Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. That is correct, as soon as I yield back the balance of the time, which I intend to do.

Mr. SPECTER. I yield.

Mr. SPECTER. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, may I inquire of my distinguished colleague from Nevada whether an amendment is ready now or when an amendment will be ready to be offered.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I still have the floor. I ask my distinguished colleague, the assistant majority leader, if we could propound a unanimous consent request to consider the pending sense-of-the-Senate resolution.

Mr. SPECTER. If the Senator and I had been there at the same time, we could have solved this problem.

Mr. SPECTER. The fact that I was arriving as the Senator from Nevada was departing led to the inability to solve it. If we had been there together, we would have had a very abbreviated meeting. We could have concentrated on dinner instead of debate.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would be agreeable to setting the amendment aside. I have secured the agreement of the proponent of the sense-of-the-Senate resolution, Senator Nickles, to 30 minutes equally divided. It is a sense of the Senate. It does not have the import of some of the other amendments which involve real money and not confederate money. The next amendment would come from the other side of the aisle. If somebody is ready to offer an amendment, I would be agreeable to setting this amendment aside until we can reach a time agreement. Let me yield now to my colleague from Georgia.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I might say, for the information of all Senators who may be watching on television, we are very anxious to sort of queue up so we can move along with dispatch. If there are Senators on our side of the aisle who wish to speak on this sense of the Senate, it would be my request that they come over promptly so they can speak--the same thing about Members on Senator Reid's side of the aisle. If somebody has an amendment to offer, we can move this bill along and stack those votes and not have to have a late night session. The leader did talk about a window. We haven't had a window for a while. Windows which bring us back here late in the evening hours are not very much appreciated.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, that was well said. Mr. President, may I yield to my colleague from Georgia?

Mr. SPECTER. May I interrupt my distinguished colleague to propound a unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent, and it has been cleared with Senator Reid, that the pending amendment be subject to 1 hour of debate with time equally divided.

Mr. SPECTER. I yield time to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. SPECTER. How much time does my distinguished colleague from New Hampshire desire?

Mr. SPECTER. I yield 10 minutes to Senator Gregg.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains on each side?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the consensus has been clear cut that Social Security trust funds ought not to be invaded. The pending Nickles amendment recites that the Congress and the President should balance the budget excluding the surplus generated by the Social Security trust funds. That is really agreed upon, I think on all sides. The second finding is that Social Security surpluses should be used only for Social Security reform, or to reduce the debt held by the public, and should not be spent on other programs. That is generally agreed upon. Then the sense-of-the-Senate clause: It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should ensure that the fiscal year 2000 appropriations measures do not result in an onbudget deficit, excluding the surpluses generated by the Social Security trust funds, by adopting an across- the-board reduction in all discretionary appropriations sufficient to eliminate such deficit, if necessary. The sense of the Senate is not binding, as we all know; it is what we think ought to be done. I do not like the idea of reducing the discretionary spending, although I think the figures cited by the Senator from Iowa are extreme. I don't think we are looking at a 5-percent across-the-board cut, which would have a deep impact on Head Start, which we ought not to do, or a deep impact on NIH, which we ought not to do. In proposing this amendment, Senator Nickles seeks to put the Senate on notice--and appropriately so--that we had better come within the confines, and not exceed the caps, and not go into Social Security. I think that is an appropriate objective. When the Senator from Iowa articulates proposals for savings in quite a number of other directions, I don't think they are realistic. I don't think the Congress is going to cut defense by $4 billion. When he articulates the view about penalizing tobacco companies that fail to reduce teen smoking by $6 billion, that is a laudable objective, if we can find more tobacco money. It is too bad we don't have some of the money which was worked out on the $203 billion settlement for the Federal Government. But I don't think that is likely either. Reducing waste, fraud, and abuse is the most lofty objective the Congress can articulate. But finding the money to achieve that is so hard. While I have worked very closely with my distinguished colleague from Iowa, I don't really think those figures are realistic. I don't think we are going to reduce Head Start. I don't think we are going to reduce NIH. But there is a stick. It is a stick to stay within the budget limitations. Among a great many alternatives which are undesirable, I believe the pending sense-of-the-Senate resolution is the least undesirable. So I am going to support it. Mr. President, how much time remains?

