer ought to come to the floor now. Senator Harkin and I will be in a position to discuss the matters with you, to see what is acceptable, see what will require rollcall votes, to try to work out time agreements, and try to move ahead to finish this bill as early today as possible. It is no secret, Senators have a lot of commitments on Friday, and Thursday is the heavy workday. But the sooner we get this bill completed, the sooner we can move ahead and try to get it conferenced and resolved.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to commend the service of Sheldon Parker, a Pennsylvanian who is ending his term on the board of directors for the Northeast-Midwest Institute. Shel has provided exceptional service to the institute, and in the process helped to improve our region's economic development and environmental quality. Shel is general manager and chief executive officer of the Pennsylvania Public Television Network, PPTN, and secretary-treasurer of the PPTN Commission. From 1967 to 1978, he was a Pennsylvania State Representative, serving as vice chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and chairman of the House Select Committee on Federal-State Affairs. I thank Shel Parker for his leadership on the Northeast- Midwest Institute's Board of Directors. He provided valued service and helped increase that organization's reputation and effectiveness.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I, too, would like to assure our good friends from Maine and Rhode Island that I will work in conference to support their request. I admire the Senators' efforts on behalf of the homeless and share their compassion for this group in need. indian employment and training

Mr. SPECTER. I too thank my colleagues for their comments. I certainly join the chairman in expressing support for the TRIO programs and will work in conference to maintain the level of funding contained in the Senate bill. substance Abuse Treatment for the Homeless

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains for Senator Harkin?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there have been very extensive discussions on the issue relating to stem cells, which is in the bill, relating to what President Bush did on August 9 using existing stem cell lines, in an effort to codify that and give the President authority to move in that direction. The stem cell issue has been very controversial for reasons which do not have to be amplified at this time. A good bit of the debate on the subject has been between the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, and myself. Senator Brownback has posed a series of amendments, which he intends to bring up on this bill, of a very complex nature. The amendments Senator Brownback has proposed to bring up involve the questions of the human germ line gene which I will not begin to explain at the moment, issues about therapeutic cloning, where science has given a name which suggests reproductive cloning, which it is not, but very complicated as to how it is worked out; amendments on the prohibition of the mixing of human and animal gametes where there has been some scientific thought that although very repugnant on its face, there are some important scientific issues involved. One of the matters was submitted to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and they have not even taken a position on it, which shows the complexity of the issue. Were we to proceed with these amendments, on which we have consulted with the Parliamentarian, who says they are germane because there is some sufficient--it does not require a whole lot to make them appropriate, and the Senator from Kansas has every right to bring them. I do not know how long it would take to debate them. In the course of the past 2 days, we have talked about second-degree amendments, and we have talked about many subjects which are extraordinarily complicated. I have been trying to get up to speed to know what to say about them. The concerns I have involve the issue of unintended consequences. That is a doctrine well-known in our culture. When one deals with these scientific issues, many scientists have told me it would stultify their activities, or at a minimum have a profoundly chilling effect. So after very extensive discussions, what we have decided to do is to defer this matter to another day. The reason we have decided to defer this matter to another day is we have a very important appropriations bill funding the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services, and the completion of this bill at an early date is important so we can go to conference. Ten days ago, I had a long discussion with Senator Lott about seeing the need to conclude our work by November 16, which is the week before Thanksgiving. I have found my constituents in Pennsylvania are more interested in hearing what is going on in Washington now than they have ever been in the 21 years I have been in the Senate. It is obvious, with the war on terrorism going on, with the fighting in Afghanistan against the Taliban, and the bombing and the complexities there, then with the anthrax, there is an enormous concern across the country about bioterrorism. There is a real need, it seems to me, for Senators to be in their States and Members of the House to be in their districts to talk to their constituents, to tell them we do have a plan, we do know what is going on, and we are working constructively on these issues. Ideally we should complete work on these appropriations bills as of September 30, but we know from practice we have continuing resolutions and the complexities of our work take us beyond that point. What really happens is that among the 535 of us, and add the executive branch, we debate and argue and hassle until we have our backs against the wall and really have to conclude our deliberations. I said to Senator Lott about 10 days ago I thought all of us were going to have to make concessions on some of the issues which we thought were of enormous importance and had to be resolved, and I am prepared to do that today. Senator Brownback is prepared to do that today. These issues will be taken up, though, and in the very near future. Senator Brownback and I talked to the majority leader, Senator Daschle, who agreed to bring up the stem cell issue with an opportunity for Senator Brownback to raise his issues in the February/March timeframe. I consulted with Senator Lott, in the event Senator Lott is the majority leader at that time, and got a similar commitment from Senator Lott to bring up stem cells and Senator Brownback's issues in the February/March timeframe. Senator Lott had agreed to have a freestanding bill when he was majority leader, where we deferred action on stem cells going back to September in the fall of 1999. It was a very different issue, and he wanted to await developments as to what would be happening on the scientific front. These discussions were held. Senator Reid was a party to them. I yield to the Senator from Nevada to confirm the representations I have made about Senator Daschle's commitment to have a freestanding bill in the February/March timeframe.