Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. If the distinguished Senator would yield on that point?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SPECTER. I yield 2 more minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to permit Dr. Jack Chow, Mr. Mark Laisch, and Jane MacDonald to be present in the Chamber during consideration of this bill.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the bill on which we are now proceeding allocates some $91.7 billion for the three Departments--the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Labor. It is an increase of $4 billion over the program levels for fiscal year 1999. Most of that money is taken up by additional funding for the Department of Education, $2.3 billion, and an increase in the National Institutes of Health, $2 billion. This bill is very close to the President's mark. It is within $1.4 billion of the President's mark. It contains advance funding for programs that are currently forward funded of some $16.46 billion. Last year, the advance funding was $8.5 billion. The advance funding, of course, is a consistent, customary practice for the appropriations process. It is worth noting that the President's suggested mark had advance funding, forward funding, in excess of some $20 billion. In reporting this bill out from the Appropriations Committee yesterday, I thanked our distinguished chairman, Senator Stevens, and our distinguished ranking member, Senator Byrd, for the allocations which have enabled us to reach the floor. This appropriations bill is within the caps. My distinguished colleague, Senator Tom Harkin, and I have cooperated on a partnership basis. Senator Harkin and I have worked for more than a decade as chairman or ranking member, depending on which party is in power. I learned a long time ago that if you want to get something done here in Washington, you have to be willing to cross party lines and work on a bipartisan basis. When we are dealing with the two top priorities of the country on the domestic scene--education and health care--in addition to the very important programs in the Department of Labor on worker safety and job training, a bipartisan approach is necessary. Senator Harkin and I do present this budget in a bipartisan context. It is our projection, as we move down the line, to present a bill to the President which will be signed. That is not an easy matter, given the budget constraints, given the many different views in the Senate, and, quite candidly, given the differing views in the House of Representatives where we will have to go to conference. But it is our hope that we will present to the President a bill which will be signed. That has not been accomplished in recent years. In fact, last year we didn't even get to bring the bill to the floor of the Senate. I think it is generally recognized that the American people are fed up, really sick and tired of partisan political bickering in Washington. If we are able to have a bill which can be signed by President Clinton, who is a Democrat, presented to him by a Congress which is controlled, both Houses, by Republicans, it will be good for the country. It will be good for both parties. It will be good for everyone to be able to present a bill on these high priority items of education and health care which can be agreed to. Just a few of the highlights of this bill: The bill is more than $500 million over the President's requests on education. We think that is a matter of great significance because education funding is a priority second to none. Head Start, which has been a very important program for everyone, but emphasized by the President--and I enumerate a number of items where we have acceded to the President's priority line but, in accordance with the constitutional authority to the Congress for appropriations, we have exercised our own judgments. Senator Harkin will comment on this, as we have had a bipartisan approach, which is an approach with Democrats--not necessarily the President's approach, but an approach by the Democrats--as we have put in some of our own priorities, as they have been reflected in requests we have received from 100 Senators and from many in the private sector. We have received over 1,000 letters from Senators requesting 2,188 report, bill, or number item changes. In addition, the subcommittee received over 1,000 requests from outside individuals and organizations. Many of those requests have come in air travel from Washington to Chicago and Des Moines, where Senator Harkin has been importuned by his constituents, not only from Iowa but his constituents from the United States, because he is a United States Senator as well as a Senator from Iowa. Many of these requests have come on the Metroliner between Washington and Philadelphia, as people have approached me with their requests. So that in coming to this proposal, it is a matter of establishing priorities. That is not easy to do. With a budget of nearly $1.8 trillion, the whole budget process is priorities. We have established what we think are appropriate lines of priorities. It is worthwhile to note that the President has emphasized Head Start; we have agreed with him. We have a Head Start Program in excess of $5 billion, with an increase of more than $600 million. We have had requests from the President on an important program called GEAR UP, which is designed to help low-income elementary and secondary school children prepare for college. My distinguished colleague, Chaka