Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is not too much need for me to respond to the Senator from Connecticut. I think he has already stated my position in toto. I do think this afterschool program, which he has proposed to add to, is a worthwhile program. But it is beyond the limits with which our subcommittee has to work. He is correct that I will make a motion that it exceeds the allocation to our committee at the appropriate time. Afterschool is very important. It is sort of a twin brother to day care. Last year, I agreed with the Senator from Connecticut to scrimp and save and use a sharp pencil to find $817 million more to bring day care up to $2 billion, which we did. I thought that kind of an allocation might have satisfied the Senator from Connecticut for a year. But it has not. So we will have to face this when it comes along. He said to me: That is day care. I said: Day care is very important. Bringing it up by more than $800 million to $2 billion was a tough job, Senator Dodd. I called him Chris at the time. We thought that being a twin brother to afterschool, we might have avoided an amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. SPECTER. It is very tough being the manager of a bill that funds the Department of Education because there is no priority higher than education. The only one on a level with it is health care. And we have the funding coming out of the same pool of money. We made the allocations as best we could. I know of the devotion of the Senator from Connecticut to this cause. He and I were elected at the same time. He withstood the Reagan landslide in 1980 to be one of two Democrats elected to open seats, when 16 Republicans came in. And he and I cochaired the Children's Caucus at that time. In 1987, when he proposed family leave, I was his cosponsor, with a lot of turmoil just on this side of the aisle. We have worked together over the years for education and for children. I commend him for all that he has done. We have added to education some $4.6 billion. We are $100 million more than the President in education this year. We have increased funding tremendously for children and young people in America. The Head Start Program comes, curiously enough, under the Department of Health and Human Services. There is an increase this year of $1 billion to Head Start, coming up to $6.2 billion. We have increased special education by $1.3 billion, bringing it up to $7.3 billion. We have increased innovative State grants by $2.7 billion for more teachers, class size, and for school construction, with the proviso that it is limited. It is up to the local school district if they decide to do something else with it. When it comes to the program the Senator from Connecticut is talking about, the 21st Century Learning Centers, we have added $146.6 million to bring the figure up to $600 million. In fiscal year 1999, it was $200 million. So we are moving right along on it to provide the maximum amount of money we can. It is not an easy matter to allocate $104.5 billion--as much money as that is--for the National Institutes of Health and for drug programs and for school violence programs. We have done the best job we could. It is with reluctance that I raise a point of order. How much time remains, Mr. President?

Mr. SPECTER. I have made the essential arguments which are relevant. In the interest of moving the bill along and saving time, I make a point of order under section 302(b) of the Budget Act, as amended, that the effect of adopting the Dodd amendment provides budget 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. President, as previously agreed to by unanimous consent, the vote will be delayed to a time agreed upon by the leaders later today. I yield back the remainder of my time so we may proceed with the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, here again, there is little doubt that technology literacy is a very important matter for America. There is no doubt about that at all. Here again, it is a matter of how our allocations are going to run. We debated the Dodd amendment earlier today about afterschool programs--again, a good program. There is a question about the amount of money and where the priorities are. We debated the Kennedy amendment about teacher recruitment--another good program. We had to turn down amendments yesterday by Senator Wellstone who wanted more money for title I; Senator Bingaman, also more money for title I; Senator Murray asked for an additional $325 million on top of $1.4 billion which was supplied for class size. There is no doubt that so many of these programs are excellent programs. The Senator from Massachusetts in offering this amendment noted the constraints we are operating under with respect to how much money we have in our allocation. We have established priorities. We have greatly increased the education account by some $4.6 billion. That is a tremendous increase, coming to a total of $40.2 billion. In our education account, we have $100 million more than the President asked for. I have already today gone over a long list of items where we have increased funding on education on very important items. It is a matter of making the appropriate allocation and the setting of priorities. I say to my colleague from Massachusetts that the House of Representatives has established a mark of $517 million in this account. It is entirely plausible that the figure that is in the Senate bill will be substantially increased. We will certainly keep in mind the eloquence of Senator Kerry's arguments. There is no doubt about technology and about the need for more funding in technology. I believe that a country with an $8 trillion gross national product can do better on education. I said earlier today and have said many times on this floor that I am committed to education, coming from a family which emphasizes education so heavily, my parents having very little education and my siblings and I being able to succeed--I guess you would call it success to come to the Senate--because of our educational opportunities. That is the essence of our position. We have substantially more time. I inquire of the Chair: How much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I moved to table, I withdraw the motion and yield to the Senator from Iowa to make a motion.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, and this has been cleared on the other side, that the vote on the Landrieu amendment be set at 7:45.

Mr. SPECTER. If I may respond, my preference would be to move for the poor schools first. In constructing this bill, there were many objections as to how the money was going to be allocated. The only way we could work through the complications was to put it in title VI. That was not my first choice, nor are the programs my first choice. Working through a great many considerations, we ended up in title VI leaving the options to school districts, if they choose not to have construction, or if they choose not to have reduction in class size. That is an accommodation to very many disparate views.

Mr. SPECTER. That is fine.

Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: Who has the floor?

