Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SPECTER. If I may respond to the question, I was off the floor for a moment, actually, in the lunchroom. I came back to the floor. A unanimous consent request had been propounded for an hour time agreement, equally divided, with no second-degree amendments. It was later determined that was not really acceptable to the Democratic side of the aisle. I said to the Senator from Iowa, when I came back in: If it causes you heartburn, we will eliminate it. I now ask unanimous consent that the part as to ``no second-degree amendments'' be rescinded, but the time as to 1 hour equally divided remain in effect.

Mr. SPECTER. There is a question pending of the Senator from Iowa, how much time does he want?

Mr. SPECTER. How much time would my colleague from Iowa like?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, when this bill was crafted with some 300 items, great care was exercised on the establishment of priorities. That is always a difficult matter. Where is the $1.800 trillion in Federal money to be spent? We have a bill of $91.7 billion. We have had a series of amendments to change the allocations and assessments of priorities which the ranking member and I came to initially with staff, and then the subcommittee and then the full committee. I am inclined to agree with my colleague from Arkansas about the desirability of having more money in the consolidated health centers. He came from a small town, as he recited, of several hundred that has grown to more than 1,000. The town where I went to high school was a big city by comparison. It had several thousand people. Russell, KS, has now 4,998 people. It used to have 5,000 until Dole and I left town. I appreciate what the Senator from Arkansas has had to say about the virtues of living in a small town. I have appreciated the virtues of living in a small town even more since I moved to a big city. I knew Russell, KS, was a great place to live, but after I moved to Philadelphia I concluded Russell, KS, was a greater place to live. When the Senator from Arkansas talks about smalltown life and the need for health centers, he is right. They are needed not only in Arkansas but in Pennsylvania, in Kansas, and everywhere. When we made the allocations, as has already been noted by the Senator from Arkansas, we paid a very substantial increase to consolidated health centers. Consolidated health centers were a little over $900 million and we added $99.3 million to bring them to $1.24 billion. That is, I am advised, $79 million over the President's request. But, even so, when the Senator from Arkansas says he would like to have more money, I would not disagree with him. But then it is a question of establishing priorities, as to what we do. I listened closely to the statistics which were cited by the Senator from Arkansas on the decrease in the backlog. But even after the backlog has decreased--and I am searching for those exact statistics myself--there still is an enormous backlog which is pending before the National Labor Relations Board. When the Senator from Arkansas makes a comment about the board establishing priorities, I think that is to the board's credit. They are not going to be able to take all the cases, so they ought to establish priorities. I hope their priorities are not subject to as much challenge as mine are on the floor. I am not really too serious about that, there haven't been too many challenges. But then the day is not over yet, either. We are waiting for all the amendments to be filed by 2 o'clock this afternoon. But I compliment the National Labor Relations Board for establishing priorities, to take up the most important cases first. The fact that there are a great many unmeritorious claims filed is not surprising. There are sometimes unmeritorious amendments filed--not this one. But there are lots of cases filed in court or any adjudicatory process where there are unmeritorious matters. But I do not think that can be the basis of judgment. My analysis of the caseload of the National Labor Relations Board, and I am going to put these figures into shape during the course of this debate, to be specific and put them into the Congressional Record, is that this funding is needed. The National Labor Relations Board, by word of just a little explanation for those who may be watching on C-SPAN2, is a board created to take into consideration complaints, either by labor or by management, as to what is happening in a labor practice and to identify unfair labor practices and to produce labor peace by having an administrative remedy which would stop people from going into court. I know there are others who wish to speak who are waiting now, but I think a careful analysis of the backlog, of the procedures of the National Labor Relations Board, and the entire picture, will show that this kind of increase is warranted and certainly in consideration of the significant increase accorded to the consolidated health centers, which I have already noted.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the hour of 12:30 has arrived. We expect the offerer of the next amendment to be here within a very short period of time. In the interim, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on the Senate floor we do not frequently have the quality of evidence which assures authenticity, unlike a courtroom where you have to have witnesses who saw, observed, or documentation which is authenticated. I have marveled, from time to time, during my tenure in the Senate how many representations of fact are made which have no authentication. We had a little time left over from the debate, so the Senator from Nevada and I have talked a little bit about these lists being made available to political parties. You have the inspector general's report which will be made a part of the Record which says what it says. I have already stated that. I am not going to repeat it. But what we say on this Senate floor is viewed by a lot of people. I am sure the Corporation for Public Broadcasting will be looking very closely at what Senator Reid and I have had to say. And other public institutions will be on notice, as well, that when there is public money involved, it is a public trust and not to be partisan for either Democrats or Republicans, and that we will take a look at it. Again, I repeat that, notwithstanding this concern, we did not seek to have that influence our determination as to what the funding should be. We added $10 million. We know the problem has been rectified, but we want the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and everyone else, to be on notice that the Congress will not tolerate partisanship or political activity of either party with public money, which is a Federal trust. Mr. President, I move to table the pending amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SPECTER. Take 3.

Mr. SPECTER. Two minutes. We only have about 4 minutes left. If you take 2 minutes, I will have 2 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. I yield time from my side to the Senator from Nevada. I ask the Senator, how much time would you like?