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 ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 6, 1999, at 2 p.m., to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, permit me to comment about how good it is to have Reverend Ogilvie back with us, looking so well after his recent bout with the doctors and the hospital, one which he and I share. It is nice to have Reverend Ogilvie back. Let me compliment our distinguished President pro tempore for opening the Senate this morning so hale and hardy.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. On behalf of the leader, I have been asked to announce that the Senate will resume consideration of the pending Nickles amendment on the Labor-HHS bill regarding the Social Security trust fund. It is hoped that Senators who have filed amendments will work with the bill managers. What we propose to do is continue to alternate, and we are going to seek time agreements of 30 minutes equally divided so that we can move ahead and complete the bill. We have contentious amendments which are pending on both sides. We are working on the Republican side to try to have these amendments considered with very short time agreements, or reasonably short time agreements so that we can proceed. We have the obligation to finish this bill, or at least the expectation of finishing this bill by the close of business tomorrow. There are dinners both Wednesday evening, this evening, and tomorrow evening which will keep our sessions not too long unless we establish a window, which we will have to do. And if a window is established, that means very late night sessions if we are to recess from 6:30, 7 o'clock, 8:30 or 9 o'clock. That is something to be avoided. We have culled down the amendments, and we think we are in a position to move ahead very promptly. The leader has asked me also to announce that the Senate may consider conference reports to accompany the Agriculture appropriations bill and any other conference reports available during this week's session of the Senate. Until one or two other Senators arrive, I would like to take a moment or two to comment about another matter of business, a very important matter, and that is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the President invited a number of Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, to the White House last night for dinner, including the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, who is now presiding. I had expressed a view publicly before the dinner began that I thought the vote on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty should be deferred; it should not be held on Tuesday. I have stated that position because it is plain that there are not enough votes in the Senate to pass the treaty. I favor the treaty. I said so publicly some time ago. I think it is also not timely to take up the treaty on the existing schedule because of the complexity of the issue. Yesterday, the Armed Services Committee held 5 hours of hearings. I attended part of them. The subject matter is very complicated. It is my judgment that Senators are not really prepared to vote on the matter and that the vote may take on partisan overtones, political overtones, party partisan overtones, which I think would be very undesirable. It has been reported publicly that all 45 Democrats are in favor of the treaty; that there are only a very few Republicans who are in favor of the treaty, and that many Senators on both sides have really not had an opportunity to study the treaty in depth to have positions which might lead some to disagree with the party position. It is my thinking that it would be calamitous--a very strong word, but I think that is the right word--if the Senate were to reject the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. At the present time around the world, many eyebrows are raised because the Senate has not ratified the treaty. But if the Senate were to reject the treaty, then it would be highly publicized worldwide. It would be an open excuse for countries such as India and Pakistan to continue nuclear testing, which I think is very undesirable, destabilizing that area of the world, and give an excuse for rogue nations such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, and other rogue nations to test, and it would be very undesirable. It is a complicated issue because our distinguished majority leader has scheduled the vote under a unanimous consent agreement with the minority leader after very substantial pressures have been building up with many floor statements demanding a vote. The majority leader gave them what they asked for, and it was agreed to. It is not an easy matter to have that unanimous consent agreement vitiated. Any Senator can object to the vote. We will go ahead and schedule it. The administration has expressed the view it does not want to make a commitment to have no vote during the year 2000. The leader has propounded a substitute unanimous consent agreement, as I understand it--I wasn't on the floor at the time--which would vitiate the unanimous consent agreement on the condition that no vote be held in the year 2000. The administration takes the position if they were to agree to that, or go along with it, that it would look as if they were backing off the treaty and it would be complicated for other world leaders as to how the administration would explain that kind of a position when we were pressing other nations to stop nuclear testing and to end proliferation. It may be the matter is really for the Senate without the administration. We set our own schedule. Perhaps a group of Senators representing both Democrats and Republicans could take the responsibility to oppose a vote during the year 2000. Another idea which occurred to me this morning was to have a vote in the year 2000 but have it after the election so the treaty does not become embroiled in Presidential politics. One of the key Democrats expressed the view that he would oppose considering the treaty in the year 2000 because it would become embroiled in Presidential politics and surely lose. If a debate were to be scheduled by mid-November and then a vote held in November that could accommodate the interests of not having it involved in a Presidential campaign and still give President Clinton an opportunity to have the treaty decided upon during his tenure as President with him being in the position to advocate. I make these comments because I think with the schedule for debate on Friday and then again on Tuesday and a scheduled vote on Tuesday that time is of the essence--in this case very much the essence, not unlike that expression which has arisen in real estate transactions--that there are very serious international implications. I know many Senators will be following up on the dinner meeting of last night by communicating with our distinguished majority leader and by communicating with people on both sides to see if we can accommodate all of the competing interests. We are facing one of the most important votes of our era. It will set back arms control and nonproliferation very substantially if this treaty goes down. If after study and deliberation and an adequate time for debate the treaty is rejected, so be it. That is constitutional process. But to have it go down with the kinds of pressures to schedule it, and a schedule which has been entered into knowingly with leaders on both sides having unanimous consent agreements all the time, and any suggestion that there is any inappropriate conduct on anybody's part is totally unfounded. That is the way we operate. But, as I view it, it is an unwise course for the reasons I have stated.