Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. That is right.

Mr. SPECTER. We are looking for a Senator to offer the next amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. The Senator may go first.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the anticipation is that we are not going to have across-the-board cuts because the totality of the appropriated bills will come within the caps. Senator Stevens was on the floor and we were discussing the last amendment. That continues to be the reassurance from the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I can personally vouch for the fact that we are striving mightily on a conglomerate of 13 bills to come within the caps. I am personally opposed to the cuts across the board, as I have already said. When the Lautenberg amendment was argued a few moments earlier this afternoon, I said if there were specific proposed cuts, we ought to take them up one at a time. I hope we don't get to that either. If we do get to cuts, I think that education ought to be preserved. This bill has an increase in education of $2.3 billion, some $500 million more than the President's budget. That reflects the concerns that the distinguished ranking member, Senator Harkin, and I have had. If there are to be cuts, I would want to exclude education. It is true that it becomes difficult, once something is excluded, to not want to exclude other items. I would not want to see a cut in NIH. It hardly makes a lot of sense to add $2 billion to NIH if it is going to be cut almost $1 billion. Senator Harkin and I probably would have increased it $3 billion in that case. The Senator is laughing. It is good to have a laugh in the middle of the afternoon. But what we have to do is avoid across-the-board cuts. If it comes to that, then we will start to make exclusions, and we are making choices to have other cuts instead of these cuts. Then when we start to exclude virtually everything, we will ultimately have to come down to what cuts are necessary if these 13 appropriations bills do not come within budget. Mr. President, I see no other Senator on the floor seeking recognition. How much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER. I do.

Mr. SPECTER. If I may respond, I would be glad to entertain the next amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts on a short time agreement. We are sequencing. We would like to now yield to the Senator from Texas to make a statement, and then we will proceed with an amendment on this side.

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

Mr. SPECTER. We have another amendment on this side. We are sequencing time. We will be yielding to Senator Hutchison now. We have another amendment on which we hope to have a short time agreement. Then we will return. Is the Senator from Massachusetts prepared to accept another time agreement of 30 minutes equally divided?

Mr. SPECTER. All right. Let's do this. I ask unanimous consent that in sequence after the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Maine are recognized for 10 minutes equally divided, there then be an amendment offered on the Republican side. We would then go to the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, for his amendment, a second-degree amendment, with 45 minutes equally divided.

Mr. SPECTER. I haven't worked that time agreement out. I haven't talked to the proponent. But I expect it to be 30 minutes equally divided. I would not want to make a commitment to that because I haven't cleared that.

Mr. SPECTER. We don't anticipate offering the ergonomics amendment-- if that is the Senator's question--at this particular time.

Mr. SPECTER. That is correct.

Mr. SPECTER. That is correct.

Mr. SPECTER. No second-degree amendment would be offered prior to the motion to table.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. SPECTER. We now have the intervening amendment to be offered by Senator Coverdell, after Senators Hutchison and Collins speak, and I ask unanimous consent that on Senator Coverdell's amendment there be 30 minutes equally divided.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is no doubt about the importance of teacher quality enhancement. Teachers are the backbone of the educational system. There is no doubt about the importance of education. It is a truism that education is a priority second to none. The bill that has been presented on the floor by the distinguished ranking member, Senator Harkin, and myself through subcommittee and full committee has recognized the importance of education in that we have increased education funding by $2.3 billion this year over last year's appropriation. It is now in excess of $35 billion on the Federal allocation. Bear in mind that the Federal Government funds only about 7 percent of education nationwide. When we talk about teacher quality enhancement, this is a program which is a very new program. It was not on the books in fiscal year 1998. For the current year, fiscal year 1999, we have an appropriation in excess of $77 million. When we took a look at it this year, we provided a $3 million increase. This is a matter of trying to recognize what the priorities are. The President had asked for $115 million, and we thought that in allocating funds on a great many lines--title I, Head Start, and many other very important education programs--the proper allocation was $80 million. Now, when the Senator from Massachusetts comes in and asks for an increase of some $220 million, he is requesting $185 million more than the President's request. It would be an ideal world if our funding were unlimited. But what we are looking at here--and we have had very extensive debate today on whether the budget is going to invade the Social Security trust fund. I think this Senator, like others, has determined that we do not invade the Social Security trust fund. We had debated whether or not there ought to be a pro rata increase or a decrease, if we ran into the Social Security trust fund, to make sure we didn't use any of the Social Security moneys, or whether, as the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, offered in an amendment, to have other targeted cuts. My view is that we have to structure this budget so we don't cut into the Social Security trust fund. Senator Stevens was in the well of the Senate earlier today, and I discussed the matter with him. We are trying to structure these 13 appropriations bills so we don't move into the Social Security trust fund. But if we make extensive additions, as this amendment would do, adding $220 million, as I say, which is $185 million more than the President's request, it is not going to be possible to avoid going into the Social Security trust fund. We have already had very substantial increases in funding on this bill. We have a bill of $91.7 billion, which is as much as we thought the traffic would bear on the Republican side of the aisle, realizing that we have to go to conference with the House which has a lower figure, and realizing beyond that, that we have to get the President's signature. We have already had $1.3 billion added to the $91.7 billion for block grants. We have had $900 million added for day care. Now, if we look at another amendment for $220 million, it is going to inevitably at one point or another break the caps. These are not straws that break the camel's back. These are heavy logs which will break the back, and it is not even a camel. Much as I dislike opposing the amendment by the Senator from Massachusetts, I am constrained to do so in my capacity as manager of this bill. In the course of the past week, I have voted against more amendments on funding for programs that I think are very important than I have in the preceding 19 years in the Senate. But that is the responsibility I have when I manage the bill--to take a look at the priorities, get the allocation from the Budget Committee, have a total allocation budget of $91.7 billion, and simply have to stay within that budget. Mr. President, I inquire as to how much time is remaining on the 45 minute time agreement.

Mr. SPECTER. How much does the Senator from Massachusetts have?

Mr. SPECTER. That is satisfactory. I yield the remainder of my time on the Kennedy amendment. I now ask unanimous consent to proceed with Senator Reed under the stipulated terms of 10 minutes to offer an amendment and withdraw it. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are prepared to move ahead with another amendment. We are going to evaluate our schedule. I suggest, just a moment or two, the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, is prepared to offer an amendment, to speak to it for 10 minutes, and then withdraw it.

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. SPECTER. I believe the next amendment would be on this side of the aisle.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Rhode Island yield for a moment on a managers' matter?