Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. If my distinguished colleague will yield, Mr. President, I think that would be a good arrangement. I said earlier, repeating what we said yesterday, it is our hope to finish action on this bill this evening. That is what we said yesterday after concurring with the majority leader. There is one possible exception to that, and that would relate to a possible amendment to preclude any funding for the administration testing, and an issue arose yesterday as to whether that amendment might be offered. Secretary Riley called Senator Harkin, myself and others yesterday, and we have scheduled a hearing for tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock so that we may have a better factual understanding on that matter before the vote comes up, if it does come up. It would be our hope we can conclude action on the bill this evening, with the exception of that possible vote following the hearing tomorrow morning. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that we might receive an amendment by the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, on a matter which I believe is acceptable to both sides. This involves an issue which has been resolved after laborious debates on related subjects, and it is one where the House of Representatives has worked out an accommodation. The amendment will now be offered by our colleague from Missouri.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am advised that the vote will not occur until 3 o'clock under our scheduling. So, if there are any additional speakers who wish to come to the floor at this time, we invite them to do so.

Mr. SPECTER. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as is usually the case, there are absent Senators, one not due to return until 1 o'clock. We then have a conference until 2:15. Then there are hearings. So it will be our expectation, subject to checking with the distinguished majority leader, that the vote on this amendment would occur at 5 o'clock. But it would be our expectation that this would conclude the debate on the amendment. It wouldn't absolutely foreclose somebody who wanted to come down and speak on the matter, perhaps, briefly, but that would conclude the debate and we would hope to set the vote here for 5 o'clock and perhaps stack it with other votes at that time.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I agree with 50 percent of what the distinguished Senator from Arizona has said; that is, the part about the increasing Pell grants. I think he is exactly right about that. I wish we had more money to increase the Pell grants. What we have done is to increase the Pell grants by $1 billion. It has moved from fiscal year 1997 where it was at $5.919 billion to $6.910 billion which is a very, very substantial increase--in the 16- to 17-percent range. Senator Harkin and I, who have looked over these figures, take second place to no one on our concern for education and that created in the budget we have here, and what we have done over the years--most notably last April when we added $2.6 billion over some very considerable objection and instead having those funds go largely to education. As I said yesterday, on a very personal level, my concern about education goes to the roots of my own family. Both of my parents were immigrants. And my brother, my two sisters, and I have been able to share in the American dream because of our educational opportunities. We have not only added to the Pell grants the $1 billion here but have also increased the funding on guaranteed student loans so that every young man and woman--and this goes for the people who are not quite so young--would have an opportunity for educational advancement in this country. So that I agree totally with what my distinguished colleague from Arizona has had to say about the value of the Pell grants. But we have stretched and stretched very, very far. It is true that the House has an additional $500 million in the Pell grants, and they have a larger sum of money to work with than we are allocated in the Senate. Without going into any extensive explanation, there are different technical rules which apply to the two bodies. I might say to my colleague from Arizona that with the additional arguments he has advanced today in a very cogent way, to the extent we can yield to the House figure, we will try to do so when we get to conference, recognizing his interest and being even more persuaded by his eloquence here this morning. The part of his presentation that I cannot agree with is the part relating to cutting the funding on low-income heat and energy fuel assistance. What we have done here, Mr. President, for those who may be listening in-house or on C-SPAN 2, is made an allocation of the almost $80 billion here by trying to place the funding on a priority basis, and having taken care of other priorities including Pell grants with the additional $1 billion, have made the allocation of $1 billion to the LIHEAP 1998 program and an advanced appropriation of $1.2 billion, which is slightly different. This program is on the decline from 1985 when it had $2.1 billion. We believe that this is an appropriate allocation of priorities. Some 55 Senators have written to Senator Harkin and myself asking that LIHEAP be preserved. If you add 55 to 2, that is 57, and there may be some other votes out there. I make this comment not to prejudge the tabulation of the votes, because you never know until the votes are counted, but there are 57 Senators who have been concerned enough about this one item who have spoken up--55 having written to us. And I can tell you how strongly Senator Harkin and I feel about this. I know obviously my own sense of it, and I have talked to Senator Harkin enough to know his sense. This program is for low-income families. Almost 70 percent of the recipient families have an annual income of less than $8,000--think of that, $8,000; 44 percent have at least one member who is elderly, and 20 percent have a member disabled. Currently, the number of families served has been reduced to 5 million families, 1 million