Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, if we can proceed with sequencing, I have just discussed with the Senator from Indiana a subsequent amendment which he intends to offer and he is prepared to accept a 20- minute time limit, equally divided, so we can proceed to a vote on that amendment in relatively short order. I believe we will have to get concurrence from my colleague, Senator Harkin. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Indiana is acceptable to this side of the aisle. It calls for a study which I think is well-founded, and we are prepared to accept it. I commend my colleague from Indiana for offering the amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Further inquiry, Madam President. Has the amendment offered by Senator McCain and Senator Wellstone been set aside?

Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry. What is the status of the pending issue before the Senate?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment to provide a statutory program for research and training with respect to Parkinson's, I think, is well founded. We have worked within the subcommittee to increase the funding for the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke which included language in the Senate report highlighting the importance of further activity on Parkinson's disease research. And the activities of the sponsors of this amendment, whom I commend, will direct greater intensive effort on Parkinson's, which is a horrible disease. It has afflicted many, many people. With the enactment of this amendment, I think we will be taking a firm stand to show the emphasis that the Senate, hopefully, ultimately the full Congress, will place on additional research and resources being directed against Parkinson's. There is a great deal that could be said. We have a number of other amendments, so I will limit my comments to those brief remarks. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, after consulting with the majority leader, it is our intention to proceed with a series of amendments and to have perhaps two stacked votes at about 7 o'clock. We have next up an amendment that will just take a moment or two, a very brief amendment by Senator McCain. Then we are going to follow that with a brief amendment by Senator Nickles. Will that require a rollcall vote, Senator Nickles? It will. Then we have an amendment by Senator Lieberman, and then we will be in a position to, we hope, have a list of amendments which will be limited so we can proceed to see precisely how we will finish the bill.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have circularized my intent to pursue this amendment, and there is no other Senator on the floor now who seeks recognition. Before suggesting the absence of a quorum, let me say that we had talked earlier about having a vote on the Kyl mendment at 5 o'clock this afternoon. We have not yet locked in that amendment, but it is now being hot lined. It is my expectation that we will vote at 5 o'clock this afternoon on the Kyl amendment. I now ask, Madam President, that anybody who opposes the sense-of- the-Senate resolution for independent counsel come to speak, anybody who favors it come to speak, or if somebody has another amendment, come to speak. We will be glad to set this aside and proceed with the business. We also ask there be a hot line looking for a unanimous consent agreement later this afternoon, perhaps early evening, 6 o'clock, 6:30, to limit any further amendments which may be offered so that we may get a calendar as to what we are going to do on this bill to proceed to third reading and final disposition, because it is the intention of the managers to move for third reading if no other amendments are pending. I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I again renew the request that any Senator who has an amendment to offer should come to the floor. And again I say that we are going to be seeking a unanimous-consent agreement to limit amendments which were filed, trying to get that accomplished by late afternoon or early evening. Again, in the absence of any Senator on the floor seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. And I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter from Attorney General Reno dated April 14, 1997, responding to Senator Hatch be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated March 13, 1997, from the 10 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee requesting independent counsel be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated October 29, 1996, from five Members of the House of Representatives requesting independent counsel be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, this is the amendment that I had referred to earlier on sense of the Senate for independent counsel. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Senator McCain to Attorney General Reno dated October 11, 1996, requesting independent counsel be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, now briefly addressing the amendments offered by Senator Gregg and Senator Coats, it is my hope that the amendments will be debated today for all those who have views and care to express them; that is, as I said earlier, because this is a complicated matter. In my conversation yesterday in a telephone call which I received from the Secretary of Education, he asked for my support, and I told him that I did not know enough about the matter to render a judgment and had said earlier it seems to me that testing is desirable, but I do not know that it ought to be undertaken by the Federal Government. We have scheduled a hearing tomorrow which we have advanced from 9 o'clock to 8:30 in the morning because we have since had a request from Congressman Goodling to testify at the hearing. So we are now going to have the Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, we are going to have the chairman of the House Education Committee, and we are looking, as a matter of balance, to find someone in opposition to the Department of Education program. So that hearing will be conducted from 8:30, hopefully until 10 a.m. It is my hope that we will complete action on the remainder of this bill today, with the exception of the vote on the Gregg amendment, and take that up tomorrow. Madam President, I now call up amendment No. 1069. Amendment No. 1069 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Attorney General has abused her discretion by failing to appoint an independent counsel on campaign finance matters and that the Attorney General should proceed to appoint such an independent counsel immediately)

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, Senator Harkin is now attending a committee meeting, and I have been advised by his staff that this amendment is agreeable to him, so I ask unanimous consent that it be adopted.