Fattah, a Member of the House of Representatives from Philadelphia, originated this program. The President has embraced it, and we have funded it this year for $120 million. The President asked for an increase. Senator Harkin and our subcommittee and the full committee have increased it by 50 percent to $180 million. I joined the President in one of his weekly radio announcements and talked to him afterward, as I listened to his interest in this on a priority basis. We have increased, as I say, funding there by some 50 percent. Special education has been a matter of high priority. Now we have more than $6 billion, an increase of more than $900 million this year. I could go over quite a number of the other lists, but the President's priorities have been accorded very substantial consideration and approval. The Ricky Ray Program now has $50 million to compensate hemophilia victims. On our Pell grants, in accordance, again, with the administration's request, we have put in an increase to bring them to $3,325 on the maximum Pell grant a year. Again, on an item of importance emphasized by the White House and many Senators, LIHEAP, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance, has been funded for $1.1 billion. On the health line, the subcommittee included a mark of $2 billion, which was approved by the full committee. The National Institutes of Health, in my judgment, are the crown jewels of the Federal Government, perhaps the only jewels of the Federal Government. We are on the verge of phenomenal breakthroughs on many dreaded ailments. Yesterday, we had a hearing on Parkinson's disease with Michael J. Fox coming in, putting a face on that human tragedy, a person who is well known and loved by so many millions of Americans as a television personality. It happens to be a fact of life that when Michael J. Fox comes in and testifies about his own trauma, a young man at the age of 39, with three children, facing a very uncertain medical future-- medical experts testify that we may well be within 5 years of a cure for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer, heart ailments and a long list of very tragic ailments. One of the aspects of chairing the subcommittee has been to be the recipient of requests from people with strange and rare illnesses. We have tried to raise the level of funding at the National Institutes of Health so there can be maximum accommodation for research on so many lines. Even with this $2 billion increase, raising from $15.6 billion to $17.6 billion, there are many lines which we cannot fund totally. We still have, out of every 10 doors of research, the possibility that 7 will remain unopened. It is my personal view that with a national budget of $1.8 trillion we ought to fund all of the meritorious applications. That can't be done. Many people have looked at this $2 billion increase, and have said: How can we afford it? The response that Senator Harkin, our subcommittee, and the full committee have given us is: How can we not afford it? One item we ought to be mentioning is that the language on stem cell research, which would have eliminated certain restrictions from the National Institutes of Health, has been deleted. That was inserted on the initiative from the leadership of the subcommittee because the stem cell research has such enormous potential. The stem cell research can go forward now with private funding extracting the stem cells from embryos, and then the Federal funding coming in on the stem cells which have been extracted. It is my personal view--and the view which Senator Harkin expressed forcefully at the subcommittee yesterday--that some of the existing limitations ought to be eliminated from this bill. The embryos which are involved are not embryos which would create human life. They are embryos which have been discarded from in vitro fertilization. The bill's prohibition against research on embryos will stay intact. But what we had originally contemplated was to allow Federal funding to NIH on extracting stem cells from the embryos. But that has been eliminated at the request of the majority leader, Senator Lott, and the chairman of the committee, Senator Stevens. We have eliminated that because we never could have finished this bill by the close of business tomorrow had it remained. Senator Lott has made a commitment that he will take up a freestanding bill in February, and our subcommittee will move forward to extensive hearings so that everybody may be informed. There is a lack of information about the importance to medical research in these stem cells and the fact that does not really impinge upon embryos which could produce life. There are many similarities between this debate and the debate on fetal tissue where for a long time fetal tissue could not be used in research because of a concern that it would promote abortions, and then the understanding was driven home that it would not promote abortions but would only use fetal tissues from abortions which had already been concluded. To repeat, this will be taken up in February. One other initiative which deserves attention is an initiative on school violence prevention. We have seen on a recurring basis the tragedies of school violence. The subcommittee undertook three active working sessions lasting about an hour and a half each where I presided in order to bring forward the experts on the working level. From that effort has come a program which is described on pages 6 to 14 of our report. We brought together