Mr. SPECTER. Speaking of the time limit with Senator Wellstone on the floor, may we agree to 30 minutes equally divided, 20 minutes equally divided, 15 minutes equally divided? How much time does Senator Wellstone desire?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I raised a question with the Attorney General as to why the Department of Justice went to ask the Vice President these questions on April 18. The apparent reason was that the subcommittee had finally gotten subpoenas out to get the Freeh and LaBella memoranda returnable on April 20. So the subcommittee would soon find out that the Vice President had never been questioned about the Buddhist temple fundraiser or about the coffee klatsches and that, in fact, the Department of Justice was embarrassed by that omission. I believe the Attorney General did a substantial disservice to the Vice President in failing to have these matters resolved one way or another at an early stage. I said at the outset, last Thursday, when I discussed the matter as to the Conrad recommendation for independent counsel, that there is a sharp distinction between the level of information evidenced to call for an independent counsel's investigation and the level to return a criminal prosecution. I raised a question with the Attorney General yesterday that her failure to act on these matters in 1997, and when Director Freeh called for an independent counsel in 1998, and when LaBella called for an independent counsel, has now put the 2000 Presidential elections in some state of controversy. These matters should have been cleared up. Why the questioning on April 18? If independent counsel is appointed now, can there possibly be a determination to clear the Vice President before the Democratic convention in August? It seems highly unlikely. If independent counsel or special counsel is appointed now, is there time to resolve the matter before the general election? It seems highly unlikely. So that by delaying, it really is too late, at this point, to have special counsel. And that is a responsibility which falls squarely with the Department of Justice and the Attorney General for failing to appoint independent counsel in a timely manner. It is puzzling why the matter would be reinvestigated and re-inquired into on April 18. The reason is obvious--so they would not be further embarrassed by not having asked about these two matters before. But what is to be done at this stage? All of this leads to a conclusion that there ought to be some form of judicial review on the Attorney General's judgment on an independent counsel. I had tried for a long time to have a mandamus action brought to take it for judicial review to see if an independent counsel should have been appointed under the mandatory provisions of the statute or the discretionary provisions where there was an abuse of discretion. The problem was one of standing. It would be my recommendation to the subcommittee that the subcommittee recommend that there be provision for standing to the Judiciary Committee to bring an action for judicial review to have a court determine whether an independent counsel should be appointed because of an abuse of discretion by the Attorney General or because of mandatory provisions of a new statute. This will be a very constructive result, so we do not find ourselves in a situation where these questions linger for more than 3 years and cannot really be resolved before the conventions and so that the Democratic Party would know who their candidate ought to be or what baggage that candidate would have. How much time remains, Mr. President?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the subject then arose as to what were the factors related to the famous fundraiser at the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple on April 29, 1996. The Vice President had received an e-mail from his scheduler asking whether there should be another stop on the April 29 itinerary on top of the ``two fundraisers in San Jose and LA.'' The Vice President responded: If we have already booked the fundraisers, then we have to decline. But the Vice President said he did not know there were any fundraisers, that the Hsi Lai Temple was a fundraiser. Then Harold Ickes sent the Vice President a memorandum on April 10 identifying the Los Angeles fundraiser which would raise $250,000 and a supplemental memorandum on April 25 saying the Los Angeles fundraiser would raise up to $325,000. Within 24 hours of receiving this memorandum, the Vice President was given briefing materials from the Democratic National Committee informing him that the DNC luncheon he would attend on April 29 was at the Buddhist temple. During the course of the event, two of the guests who ate lunch with the Vice President talked about fundraising. Witnesses there said-- ``One speaker commented that they had raised x amount of dollars.'' And another witness at the luncheon said that a speaker took the podium and reassured the assembled guests that they had ``doubled checked'' and it was ``OK to give contributions at the Buddhist temple.'' So here again, there are substantial indicators which certainly would call for going forward with independent counsel. Then the question was raised about the coffees which raised more than $26 million. When the Vice President was questioned about the coffees-- and the Vice President released the transcript--he said: Question: In terms of a fundraising tool, what was the purpose of the coffees? His response was: I don't know. Then he was asked: With respect to raising $108 million, did you have discussions with anybody concerning the role coffees would play in raising that type of money? The answer of the Vice President: Well, let me define the term ``raising.'' Shades of what ``is'' is. Later, he was questioned: You had indicated earlier you may have attended one coffee. What were you talking about? His response: Although it was not my practice to go to any of these coffees, there may have been one that I attended briefly. The Vice President's lawyer then submitted a letter 2 days later, saying: As best we can determine from the Vice President's schedule, he was designated to attend four White House coffees. The Vice President hosted approximately 21 coffees at the Old Executive Office Building. Here again, those matters require further inquiry. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 125, the adjournment resolution, which is at the desk. I further ask consent that the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on the bill at this time.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 28, for purposes of conducting a full committee business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this business meeting is to consider pending calendar business

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 28, 9:30 a.m., Hearing Room (SD-406), to conduct a business meeting to consider the following items: Everglades Restoration, Water Resources development, and GSA Authorizations--(a) Multiple FY01 Prospectuses and (b) One FY02 Design Project.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 28, 2000, for an Open Executive Session to consider the chairman's Mark of the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 28, 2000, at 11 a.m., to hold a business meeting.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 28, 2000, at 2:30 p.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Building to mark up pending committee business to be followed by a hearing on S. 2283, to amend the Transportation Equity Act (TEA-21) to make certain amendments with respect to Indian tribes.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, June 28, 2000, at 10 a.m., in SD226.