Mr. SPECTER. The amendment that I am introducing today directs the Department to test the cost effectiveness of this policy option to allow the disabled to remain at home and to obtain the Federal Medicaid benefits. It is clear that the current long-term care system is highly regulated and very costly. It is my thought that there is a clear-cut need for a program to be put into effect which will enable the disabled to stay at home or in the community as an alternative to institutional care. On February 17 of this year, I had the privilege of visiting a group of disabled individuals, many of whom have substantial disabilities, struggling to live independent lives. They gave me a sweatshirt, and I now display it for my colleagues and for those on C-Span II, showing, ``Our Homes, Not Nursing Homes.'' And it is the symbol of someone who is disabled. When I met with these individuals, who were struggling in their wheelchairs, with enormous disabilities, and found that they could not receive Medicaid benefits unless they were in an institution, it seemed to me manifestly unfair. It is clear that it would be less costly to have the disabled remain in their communities or in their own homes so they could care for themselves and could receive the Medicaid benefits. So I said to these people in North Philadelphia that I would bring the matter to the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the view of having an administrative change. But I find that it is very complicated because the preliminary estimates from the Congressional Budget Office say that this would be an enormously expensive change to enable the disabled to have benefits to live in their communities or in their homes. I wondered why. The best explanation which I have been able to receive so far is that, at the present time, these people, the disabled, are cared for by their relatives, by friends or somehow by themselves because they don't want to go into an institution, so they forgo the assistance which Medicaid offers the disabled. The Congressional Budget Office asserts that if these individuals were to have the ability to have this care outside of the institution, the costs would skyrocket. It seems to me, Madam President, unfair that where the Medicaid law says the disabled are entitled to certain benefits if they are in an institution, that they should be compelled to be institutionalized when they want to live in their homes or their own communities. This is quite a conundrum, quite a Catch-22. So the best course that I see at the present time would be for us to undertake this program on a test basis, and to have a study, made to see what the costs would be in order to try to arrive at some fair determination. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC, February 28, 1997. Hon. Donna Shalala, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Shalala: I am writing to alert you that I intend to raise with your at next week's Subcommittee hearing a matter concerning Medicaid coverage of attendant care services for people with disabilities. It has been brought to my attention that considerable savings to the Medicaid program could be achieved by redirecting long-term care funding toward community-based attendant services, and by requiring States to develop attendant service programs meeting national standards to assure that people of all ages with disabilities have full access to such services. Please be prepared to summarize the current status of Medicaid services to the disabled population, and to discuss your views on establishing a national program of community-based attendant services. I would also appreciate your thoughts on what further could be done, both administratively and through legislative action, to better enable people with mental and physical disabilities to live independently. I look forward to discussing this and other issues with you next Tuesday when you appear to present the Administration's fiscal year 1998 budget request for your Department. My best. Sincerely, Arlen Specter, Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, as noted, that $2 million will be utilized from an existing fund for a demonstration project to test the effectiveness of providing attendant care services to individuals with disabilities, regardless of age. Every State in the country currently provides long-term services to eligible individuals who require the assistance of an attendant in nursing homes or other institutions. However, under a curious provision of the current Medicaid law, these individuals are not guaranteed the right to remain in their own homes and communities while receiving the assistance of an attendant as an alternative to institutional care. I have sought to persuade the Secretary of Health and Human Services to change this provision in the Medicaid Program, and I wrote to Secretary Shalala accordingly on February 28, 1997. I ask unanimous consent a copy of that letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. SPECTER. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague from North Dakota for offering this amendment. I agree with him about the importance of additional funding for pulmonary research, for heart research. It is a major killer in the United States. We ought to be doing everything we can to investigate, find cures and implement them. The amendment which has been offered carries an offset on administration and it has been modified from what the Senator from North Dakota had originally suggested, which would have been earmarking, which poses problems, because we do not earmark but instead leave that designation to the National Institutes of Health so we do not have excessive management or micromanagement by the Congress as to what the NIH funds must have. I think Senator Dorgan made a forceful statement that those funds ought to be directed in that way, and the officials at NIH will have that before them. I am confident they will make every effort they can to carry out the intent with which my colleague has expressed here. We have vast sums of money at NIH. We are increasing it. It is $952 million now, and is up to $13.7 billion. Notwithstanding all that funding, there are many applications which are not granted. This one expresses what the Senator from North Dakota thinks ought to be done. I am advised Senator Harkin is off the floor now attending a committee meeting and necessarily absent, but I am advised by his staff that Senator Harkin finds this amendment acceptable, as do I, as manager for the majority. We accept the amendment. I urge its adoption.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there has been a hotline run, that is to say, Senators on both sides of the aisle have been notified, and I now ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on or in relation to the pending Kyl amendment at 5 p.m. today.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, starting yesterday morning at 11 o'clock, in conjunction with scheduling from the majority leader, Senator Lott, and the ranking member on this subcommittee, Senator Harkin, we asked that amendments be brought with the hope of concluding action on this bill today, and that all amendments be submitted, first, by the end of business yesterday or no later than noon today. We have not had a great deal of business. The one exception would be an amendment which would deal with prohibiting Federal funding for testing, which the administration has in mind. Congressman Goodling had announced his intention to seek that kind of prohibition in the House. There had been comments yesterday that someone would offer that kind of legislation on the Senate side. The distinguished presiding officer, Senator Judd Gregg, said, with a pointed finger, it was he. I don't want to name names here, but I am prepared to identify those who are willing to be identified. I received a telephone call from the Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, yesterday afternoon, as did Senator Harkin and others. It seems to me that might be one matter we might put over until tomorrow and schedule the hearing at 9 o'clock to find the specifics as to whether that ought to be done. There is a sense that testing, in general, would be a good idea, but maybe it ought not to be done by the Federal Government. There is a great deal of concern about having the Federal Government move into the field of education. So we are going to move ahead at that time. Mr. President, I intend to offer an amendment later this afternoon calling for a sense of the Senate for the appointment of independent counsel. Although that is obviously not germane to an appropriations bill on Labor, Health, Human Services and Education, it is a practice in the Senate, with some repetition, to offer extraneous amendments, certainly sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. I had stated my intention to deal with this issue last July 24 and spoke extensively on the Senate floor on the appropriations bill pending at that time about my concern that independent counsel ought to be appointed based on the state of the record. Then when it was apparent that would tie up that bill, and the majority leader and the minority leader both wanted to move ahead, I said on July 25 that I would not pursue this sense-of-the-Senate resolution at that time and waited an additional month. I do believe that we urgently need appointment of independent counsel at the present time. I base that judgment on a series of letters which have been written by a variety of Members of Congress to the Attorney General, and she has declined to do so--a formal letter written by the majority members of the Judiciary Committee calling on the Attorney General to appoint independent counsel, and she has declined to do so. Then we had extensive hearings last April 30 on the Judiciary Committee where I questioned Attorney General Reno about the withholding of information from the President on national security matters, which appear to me to be a highly questionable thing to do, and that the President was publicly quoted saying that those national security matters had been withheld from him and he thought he should have been given access to those matters. In our constitutional Government it is my judgment that the rule is plain, that those are matters for the President as long as he is the President. There are ways to alter his status as President, but as long as he is the President, it is not up to an appointed Attorney General to make the decision that the President does not get national security information because, as the Attorney General testified, he was a potential suspect in a pending investigation. The damage about such a disclosure to a potential subject, in my view, is far, far less dangerous than having national security information withheld from the President of the United States. But it did seem to me that in that context