ranking officials and people very knowledgeable from the field, including the Deputy Attorney General, the Surgeon General, representatives of the Office of Management and Budget, representatives from elementary and secondary education, from the Department's units administering safe and drug-free schools, from special education, from the Administration for Children and Families, from the National Institute of Mental Health, from Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse, from the Centers for Disease Control and the Division of Violence Prevention, from the Office of the Victims of Crime, from employment and training programs from the Department of Labor, and from the Association of School Psychologists--all who have put together a comprehensive bill which essentially involves the reallocation of some $851 million. Not pointing the finger of blame in any direction but recognizing school violence as a national health problem, as suggested years ago by the Surgeon General, and putting it under the Surgeon General where we are coordinating with Bruce Reed from the White House Domestic Council--a program has been created which we believe has long range potential. Included in the funding, in addition, are important programs on worker safety. In the interest of time, I will not delineate all of them. They have been set forth in some detail. On a personal note, I have recused myself on the funding for the National Constitution Center, since my wife, Joan Specter, is director of fundraising for the National Constitution Center. Senator Thad Cochran, the senior Republican on the committee, has taken over. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from me to Senator Cochran on this subject, dated September 17, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this is an abbreviated statement of what the bill contains. In the interest of moving us promptly as possible to the amendment from the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, I am going to yield the floor at this time and yield to my distinguished colleague, Senator Harkin, whom I again thank for his total cooperation and partnership and bipartisan approach to this important bill.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, Senator Harkin, for his generous remarks. There are one or two points about which I would like to comment. With respect to the stem cell issue, on the merits and on the substance, I agree with what Senator Harkin said, that ultimately we ought to reduce the limitations on the National Institutes of Health. I think it appropriate to say that I took the initiative in putting that language in the bill. I also agree with Senator Harkin that this is an issue which I think his position and mine can prevail when it is explained. But I disagree with him on one tiny point, and that is it would not take long to explain it. I think it is going to take a long time to explain it, and a lot of people are going to want to be heard on it. That is our only point of disagreement, that I don't think it realistic to conclude this bill by the end of business tomorrow. I do not blame him for a healthy share of skepticism, and he will believe it when he sees it. I predict he will see it. He and I have worked together, and our predictions to each other have been accurate right down the line without exception. Senator Harkin commented on the statement from the President which I had not seen when I started my comments. I will be responding to that when we have a break in the action. We just received the statement this morning, and he has made a comment that the President said he will veto the bill in its current form, which surprised me on that abrupt challenge. I am prepared to work through that. He also said in his statement--let me read the statement specifically: If this bill were to come to me in its current form I would have to veto it. I was a little surprised to see that peremptory language without some preliminary consultation. But then he goes on to say: I look forward to working with Congress on a bipartisan basis to ensure that this bill strengthens public education and other important national priorities. Our objectives are the same on strengthening public education and other important national priorities. I am instructing my staff to start to work now with the Secretaries. We had a hearing. I have worked closely with Secretary Shalala, Health and Human Services; Secretary Riley, Education; and Secretary Herman, Labor. We are going to be working with them as this bill proceeds on the floor and also with the Office of Management and Budget to see if we cannot have a meeting of the minds as we work through the process. I know the Senator from Washington is ready to offer her amendment, so at this time I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. I object.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, after conferring with the distinguished Senator from Iowa and others on the Democratic side, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to debate until 12 noon, at which point we will take up the first amendment to be decided at that time.

Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, that is satisfactory with me. Senator Murray had been on the floor earlier, and if she is prepared to defer----

Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry. Isn't it true that the hour of 12 o'clock having passed, that prohibition against offering amendments has lapsed and amendments may now be offered?