less than 2 years ago, and this is part of our effort to target those who need it the most. The funding has been cut by more than 50 percent, from $2.1 billion to this figure. There is no replacement for this funding. Thirty-five percent of all recipient households heat their homes by using oil, propane, wood, or coal. These sources of fuel do not have a monopoly control over their territories and cannot raise prices to cover the cost of providing discounted or free energy supplies to their low-income members. What we really face here is that in this category, many of the elderly, many of the disabled are faced with an alternative of either heating or eating, and that is a choice obviously that no American should face. Without LIHEAP, there would not be an opportunity for these low- income families to utilize their other scarce resources for sustaining themselves. Obviously, in a civilized society, if the choice is heating or eating, we have to do both, and that is why this funding is so very important.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, yesterday I had announced our hope to be able to conclude this bill by this evening. Senator Lott was on the floor when we were talking about scheduling and I discussed it briefly with our distinguished majority leader, and also with Senator Harkin, the ranking Democrat, and asked that anybody who intended to file amendments to let us know by the close of business yesterday, or in any event no later than noon today. We have been advised of a number of possible amendments. I believe it is possible to work some of those out. Others will have to go to votes. But I would restate at this time our urging anybody who intends to file an amendment to contact us by noon today so that we may proceed. There is one item which may not be completed by the close of business today, and that relates to the funding on testing which is now proposed by the administration. There was a statement in the media by Congressman William Goodling of Pennsylvania, chairman of their authorization committee, of his intention to oppose funding. And there was comment that a similar prohibition may be offered on this bill. Yesterday I was contacted by the Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, who urged support of their program, and we had a discussion. After sleeping on it I decided it would be a good idea to have a hearing on the subject, which we have put into effect for tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock, with the concurrence of Senator Harkin and also our chairman of the appropriations committee, Senator Stevens. So, if that amendment is offered, that one item of business might most appropriately be concluded tomorrow morning. But aside from that one item, it is my hope that we will be able to finish action on this bill this evening. I thank my colleague, Senator Kyl, for offering his amendment yesterday. I yield the floor so that Senator Kyl may proceed.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I now offer an amendment and send it to the desk for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment be temporarily set aside and the Kyl amendment, No. 1056, be temporarily set aside.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, what is the pending business?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that we proceed with the amendment by the distinguished Senator from Arizona at 10:45.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from Arizona for his inquiry. If it is consistent with the scheduling of the Senator from Arizona, I suggest that we defer to the Senator from Delaware for a period of time for morning business. Would that be acceptable to the Senator?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a Hearing on Tobacco Settlement during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 3, 1997, at 10:00 a.m.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 3, 1997, at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing in room 226, Senate Dirksen Office Building, on: ``The Encryption Debate: Criminals, Terrorists and the Security Needs of Business and Industry.''

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, earlier this morning, when the majority leader and I were on the floor, with Senator Harkin, the ranking member of the subcommittee, we discussed the sequence of the bill which is currently pending, and it was our plan, our expectation, to conclude action on this bill by tomorrow evening. We have only had one amendment laid down so far. The distinguished Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] has laid down an amendment with respect to LIHEAP, but no other amendment has been forthcoming. Now is obviously a good time to offer amendments since the floor is clear, with ample time for consideration. We hope that anybody who has an amendment to offer would advise the managers of the bill, myself in my capacity as chairman of the subcommittee, and Senator Harkin, the ranking member of the subcommittee, and that we would have notification by the end of business today as to all amendments Members tend to offer. At the very latest we hope those amendments would be filed by noon tomorrow. We have a vote scheduled for 9:30, and Senators to some extent may be arriving back at this time. Certainly as an indicator from past practice Senators will be here tomorrow morning to vote at 9:30, so we hope that Senators would let us have those amendments so that we could plan the conclusion of the bill, sequence the amendments and try to conclude this bill by the end of business tomorrow, Wednesday night. I thank the Chair, and in the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. My colleague asks me to yield for unanimous consent. I am willing to do that.