that if the matter was serious enough to withhold information from the President, that certainly the independent counsel statute ought to be triggered. That is the statute which provides for an independent lawyer to come in and handle the case where it involves certain levels of Federal Government enumerated officials such as the President and the Vice President and Cabinet officers, especially in the context where Attorney General Reno testified in her confirmation hearings about her view of the importance of independent counsel. There is also the question about the advertisements. According to Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, and also Dick Morris, the President's political adviser, advertisements had been edited, drafted, essentially written by the President himself. There would be no question that there would be coordination in violation of the Federal statute prohibiting coordination if those in fact were advocacy commercials. We went through the commercials with the Attorney General. This was done on both sides. But the ones that were edited by the President extolled the President's virtues and decried his opponent's alleged failings, but fell short of saying vote for x or vote against y. By any reasonable standard, those were advocacy commercials, but they were viewed as being instead issue commercials and did not constitute a violation of the statute which prohibits coordination. Well, that plus a great many other factors, I think, have set the stage for the need for independent counsel. We have had disclosures in this morning's Washington Post about funds being raised by the Vice President which were hard money and not soft money. The Attorney General had previously said that if it is soft money it is not a contribution under the Federal election laws, a judgment or interpretation which is inexplicable, in my opinion. It is a contribution nonetheless. Hundreds of millions of dollars were put into the campaigns on both sides, Democrats and Republicans. But now there has been the forceful allegation made, information that a good bit of the money raised by the Vice President was hard money, and that would take away the last vestige as to what Attorney General Reno had said justified her refusal to appoint independent counsel. So it is my intention, Mr. President, to call for a vote on this amendment that I send to the desk at this time so that it may be filed and reviewed by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Later this afternoon I do intend to offer it, and in fact had thought I would offer it when I sought recognition. But I see my colleague, Senator Dorgan, has come to the floor. I understand he intends to offer an amendment of his own. So I will defer offering this amendment at this time, but I will speak about it to this extent, to put my colleagues on notice that this issue will be on the floor at the conclusion of the Dorgan amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor so my colleague, Senator Dorgan, may proceed. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, Senator Harkin and I are now looking for business. A solicitation, I believe, is appropriate under these circumstances. As we had announced yesterday and today, it is our hope we will finish this bill today. We ask that any Senator who intends to offer an amendment to let us know by noon today. There may be one amendment which we cannot complete today. That involves the limitation of funding on testing proposed by the administration. As I had said earlier, Congressman Goodling has stated publicly his intention to offer such an amendment on the House appropriations bill. It had been suggested that a similar amendment be offered on this bill. Secretary of Education Riley contacted Senator Harkin and I, and others, yesterday on this subject. Senator Harkin and I, in collaboration with our committee chairman, Senator Stevens, have scheduled a hearing tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock. So if that vote is to occur on the bill, it would occur after we have been informed on some of the specifics of the administration's proposal. So we are now looking for amendments. In the absence of any Senator seeking recognition, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment conforms the provisions of the Hyde amendment, which were developed for fee-for-service, so that the same limitations would apply on Medicaid, on managed care. This has been a very controversial issue for many years and has taken up the attention of this Chamber and the House of Representatives. After many votes and a lot of deliberation and a lot of negotiations, the Hyde amendment has been crafted in its existing form as it applies to fee-for-service, and this carries it forward to managed care. I am advised that in the House of Representatives they have worked through this same amendment and have made the request, through their staff, that we have it accepted here. We had intended to put it in a managers' package. I have conferred with my distinguished colleague, Senator Harkin, who is on the floor at the present time. The distinguished Senator from Missouri discussed it with the managers and sought to offer it in the form that it has been offered and to make a statement. I think that concludes the matter in a way that has existed for many, many years as an accommodation of many complex and conflicting issues. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.