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, regular order.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is it----

Mr. SPECTER. I am asking the Chair, isn't it correct----

Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry. With 12 noon having passed----

Mr. SPECTER. I have no problem with that.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have heard a great deal of talk about class size. There has been an absence of recognition that the bill provides $1.2 billion for teacher initiatives, which may well be defined as class size, where the authorizing committee works. We have heard a castigation about failure to fulfill a promise for the discharge of teachers, which is factually untrue. There is currently $1.2 billion to fund class size reduction on an authorization which was contained in last year's appropriation bill. This year's appropriation bill includes $1.2 billion on what is called a teacher initiative. So when a number of Senators have talked about the desirability of reducing class size and what that does for education, that is something to which this Senator agrees. That is something the subcommittee agrees with, the full committee agrees with, and is not a partisan issue. It is not a matter that the Democrats say we ought to have small class sizes and the Republicans say there ought to be large class sizes. That is not an issue at all. There is not a controversy. It is not a controversy that there is any reneging on a promise to take out the $1.2 billion to discharge many teachers. That is simply not factually correct. The fact is, this appropriations bill contains $1.2 billion. Yesterday, the Senator from Washington, in the committee, offered an amendment for $1.4 billion. So there was an increase of $200 million, and the Senator from Washington offered that amendment without an offset. This bill is already at $91.7 billion, which is at the breaking point, maybe beyond the breaking point of what this body will enact or what may go through conference. In the absence of an offset, the priorities are not subject to be rearranged, at least in my opinion. There has been an objection made, understandably, by Senator Jeffords, who is the chairman of the authorizing committee. That is the role of the authorizing committee. Yesterday, there was talk about Senator Gorton. Senator Gorton introduced or was prepared to introduce a second-degree amendment, which would have appropriated the $1.2 billion, subject to authorization, and if the authorization did not occur, then the $1.2 billion would be given to the States. They can make a determination as they see fit in a block grant concept, allocating it to class size or teacher initiative or whatever it is the States decided. My preference is to see that the $1.2 billion stays in the area of class size and teacher initiative, but that is a matter for the authorizers. I understand the Senator from Washington wants an up-or-down vote, but the rules of the Senate permit another Senator like Senator Gorton to offer a second-degree amendment. When the Senator from Washington says she is prepared to stay until the end of November to reoffer her amendment, she is entitled to do that. Senator Gorton is entitled to continue to offer a second-degree amendment, if he decides to do that. Those are the rules of the Senate. Nobody is entitled to an up-or-down vote if another Senator wants to offer a second-degree amendment. Now, it may be that Senator Gorton and others will yield and will allow an up-or-down vote. I am not sure how that will work out, but it is not a matter of right. No Senator has a right to an up-or-down vote. A Senator has a right to follow the rules. Senator Gorton has a right to the rules, just as Senator Murray has a right to the rules. It is simply not true that there is a reneging on the commitment for $1.2 billion. It is in the bill. It is categorized as a teacher initiative. That is another way of saying class size, or it is another way of saying what the authorizers may do by way of specifying how the $1.2 billion is to be spent. We have a deadline of September 30, the end of the fiscal year, to finish our work. We had the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, call for regular order. I called for regular order. You can articulate questions which are speeches, a lot of speeches that have consumed more than an hour. It is my hope that we can proceed with this bill, proceed with the rules of the Senate, and move to let the Senate work its will.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent when Senator Hutchinson concludes, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee be recognized.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 287, S. 1051.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a star print of S. 1574 be made with the changes that are already at the desk.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before our distinguished President pro tempore leaves the floor, I wish to make a comment or two about how good it is to see Senator Thurmond looking so well. He had a recent bout with the doctors. I had a bout with the doctors not too long ago myself. But notwithstanding that, Senator Thurmond, our distinguished President pro tempore, is here every morning to open the Senate. I know he was occupied yesterday in the early evening signing the continuing resolution and attended a Bible study group in my hideaway, presided over by a distinguished Biblical scholar. Senator Thurmond was there participating, and I just wanted to make a comment how sharp Senator Thurmond looks today and how good it is to see him opening the Senate.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I have been asked to announce that today the Senate will immediately begin consideration of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill. Amendments to the bill are expected to be offered. Therefore, Senators may expect votes throughout the day and into the evening. Senators who intend to offer amendments should let us know as promptly as possible. Based on the number of amendments which are anticipated so far, it is possible we could finish action on the bill today. In any event, action on the bill must be finished before the close of Senate business tomorrow so that the Senate will have acted on all of the appropriations bills before the end of the fiscal year, September 30. As always, Senators will be notified as early as possible as votes are scheduled. Senator Lott has asked for notification that the Senate may also consider any conference reports available for action. I thank my colleagues for their attention in this matter.