Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. What I would like to say for the record is that we hope to have a unanimous consent agreement here--we are not ready to propound it--where the Dorgan amendment and the Nickles amendment, which would be ordinarily a second-degree amendment, would be treated as first-degree amendments and try to seek a time limit of 45 minutes on each. But we understand that we are not in a position to do that because there has not been an adequate opportunity to review the Nickles amendment. I wanted to make that statement. If the Senator from North Dakota wants to lay his amendment down, that is entirely appropriate. We just hope that when we have another amendment ready to go, either the Helms amendment or Wellstone amendment, we could set aside the Dorgan amendment and proceed with argument on something we can close debate on, and then come back at the earliest moment to the Dorgan amendment, just as a management matter.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. So we have a total of 22 minutes--10, 7, and 5.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the Wellstone amendment on a 10-minute time agreement.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, sequencing now comes to the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy. Parliamentary inquiry: It is my understanding that there is a time agreement for 1 hour equally divided.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote on or in relation to the Dodd amendment not take place at the conclusion of argument; that it be stacked later this afternoon at a time to be mutually agreed upon after consulting with the leaders on both sides.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in my remaining time, or at least in a portion of it, I think it worthwhile to comment on the very extensive hearing which was held by the Judiciary Committee yesterday on the issue of independent counsel because the matter is now pending before the Attorney General of the United States as to whether independent counsel ought to be appointed. The subcommittee on the Department of Justice oversight has conducted extensive hearings. Even before the subcommittee began its hearing process, this is an issue which I raised with the Attorney General on judiciary oversight more than 3 years ago in April of 1997. At that time, I raised the question of hard money and have consistently called for an investigation. We had the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Federal Election Commission testify a week ago today on current complaints which have been stated by Common Cause and by Century 21, that both political parties ought to be investigated for abuses on soft money and for coordination of soft money with their campaign accounts. I have long contended that the investigations ought to be as to both parties on a bipartisan or on a nonpartisan basis. The issue, as I say, was raised first in April of 1997. FBI Director Freeh then made a request for independent counsel. That recommendation to the Attorney General was in November of 1997. Charles LaBella, who was appointed by the Attorney General as special counsel, made a similar request for independent counsel in July of 1998. Within a week after the Freeh report was issued, I asked for a copy and was denied that. Within a week after the LaBella report was issued, I requested a copy and was denied that. We finally received those documents when Judiciary Committee subpoenas were issued, returnable on the 20th of April. Then it came to light when Vice President Gore announced that he had been questioned by the new chief of the task force, Robert Conrad, that the matter was still open. Somehow, notwithstanding the fact that the Vice President had been questioned on four prior occasions, no questions were ever asked on two matters which had received very substantial publicity: the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple fundraiser and the issue of coffees in the White House. As a result of the investigation of the judiciary subcommittee, we determined that Mr. Conrad had made a recommendation to the Attorney General again for independent counsel, just like the LaBella recommendation, just like the Freeh recommendation. Mr. Conrad testified before our subcommittee a week ago today and declined to respond to questions about that matter. It was my judgment that it was a matter for the public to know. The public had a right to know. There was a necessity for the public to know if we were to have accountability by the Attorney General. As is the established custom as a subcommittee chairman, I made that public disclosure which was in accordance with our practice and something where there was solid justification for doing so. In the hearing which we had with the Attorney General yesterday, it had been scheduled long before the disclosure was made that Mr. Conrad had made a recommendation of independent counsel. We went over with the Attorney General quite a number of factors, starting with the statements which Attorney General Reno had made during her confirmation hearing in 1993. The Attorney General--then not the Attorney General but the district attorney of Dade County in Miami, FL--came in and asked for our support and our votes, and I voted for her in the Judiciary Committee and on the floor, in part because of her strong stand that the Independent Counsel Act was an important act. She said this during her confirmation hearings: It is absolutely essential for the public to have confidence in the system, and you cannot do that when there is a conflict or an appearance of conflict in the person who is, in effect, the chief prosecutor. The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President who appoints her and is obviously very close to the President and to the Vice President. Attorney General Reno further said at her confirmation hearing: The credibility