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are prepared now to proceed with consideration of the legislation on appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. I have just conferred with my distinguished colleague, Senator Harkin, the ranking Democrat, after having conferred with the majority leader, and it is our plan to complete action on this bill by tomorrow evening, Wednesday evening. That is not to say that the plan will conclusively be fulfilled as of that time, but it is our plan to proceed in that manner. It would be our hope that we would have a firm idea of all the amendments which would be offered by the end of business today or if not, no later than noon tomorrow, since we are scheduled to have a vote tomorrow morning at 9:30, and as is the custom, Senators will be arriving today. Some are obviously present now, but as our practice has demonstrated in the past, when the rollcall vote is taken, Senators will be present. We have had some substantial period of time--obviously, slightly more than a month--to prepare for this bill, because the majority leader announced at the conclusion of our session on July 31-August 1, that this would be the first order of business taken up. I recall the comment of then majority leader Howard Baker on some legislation back in 1982, when we had a tax bill on the floor of the Senate and the question was whether we were going to proceed all night, which Senator Baker was wont to do, or whether we would go into the next morning. I recall Senator Baker said that amendments, like mushrooms, grew overnight, and it was his determination to proceed that evening. I remember there were about 70 amendments pending. Senator Dole was the manager of the bill. It was a tax bill. We proceeded all night and finished action about 6:30 in the morning. Well, there has been more time than overnight for these amendments, like mushrooms, to grow, but we have a bill here which is very important. There is a lot of business in the Senate, and speaking from a personal note, we will be moving ahead with hearings on the Governmental Affairs Committee on campaign finance reform, and I serve on that committee. I hope to be finished with this bill by tomorrow night, whatever time it takes to proceed with the other work of the Governmental Affairs Committee.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, moving now to consideration of the pending bill, the pending committee report, we have legislation before the Senate for the three departments, the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education for fiscal year 1998, which totals $79.7 billion in discretionary budget authority. That is a large sum of money. Mandatory spending under this totals $189.3 billion, which is a decrease of $15.2 billion from the fiscal year 1997 levels. We have gone through the budget with great care. We have been fortunate enough to have outstanding staffs, both on the Republican side of the aisle and the Democratic side of the aisle, and we have come forward with these proposals here today. It is my view, Mr. President, that when we have a total Federal budget of $1.7 trillion, that should provide for the needs of the American people through the Federal Governmental operations, if we assess our priorities in a proper way. We have just seen landmark legislation with the balanced budget legislation, and the tax reduction legislation passed by the Congress before we adjourned on August 1, and signed by the President into law on August 5. It is very important that we do reach that balanced budget. We should not, as a nation, spend beyond our means. I believe it is possible to achieve that goal if we work with a scalpel and not a meat ax and take care of the important needs for all of America. We deal here with the subjects of health and education and there are no priorities higher than those two items. The people of America, the people of the United States, should be healthy and there should be educational opportunities so people should have an opportunity to climb the ladder in America. When I talk of education, I talk from a very keen sense personally of education as an opportunity which I have seen. Both of my parents were immigrants. My father literally walked across Europe from Russia, barely a ruble in his pocket, at the age of 18 in 1911 to make a new life for himself and the family which he hoped to have and did have. My mother, coming with her parents to the United States from a small town on the Russian-Polish border at the age of 5, education was heavily emphasized in the Specter household because our parents had so little of it. My brother, my two sisters, and I have been able to share in the American dream because of that educational opportunity. As Senator Harkin and I and our staffs have crafted this legislation, we have done our utmost to provide for that educational opportunity. We have provided for increases in the maximum Pell grant to $3,000 per year. We have provided for guaranteed student loans. It would be preferable if we could provide scholarships for all young people, and older people who want additional education, but that is not possible in a practical sense, so we have a revolving sum where at least the education can be obtained, even if there are obligations that would have to be paid at a later time. We have come to this budget with very deep concerns over the issue of health. Regrettably, when the budget resolution was presented to us, there was a cut of some $100 million on discretionary health spending which required a considerable reallocation of priorities, which Senator Harkin and I and our subcommittee and then the full committee and our staffs have undertaken. That was especially problemsome when it came to the issue of the National Institutes of Health where it was our desire to continue to increase the funding on medical research which has been so marvelous for America and our advances benefiting the entire world. Early in the 105th session, we passed a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, or a sense-of-the-Senate resolution was introduced and, I believe, passed--we will check the Record on that to be sure--to double NIH funding over 5 years. If it wasn't passed, the sense-of-the-Senate resolutions pass pretty easily around here because they talk about our druthers as opposed to our dollars. Then, when we took up the budget resolution, and a sense-of-the-Senate resolution passed to increase NIH funding by some $2 billion. Then