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I commend my distinguished colleague from Alabama for raising this important issue. I believe it has national implications. There is certainly a problem in my state of Pennsylvania. For those who are watching on C-SPAN II and don't understand the procedures, it might be worth a word or two of explanation. This is a matter for the Finance Committee, and they have the jurisdiction over this matter and have lodged an objection to having it taken up on this bill. So what we have to do is look for an opportunity to raise it in a context where there is a Finance Committee bill on the floor. At that time, I think the Senator from Alabama will have a lot of support. I thank him for raising the issue at this time. Mr. President, in the absence of any Senator seeking recognition to introduce an amendment, I ask our colleagues to come forward. We have 29 amendments on the list on one side and 32 on the other, for a total of 61. We need to proceed to conclude this bill. The conference is going to be very lengthy. If we are to have the appropriations for the National Institutes of Health, and the education bill, and the other matters, we are going to have to move ahead and not have this folded into a continuing resolution. I urge colleagues to come forward. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. If I may respond, I don't think we have a problem on alternating. We have a problem finding amendments. If a series of amendments from your side of the aisle come forward, we will take them; and if a series of amendments from our side of the aisle come forward, we will take them. If there is a complication, we will alternate. We are now in search of amendments. The Senator from Alabama is prepared to offer an amendment. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside so we may proceed to the amendment of the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. SPECTER. I yield.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we urge our colleagues to come to the Chamber to offer amendments. There was a long list filed yesterday where we have a unanimous consent agreement limiting amendments to those which have been listed. Many of them are obviously placeholder amendments. We need to move ahead with this bill. We have been on this bill now into our second day. We have had only one amendment offered so far. We urge our colleagues to come to the Chamber and identify what amendments they intend to offer and to be in a position to move forward to proceed with the disposition of this bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to recognize and acknowledge the activities of one of my own very good corporate neighbors and constituents, the Bayer Corporation of Pittsburgh. Last week, on October 24, Bayer Corporation's president and chief executive officer, Mr. Helge H. Wehmeier, and U.S. Postmaster General John E. Potter announced Bayer's donation of 2 million doses of their antibiotic Cipro, one of the FDA's drugs of choice for the treatment and cure of anthrax disease. This medication was donated to the Federal Government and is intended for use by Federal employees who may need it. The medication will be administered by U.S. Federal health care agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services and its Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as local and State health care officials in the Washington, DC, area. There has been a claim, and justifiably so, for the heroism of our firemen, our police, and our health care workers who responded to the attacks on September 11. Now with the problems with anthrax, we appropriately add to that honor roll the U.S. postal workers. Mr. Helge H. Wehmeier had noted that the unsung heroes, less celebrated perhaps, but no less brave in their readiness to perform their duties, were the postal workers. Regrettably, we have seen problems with anthrax there. The contribution by Bayer should be of substantial help. I also call my colleagues' attention to the comments of Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson last week with respect to the negotiations with Bayer and Mr. Wehmeier. I ask unanimous consent, following these brief remarks, there be printed in the Record a copy of the press release which was issued following the meeting with Secretary Thompson and Mr. Wehmeier, president and CEO of the Bayer Corporation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I urge all of our colleagues to move ahead promptly tomorrow to offer amendments. The list is a very long list and, as is frequently the case, a great many of the amendments listed are placeholders. We would appreciate our colleagues advising which amendments they intend to offer and specify what amendment it is so we can move ahead. It is very important we complete action on this bill if we are to complete a conference in a time where we will finish during the current session before the holiday season. Last year, it took months for the conference to be resolved between the House and Senate. We urge our colleagues to come to the floor tomorrow when we start action on the bill, which I understand is to be at 10:30, to proceed to offer amendments. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 2024

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, Senator Harkin, the chairman of the subcommittee, and I are urging colleagues to come forward to offer amendments. It is now 4:25. We have only had one amendment offered all day. It is very important that we move ahead with the disposition of this bill. Last year, we had the bill out of committee on June 30 and it passed the Senate on July 27. Then we had months of negotiation in the conference committee, so that if we are to get this matter into conference and have a conference report, it is urgent that we proceed at this time. There is substantial funding for education, which has the consensus of the Senate. There is substantial money for the National Institutes of Health, and the public interest requires that we move ahead. If we do not finish our appropriations bills, there is the possibility--or perhaps probability--that the bills that are unfinished will be folded into a continuing resolution. That means that important funding will not be provided. Again, on behalf of Senator Harkin, my comanager, I urge our colleagues who have amendments to come to the floor. Perhaps Senator Harkin would like to italicize my urging.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Minnesota for their advocacy on this amendment. As I commented earlier in the debate on this amendment, I have cosponsored the authorizing legislation for the past two Congresses and had withheld cosponsorship of this amendment as a manager of this appropriations bill until I could see how it was going to be worked out. We are now in the process of working it out. I think we will be successful, but it is still too early to make a final commitment. What is occurring here is on the scoring for budgetary purposes, if it is on this bill, it is scored against this bill; and we are now up to the limit of our authorization. But we are now looking into the remedy of having it scored in another direction--that is technical--and an amendment is now being prepared that may cure that problem. It is not a commitment to cure the problem, but we will know shortly. In the interim, as a comanager of the bill, I do not intend to raise any point of order that this is legislation on an appropriations bill. Technically, that point of order can be raised. It does not have to be raised because of the difficulties of getting Senate consideration on this bill for a very protracted period of time. As the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, outlined, I think it is not appropriate to raise a point of order that this is legislation on an appropriations bill. At least I do not intend to raise that point of order. This is a proposal that I believe has great merit. That is why I have cosponsored the authorization bill for the last two Congresses. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to the Domenici amendment.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Is the Senator suggesting that only one other amendment is pending and we may be in a position to go to third reading?