and public confidence engendered with the fact that an independent and impartial outsider has examined the evidence and concluded prosecution is not warranted serves to clear a public official's name in a way that no Justice Department investigation ever could. She quoted from Archibald Cox who said: The public could never feel easy about the vigor and thoroughness with which the investigation was pursued. Some outside person is absolutely essential. It is in that context that the evidence was examined in our hearing yesterday as to whether independent counsel should have been appointed as to the Vice President and as to the President as well. As to the Vice President, the issue arose about the veracity of statements which he made about telephone calls raising hard money from the White House. If the money was so-called soft money, it was not a contribution and not covered by the act. But if it was hard money, then there could be a violation of the act. The Vice President was questioned about that and said he did not raise hard money, did not know that hard money was to be raised. I questioned the Attorney General at some length about the specifics which had been produced. For example, there were four witnesses who testified that at a meeting on November 21, 1995, hard money was discussed, certainly probative raising the inference that if a Vice President is at a meeting where hard money is discussed, he knew he was raising hard money or that hard money was the objective. Leon Panetta, White House Chief of Staff, was very blunt about his testimony that the Vice President was there and listening and said the purpose of the meeting was ``to make sure they''--the President and Vice President--``knew what the hell was going on.'' The Attorney General and I had a protracted discussion about the fact that she discounted the evidence from David Strauss who was the deputy Chief of Staff for the Vice President who had made contemporaneous notes at this November 21, 1995, meeting: ``Sixty-five percent soft, 35 percent hard.'' Mr. Strauss said he could not remember. Notwithstanding that, the law of evidence is conclusive that if there is prior recollection recorded and a contemporaneous record made, that is evidence which can go before a grand jury or before a court. The attorney said he did not remember, even after he looked at his notes. That raises an evidentiary report of prior recollection refreshed, and that is evidence. Even if a person does not now remember, if they had notes and that refreshes their recollection, the person may testify from the notes on the approach of current recollection refreshed. It does not rule out what his notes had on prior recollection recorded, even though he could not remember it. That was some very important evidence. In addition, the Vice President received 13 memoranda from Harold Ickes who was involved and running the campaign. Those 13 memoranda recited hard money. The Vice President said he did not read the memoranda. That is a question which would call for further investigation. The memoranda were put in his in box. And a secretary testified that the input was culled very carefully to keep out extraneous matters. But the Ickes memoranda always went in. Then the Vice President further said that: The subject matter of the memoranda would have already been disclosed in his and the President's presence. The Vice President further conceded, in interviews with the FBI--he acknowledged that he had ``been a candidate for 16 years and thought he had a good understanding of hard and soft money.'' It is important to focus on the fact that the matters presented to the Attorney General are not such that would warrant a prosecution, but only that the matters call for further investigation. The independent counsel statute is very carefully structured so that the Department of Justice does not do very much. The Department of Justice only makes a preliminary inquiry, and then, in the language of the statute, ``The Attorney General, on completion of a preliminary investigation, determines that there are reasonable grounds to believe that further investigation is warranted.'' The others who were present at the meeting, who ``did not recall,'' should have been called before a grand jury, which the Attorney General cannot do on her preliminary inquiry. That is to keep the Department of Justice really out of it, but to turn it over to an independent counsel at an early stage. The Attorney General did say yesterday that they did not submit this to a grand jury. Certainly that is the next step. When witnesses are questioned, it is one thing, but it is quite another to come into the formality of a grand jury, under oath, and to be asked questions. That is why there is the provision for further investigation. The Attorney General testified yesterday, relying on her submission to the court declining the appointment of independent counsel, that ``the Government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.'' That said, the standard for further investigation for appointment of independent counsel does not involve proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it is only that there is reason to have a further investigation. I shall not characterize the Attorney General or draw conclusions at this stage, but only lay out the facts and suggest that on the face of the very substantial materials produced, further investigation was required and independent counsel should have been appointed. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, with respect to the argument on education, it is a matter of priorities. We have a very extensive allocation of $104.5 billion. Much as I would like to see additional funding for teacher training and teacher recruitment, it is simply a matter of priorities. I am constrained to oppose the amendment by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. Independent Counsel

Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor to Senator Kennedy. Amendment No. 3661 (Purpose: To provide an additional $202,000,000 to carry out title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965)

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Kennedy amendment will be followed in sequence by an amendment by the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd. This has been cleared. I ask unanimous consent that the time on the Dodd amendment, prior to the vote in relation to that amendment, be limited to 30 minutes equally divided with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Iowa. We had announced that between the votes, but we repeat it at this time. We think we can conclude this bill today. If we have the cooperation of Senators on letting us know about their amendments, we will be able to do that. Mr. President, we are about to have an amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy. This has been worked out, but I formally ask unanimous consent that time on the amendment by Senator Kennedy be limited to 60 minutes equally divided with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SPECTER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3658

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before I comment on the pending amendment, the ranking member of the subcommittee and I have conferred, as we have been trying to have all of the amendments submitted. We make a request at this time that any Senator who has an amendment to this bill, let us know what it is by 11 o'clock. It is our intention, shortly thereafter, to propound a unanimous consent request that the amendments submitted to us at that time be the only amendments which will be considered on the bill. That is by 11 o'clock. Briefly, on the pending amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota, it is a very good amendment which allocates $25 million to fetal alcohol syndrome. Some $15 million is currently allocated. It may be even a greater amount should be allocated for this very pressing problem. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I prefer to hear the balance of the argument of the proponents of the amendment before responding. How much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the bill which has been reported out by the Appropriations Committee appropriates some $40.2 billion to education funding, an increase of $4.6 billion over last year. This bill has $100 million more than the President asked for. We have assessed the priorities as the subcommittee saw them and as the full committee saw them and have made very substantial increases in very many important accounts. For example, on the title I grants, there is an increase of $394 million, bringing the total to $8.3 billion. On the 21st Century Afterschool Program, there is an increase of $146 million, coming to $600 million. On special education, where we have made an extraordinary effort to try to have the Federal Government meet its obligation, we have made an increase of $1.3 billion to $7.3 billion. On title VI innovative education State grants, we had an increase--this was considered so important--from $400 million to $3.1 billion. On Pell grants, we had an increase of $350, to $3,650, a very important grant program enabling people to go to college. On the higher education programs, we had an increase of $165 million to $1.7 billion. The amendment which the Senator from Massachusetts has offered is a very worthwhile amendment. I do not deny that for a moment. If we had more funding, I would be glad to see us increase the money in that account by what the Senator from Massachusetts would like to have. But the difficulty is that we have assessed the priorities. We have stretched the subcommittee allocation to $104.5 billion. That is the maximum amount which could be obtained, consistent with the wishes of our caucus. In fact, that is stretching the matter. Last year, we lost some 20 members of the Republican caucus of 55 because there was too much money in the bill as it was viewed on our side of the aisle. But we have come in here with $104.5 billion and made allocations as we see fit, as we assessed the priorities. Regrettably, I could not be on the floor yesterday to debate the Wellstone amendment and the Bingaman amendment and the Murray amendment because I was busy on a Judiciary Committee hearing where I have the responsibility to chair the subcommittee on the Department of Justice oversight. If time permits today, I am going to talk a little bit about that. But when Senator Wellstone offered an amendment for $1.7 billion to increase title I funding, I would, frankly, like to see that funding done. Title I is very important, but I had to vote against it because it is a matter of assessing the priorities. When Senator Bingaman offered a $250 million increase, again on title I, it was very meritorious. There is no higher priority, in my opinion, than education. The only priority which equals education is health care. The allocations which our subcommittee has made have to take into account education and health care. We have increased the funding very materially on the National Institutes of Health and on drug rehabilitation programs and on school violence programs--all of which have to come out of the overall funding of $104.5 billion. Senator Murray offered an amendment on class size, wanting to add $350 million. She disagreed with what the committee has done on the subcommittee recommendation, meeting the President's request for $1.4 billion for teachers to reduce class size. But we added a provision, if the local school districts want to use it for something else, they could get their share somewhere else. So we come now to the amendment which is pending. It was just authorized in 1997-1998. There was no appropriation for support for teacher quality and professional development in 1998. In fiscal year 1999, there was an allocation of $77 million. It went up last year to $98 million. It is true, the funding has leveled. I heard the Senator from Massachusetts say this funding is an indictment. That is just a figure of speech, but if it is an indictment, the President is included as well as the Appropriations Committee because that is the President's request. The President has already issued a veto threat on the bill because he doesn't like our allocations and our priorities. But the last time I read the Constitution, the Congress has the appropriations responsibility. Certainly the President has to sign the bill, or we can have passage over the veto, but we have established the priorities. On this matter of teacher quality and professional development, we have met the President's figure. I approached the Senator from Massachusetts for some light talk before the amendment was offered. I said: Senator Kennedy, how much money do we have to have in the bill so as to preclude a Kennedy amendment to add money? I ask him that every year. I want to know what the answer is next year, so we can bring a bill, hopefully, which would have sufficient money. But if it is $1.4 billion for class size, someone is going to offer an amendment for more money. Senator Murray did so, for $350 million more. Whatever the amount of money we put in, somebody is going to offer an amendment for more money. I said last year, in voting against the add-ons, that I had cast more difficult votes that I did not like in the 4 days I managed this bill than I had cast in the previous 18 years I had been in the Senate because I am a firm believer in education. In the Specter household, my parents had very little. My mother went to the eighth grade; my father, an immigrant, had no formal education. My brother and two sisters and I have been able to share in the American dream because of educational opportunity. I have been on this subcommittee for my entire tenure in the Senate, and I am doing everything I can to promote education in America so everybody has the maximum opportunity. I would like to spend more money on teacher recruitment, teacher development, but it cannot be done within the confines of the very enormous allocation we have at the present time. Mr. President, how much time do I have left on the 30 minutes?

Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?

Mr. SPECTER. I believe I have 30 seconds left.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa and I had announced previously our request that all Senators submit amendments by 11 a.m. this morning. It is our intention, as soon thereafter as we can, to compile a list and to ask unanimous consent that that be the exclusive list for amendments to be considered on this bill.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Within the confines of 30 seconds, simply to reply, we are taking the time that we had on this amendment and nothing more. This is not a matter that has arisen in 4 months but 3\1/2\ years ago. Mr. President, I raise a point of order under section 302(f) of the Budget Act, as amended, that the effect of adopting the amendment provides budgetary authority in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation under the fiscal year 2001 concurrent resolution on the budget and is not in order.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished majority leader, I have been asked to announce that today we will immediately resume consideration of the appropriations bill on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. Under the order, there will be closing remarks on the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, regarding same-sex schools, with a vote to occur at approximately 9:45 a.m. Following the vote, there will be closing remarks and then a vote on the Daschle amendment regarding fetal alcohol syndrome. We are urging all Senators who have amendments to come to the floor. It is the intention of the majority leader to conclude action on this bill today. It is my hope that we could have a limit on the number of amendments, perhaps have a unanimous consent agreement limiting the number of amendments, and that we can work through time agreements to proceed to conclude the bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk due for its second reading.