Senator Harkin and I offered an amendment to increase it--not a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, but hard dollars of $1.1 billion. That would have left us with a net of about $950 million to achieve the 7.5-percent increase Senator Harkin and I committed to early in the session for the NIH. When we brought that amendment to the floor, it was roundly defeated 63-37, which was somewhat disappointing. But it was an illustration of what happens in the Senate when you have a sense of the Senate, which is an expression of what you would like to see, or druthers, as opposed to a hard amendment which puts up money. And when we balance the budget, if we put up 7.5 percent, which is $952 million, we have to have someplace to take it from. When that choice is made, it isn't too easy to get the votes. That amendment went down to defeat, as I said, 63-37. But then we went back to the drawing boards with our sharp pencils--mainly staff's sharp pencils--and figured out a way on the allocation of priorities to find that 7.5 percent, or $952 million, and we did find it. It was not easy to do, but we thought that that was what ought to be done. In the United States, it is my view that we have the best health care system in the world, but it continues to need improvement. I personally was the beneficiary of that health care system about 4 years ago when an MRI detected a life-threatening problem that I had, and I was able to get my medical situation corrected. There is nothing like having a problem and using the MRI personally to do a little research to find out about its development. I was surprised to find that it had only been developed in 1984, less than a decade before I found the need to use it. Within the course of the past week, I had occasion to return to my home State of Kansas for my 50th high school reunion. I probably should not have given the date. I may get leave to amend and revise the Congressional Record on that. Just kidding. It was my 50th high school reunion. My Aunt Rose Isemberg, in Wichita, who is 85, was the beneficiary of a serious operation and is well on her way to recovery. I focused on that factor and mentioned to my Aunt Rose that in some countries you can't get an operation when you are that old. In some countries you can't get one if you are past 60. So we have a marvelous health system in the United States, but, again, one which needs improvement. When I returned to my hometown of Russell, KS, to my high school reunion, I was reminiscing with my sister-in-law, Joyce Specter, about the medical care in Russell, KS. My brother had some serious ailments several years ago, and I was with him. Unfortunately, he passed away. Back then, I wanted to talk to Dr. Merkel, and it was 6:45 on a Saturday night. I asked for his home number and I was told, ``You can't call Dr. Merkel at home at 6:45 on a Saturday. You will find him in the office.'' Notwithstanding our graduations of doctors and medical experts, rural America still doesn't have as much by way of health care providers as rural America needs. So we do have significant improvements to be made in our health system in America. This is something which we have focused on as we have moved ahead in this bill and our efforts to provide health care coverage for all Americans. Again, on a personal note, I was fascinated to hear of the health coverage offered by Israel, without regard for preexisting conditions or without regard for age--a factor called to my attention by my sister, Hilda Morgenstern, and my brother-in-law, Arthur Morgenstern, who have dual citizenship in the United States and in Israel. There are examples around the world as we try to extend health coverage and services to the 37 to 41 million Americans who are not now covered. It is appropriate to note that in the reconciliation bill we passed, the Balanced Budget Act, we have taken action to provide some $24 billion to cover America's uninsured children, numbering about 10 million. There is a question, as we work through the program, as to how many of those children we will be able to cover. Mr. President, during the course of our deliberations, Senator Harkin and I received requests from Members, totaling more than 700 such requests, for expanded funding for programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction, and, to the maximum extent possible, we tried to honor those requests. We had very substantial support for increasing the funding for the National Institutes of Health and, as noted, we have done that with an increase of 7.5 percent, some $952 million. So that now we have nearly $13.7 billion for the National Institutes of Health, and their achievements have been near miraculous as they have moved ahead with research on breast cancer, ovarian cancer--very serious ailments for women--and prostate cancer for men, Alzheimer's disease-- very substantial advances in research there--mental health research, research on heart conditions, and virtually every known ailment that has come within the scope of the National Institutes of Health. One of the really educational experiences that I personally have had on the job as chairman of the subcommittee is we have received so many requests from so many people around the United States who have ailments that I had never heard about. I do believe that we have a budget which can accommodate research along those lines. If this recommendation is insufficient, I believe the Congress of the United States is prepared, on a priority basis, to allocate whatever it takes on medical research in the United States to do the job. Even with that kind of a funding, there are many applications which are not granted. We have moved ahead very substantially in the time that I have been in the Senate, whether the chairman was Senator Weicker, later Governor Weicker, or Senator Chiles, later Governor Chiles, or whether Senator Harkin was chairman, or during my chairmanship. The committee has placed a very high priority on women's health. The bill provides for increased funding. There will be funding for expanded programs to develop mental health care services for women, to