Arlen Specter

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, September 29, 1999, at 2 p.m., to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 29, 1999, to markup S. 791, the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999, and other pending legislation. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Committee on the Judiciary requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, September 29, 1999, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in Dirksen Room 226.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 29, 1999, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on S. 1508, a bill to provide technical and legal assistance to tribal justice systems and members of Indian tribes. The hearing will be held in room 485, Russell Senate Building.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be permitted to meet on Wednesday, September 29, 1999, at 9:30 a.m., to hear testimony on the preparations for the upcoming WTO ministerial meeting in Seattle and the objectives for the multilateral negotiations that will follow.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to conduct a business meeting to consider pending business Wednesday, September 29, 10 a.m., hearing room (SD-406).

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. On behalf of the leader, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated September 17, 1999, from me to Senator Cochran be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it has been a good debate, I think. I now ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the pendency of the Smith amendment No. 1808, the vote on the amendment be reconsidered and tabled.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Iowa 5 minutes of my time.

Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry. Didn't the Senator from California yield back her time?

Mr. SPECTER. How much time?

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from California for that comment. I do understand her point of saying that you cannot go that far, but in extrapolating and projecting where we would be on the total number of applications--as I say, some are not meritorious--one could come up 10 times the figure of $200 million, which we had. Ten times would be $2 billion, or if you project it a little differently on $200 million and $900 million worth of applications were filed, it would be 4\1/2\ times that, which would be $900 million. The point I am making is that regardless of what the committee comes up with, there is going to be an add-on. When this program was started back in 1994, the last year when the Democrats controlled the Congress, and there was an extraordinarily competent chairman of this subcommittee, the figure was $750,000 for afterschool programs. It could be said that the social climate of the country disintegrated in the intervening time--which was a jocular comment made while we were chatting about this. But from $750,000--the last year the Congress was controlled by the Democrats--the figure then moved to $1 million in 1997, and then to $40 million in 1998, and to $200 million in 1999, and then doubled for the next fiscal year to $400 million. When the Senator from California said that I had supported her in the past on afterschool programs, she is correct, I have. I think afterschool programs are vital and necessary. But when Senator Harkin and I constructed a budget of some 300 items--and figured that $91.7 billion was the maximum we could stretch it--we left some money for the National Institutes of Health, for drug-free schools, for worker safety, and for many other programs. That is why, much as I dislike doing so, I have to oppose the additional $200 million. In the 19 years I have been here, when programs such as this have been offered, by and large, I have supported them. But when this kind of an enormous effort is made to accommodate to the maximum extent possible this important objective of afterschool programs--and it is not enough--I come back to the suggestion I made that no figure we would have reached would have been enough. I think we are about to see that with the balance of the amendments which are going to be offered, notwithstanding the very large figure Senator Harkin and I have come up with, more funds will be added in many lines, which will require a lot of very tough votes that I do not like to cast to oppose those amendments. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER. Why not?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I did not yield for a question, but I will.

Mr. SPECTER. The Senator from California is saying she did not say that.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I shall not ask unanimous consent so the Senator from California will not interrupt me. The rules permit her to do so, and I do not want to deprive her of that opportunity. I had posed a question to the Senator from California as to whether any amount would be enough. When the Senator from California cites the statistics of 2,000 applications and 184 were granted, and it may be that some were not meritorious, but in order to have funding of all the applications or most of the applications, all of them would be 11 times the amount. So from $200 million, say, 10 times the amount would be $2 billion.

Mr. SPECTER. When Senator Harkin and I have taken the principal lead in crafting this bill, 300 programs, making allocations as we have, after a lot of hard staff work and a lot of hard thinking, the Senator from California says if we had added $400 million, she would not have offered this amendment. What is the reason, what is the rationale, for $400 million extra being sufficient? The Senator from California says there are these children waiting. But even after the $400 million would be added, had we done so, would there not be other children waiting? And wouldn't the nature of the add-on process have led to more? Essentially, my question is, to focus it specifically, what are the facts that say $400 million will be sufficient to solve the problem----

Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator from California yield for one more question?

Mr. SPECTER. Senator Harkin, the distinguished ranking member, has been very supportive of that. We added that money in on the Juvenile Violence Prevention Program because, as Senator Harkin has said, the safest place for children is in school. This is one facet on the direction of $851 million to prevent school violence, so we added the $200 million. The question arises, after we have stretched on this budget to $91.7 billion, which has gotten the concurrence of a very strong pro- education, pro-health care, pro-worker-safety Senator --the ranking member has accepted that as the maximum amount we could get. When I went to law school, there was a course in legislative process. That course ``ain't learning nothing yet'' compared to what it is in real life to find a bill that Republicans in the Senate will vote for, that can pass conference, and be acceptable to the President. I have a feeling, regardless of how much money would have been added, Senator Dodd would have come forward with a request for $2 billion more, Senator Murray with a request for $200 million more. The question I have for the Senator from California: If we had included $400 million more for afterschool programs, would the Senator from California have offered an amendment to increase it even more?

Mr. SPECTER. Where did----

Mr. SPECTER. Following the practice I have heard earlier today, I will preface my question with a statement. I do not think anybody will call for regular order. When the distinguished Senator from California says perhaps if her speech is short enough, I might vote for her amendment, that is entirely possible. If the speech did not exist, which would imply the withdrawal of the amendment, I would support her position. But the question I have is: We have added $200 million in this bill to afterschool programs.

Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator from California yield for a question?

Mr. SPECTER. I yield such time as the Senator from Georgia desires.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Did the unanimous consent agreement start to run at the time it was entered into?