Mr. SPECTER. I do.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, while not an enormous matter, while we are waiting for the next amendment to be offered, the issue has arisen as to whether the lists were made available to which political parties. I have been furnished, by staff, with a response by the inspector general of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to Congressman Dingell's questions in the House of Representatives. This is one question: When stations made donor lists available to Democratic organizations either directly or through list brokers/ managers, were the lists made available to Republican organizations as well? Answer by the inspector general, as represented to me here: Although, none of the identified exchanges or rentals of donor names from public broadcasting stations involved Republican organizations, we could not conclude that such names were not available to them. In this regard, we found no indications or evidence that Republican organizations had ever sought or been turned down for names requested from public broadcasting stations. In addition in visiting two stations, we were advised that when they learned that names were being exchanged with or rented to Democratic organizations, they had proposed exchanges with Republican organizations to their direct mail consultant or list broker. These stations were later advised that such exchanges were turned down. I think it advisable, having read from part of these responses, that the full text of the responses to Congressman Dingell's questions be printed in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the responses be printed in the Record.

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

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

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Nevada for that observation. It is my hope we can stack the votes until late this afternoon. We find that the votes set for 15 minutes with a 5-minute leeway go much longer. We have an amendment lined up by the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, to start in 10 minutes, and behind that--in sequencing we have had two amendments from that side of the aisle, so we are looking for another Republican amendment behind Senator Hutchinson. Then we will have Senator Graham of Florida. We wish to move this bill expeditiously giving ample time with time agreements. So we will be looking to stack the votes very late this afternoon. Then we have lined up an amendment on ergonomics to come late this afternoon. It is anticipated there will be considerable debate on that. But we want to move through the ``meat'' of the day, so to speak, getting as much done as we can. So I concur with what Senator Reid has had to say about stacking the votes later.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered and argued by the Senator from Nevada because the subcommittee worked out a very carefully crafted set of priorities, joined in by the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, my distinguished ranking member. In structuring a bill of $91.7 billion, we had to take into account many programs, some 300 programs. There is difficulty in having this bill accepted with 51 votes considering the expenditures involved. We have given priority to items such as education where the bill is $500 million in excess of the President's request. We have given priority to programs for the National Institutes of Health and raised $2 billion. We have had to cut some programs which I, frankly, did not like to see cut. But we have established the priorities. With respect to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, we have increased their funding by $10 million, from $340 million to $350 million. This year's allocation of $340 million was an increase from $300 million the year before and an increase from $250 million the year before that. It is true that back in 1992, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting had an allocation of $327 million and it has gradually been built up. I have been supportive of public broadcasting. The question is on priorities, and it is my judgment that in a tight fiscal year with tight budget constraints that we have been reasonably generous with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. On another matter I think ought to be commented upon, although it is not the reason for opposing the amendment by the Senator from Nevada, is the finding by the inspector general of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that 53 of the 591 public broadcasting grantees exchanged donor lists with or rented them to political organizations, which is a matter of some consequence. Earlier this year, the Boston Globe reported that the local public television station in Boston, WGBH, exchanged its donor list with the Democratic Party. There were other media reports about exchanges involving public broadcasting with WNET in New York, WETA in Washington, DC, and WHYY in Philadelphia. Steps have been taken by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to stop that practice, but I do think it is a factor which ought to be in the public record and ought to be commented upon at this time. It would be a curious reward if, in the face of a problem this year of this magnitude, we had a proportionately large increase in the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. These factors were considered very carefully when our bill was crafted. I do listen to public broadcasting myself, and I do concur with Senator Reid that it is a very useful instrumentality, given the considerations on commercial broadcasting. But we have gone about as far as we can go in allocating a $10 million increase which brings the corporation up to $350 million.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no second- degree amendment be in order prior to the vote on or in relation to the pending amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. I understand the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, has an amendment which he wishes to submit. I have discussed a time limit with Senator Reid, and I ask unanimous consent the time limit be 30 minutes equally divided.

Mr. SPECTER. I accept that addendum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the distinguished manager, Senator Harkin, and I had talked yesterday about a time limit on sending of amendments. I believe that has been worked out now. On behalf of Senator Lott, the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that all first-degree amendments in order to the Labor-HHS- Education appropriations bill must be filed at the desk by 2 p.m. on Thursday, today, and all second-degree amendments must be relevant to the first-degree amendments they propose, and in addition thereto, each leader may offer one first-degree amendment.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I can testify to that from direct personal knowledge; I voted against it and others did. There were some Republicans against the tax cut.

Mr. SPECTER. Quite a few. I wouldn't want to cite an exact number.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Delaware for responding, and I will not ask another question because I want to move on to the next amendment. Mr. President, it is my hope that whatever technical information is available on some of the outstanding questions will be made available to the Senators before the vote so we can have that determination made with all the facts available.

Mr. SPECTER. If I may have the attention of the Senator from Delaware, I do believe it is important for the Senate to consider the treaty. I support it. I believe it is very difficult for the United States to use moral suasion on India and Pakistan not to have nuclear tests if we have not moved forward on the ratification process. However, I ask my colleague from Delaware about the problems of considering the treaty on this state of the record where we have been looking for some expert guidance on some questions which are outstanding as to whether there can be an adequate determination of our preparedness without having tests. One thing we have to consider very carefully is whether the interests of disarmament will be promoted by pressing to bring the treaty now, which may result without the two-thirds ratification, as opposed to trying to clear up some concerns which some have expressed. I am prepared to vote in favor of the treaty.