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I compliment my distinguished colleague from New Mexico for his diligent work over a very long period of time on this very important issue. When he talks about the measure, it is Senator Domenici, for himself, Senator Wellstone, and Senator Specter. I am second on the cosponsor list on his substantive amendment. When he asked me before submitting it whether I would be a cosponsor, I said that I wanted to wait and see the discussion. The concern that I have is the moving of this appropriations bill. My colleague from New Mexico understands that full well. He is on the Appropriations Committee and is the chairman of the subcommittee. I think it is a bill which ought to be enacted. I believe there ought to be mental health parity. The reasons which he has given are very persuasive. The concern I have is it is legislation on an appropriations bill, and the concern as to whether there are tax implications to include deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, and catastrophic maximums which would provide a basis for a so-called blue slip by the House of Representatives. We can handle that in due course. I am going to await the arguments. I would like to find some way to accommodate this amendment. I am just not sure at this point that it is possible. But I wanted to express those views at this time. I know the Senator from Minnesota is waiting to comment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. It is an enormous staff contribution. Senator Harkin and I have received more than a thousand requests from Senators for inclusion in this bill, and we have done our best to accommodate all those requests. We have accommodated a surprisingly high number as we have worked through the priorities on this bill. This bill provides for $123 billion in budget authority, and that is an increase of $11.4 billion over last year, and we are within our 302(b) allocation. We are within the budget. This represents a determination by the Senate of the very high priority on these issues. In providing funding for education, health and labor, with emphasis on worker safety, we have added funds to the National Institutes of Health which we believe to be the crown jewel of the Federal Government. We started on this very substantial increase for fiscal year 1998. Up until that time there had been increases but not enormous increases. Senator Harkin and I determined this was the highest priority because of the tremendous number of ailments which were addressed by the National Institutes of Health. That year, we asked the Budget Committee for an extra $1 billion; we were turned down. So we came to the floor and offered an amendment on the budget for an extra $1 billion; we lost 63-37. We got out the sharp pencils and found the extra $1 billion in priorities. The next year, having lost our effort for an extra $1 billion from the budgeting process, we asked for $2 billion; we were turned down again. We lost again on the floor, 52-48. But we have pursued this matter with tenacity and diligence, so that last year when we asked for $2.5 billion--this year we are asking for $3.4 billion--we had a vote of 96- 4. We have had that kind of support. That reflects the Nation's mood. From fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001--and if we mark in the $3.4 billion this year--we will have increased NIH funding by $11 billion on an existing budget in fiscal year 1997 of $12.7 billion. We believe that has been good for America. We have been able to watch NIH and, with other oversight, move within 5 years, perhaps, of conquering Parkinson's disease, delaying Alzheimer's disease, and made enormous achievements in cancer research and therapy and in heart disease. I ask unanimous consent that at the end of my comments the long list of diseases tackled by the National Institutes of Health, with remarkable success, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Senator Harkin just said, ``We do?'' And I would add: Yes, sir, we do.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, to reiterate, I thank my distinguished colleague from Iowa for those very generous comments. It is not uncommon to hear hyperbole when one Senator talks about another, but the relationship which Senator Harkin and I have developed for more than a decade represents bipartisanship at its best. I understand when Senator Harkin says he likes it a little bit better when he is the chairman. Some people would not be surprised to hear he likes it a lot better when he is the chairman. Senator Harkin chaired the subcommittee prior to 1995 when I became chairman and was chairman for some 6\1/2\ years. The transition has been seamless. Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter learned a long time ago that if one wants to get something done in Washington, they have to be willing to cross party lines. Our work on this subcommittee involves three of the most important subjects on which the Congress has to appropriate, and that is on education, where it is a priority second to none; and health, which has a standing with education; and labor and work safety are matters of enormous importance where the public interest is very well served by this kind of bipartisanship and this kind of cooperation. We have structured a bill with the assistance of a superb staff. Both Senator Harkin and I refer to our deputies, Ellen and Betty Lou, as deputy Senators because they take over. We have the final say, but they are tremendous.