provide moneys for a comprehensive review of the impact of heart disease on women, where in the past less attention was paid to that important item. Women do have different problems, very different from men, when it comes to heart ailments. For so many years, the research had been on men alone. The additional funding will help launch an osteoporosis public education program aimed at teenagers. In our legislation, we have provided funding for both family planning and for abstinence programs. One of the most controversial issues facing America is the controversy of pro-choice/pro-life. But there is one item that can be generally agreed upon, and that is if we can cut down on premarital sex among teenagers and unintended pregnancies, and the abortions which follow, that is an objective where there is general agreement, and we have produced additional funding here for those programs devoted to abstention. One of the items on which we continue to increase funding is our program on Healthy Start. That is an initiative to try to give prenatal care to women and avoid having low-birthweight babies. I saw my first 1-pound baby at Alma Illery Medical Facility in Pittsburgh more than a decade ago, and I was shocked to see a child no bigger than my hand, which weighed less than a pound. When you have a child with that low birthweight, there are medical problems that last a lifetime and enormous costs to society. Those children frequently cost as much as $300,000 by the time they are out of the hospital in a few weeks or a few months. Thousands are born each year. It is a multibillion-dollar expense. The program of prenatal care has had great results and is one which we are pushing ahead in the legislation pending. The issue of AIDS continues to be a matter of overwhelming importance in the United States. Today's front page of the Washington Post is devoted significantly to it. Our bill contains some $3.265 billion for research, education, prevention, and services, including an $81 million increase for the Ryan White CARE Program, named after the young man who developed AIDS on a blood transfusion--nothing at fault even remotely there. This issue continues to be of enormous importance in the United States. Our legislation provides further assistance in funding for substance abuse, both alcohol and drugs, a major problem in our country. We have taken the initiative with some $50 million for new programs to assist communities in preventing juvenile crime. That is an issue of great concern in the United States and one which falls partially within the jurisdiction of our subcommittee. It is not inappropriate to note at this time that pending before the Judiciary Committee is extensive legislation on juvenile crime. It is my hope that we will craft a bill, when the issue comes to the floor of the U.S. Senate, which will take into account not only tough measures to try juveniles as adults, where they are, in fact, adults by size or inclination and prior record, but also to work on the literacy training and job training. Based on the experience I have had on the Judiciary Committee, and before that as district attorney of Philadelphia, it is my view that we can control violent crime in America if we approach it at two levels. One, where we have career criminals, to have life sentences. The armed career criminal bill that I offered, which passed back in 1984, has made a significant effort in that regard. Where you have a career criminal with three or more violent offenses, now, by Federal law, there is a mandatory sentence in the Federal courts of 15 years to life. We have been putting more people in jail, and there has been a decrease in the crime rate. In my judgment, that is attributable to the factor that there are more violent criminals now in prison. The other half of the equation, though, is to provide realistic rehabilitation for those who are not career criminals, where they are going to be released. It is no surprise that if you have a functional illiterate without a trade or skill, a person who goes back onto the street without training, without a job, that person is likely to go through the revolving door and become a recidivist. That is why one of the first bills I introduced when I came to the Senate, alongside the armed career criminal bill, was legislation for realistic rehabilitation, for job training and literacy training. As we craft that juvenile crime bill, it is my hope that we will have an appropriate balance on the juveniles, on literacy training and job training, because we know that 1 day they are going to be released from jail. A societal option is either to have them as law-abiding citizens, working their way and contributing to society, or becoming criminals. So it is in the interest of law-abiding citizens, as well as the individuals themselves, that appropriate attention be given to literacy training and job training. Also included in this bill is our allocation of funding for Head Start. Some $4.3 billion is included here, which is an increase of some $324 million. We increase the number of children by 36,000, to a total of 836,000, on our planned route to having 1 million covered by Head Start by the year 2002. Also in our budget is funding to protect women against violence when we talk about the categories of battered women's shelters, rape prevention, runaway youth prevention, domestic violence community demonstrations, and the domestic violence hotline. Another important item--controversial, as many are in this bill--is our program on low-income heat and energy fuel assistance. We have maintained funding of some $1 billion for this winter, and advanced funding of $1.2 billion for next year's winter program. This is a program which is controversial because in some States the needs are not as great as they are in other States. But what we have essentially for many Americans, especially elderly Americans, is a choice on either heating or eating. With many elderly in the program with annual incomes of $8,000 or less, they are totally unable to cope without some assistance on fuel costs. We also have within this bill important programs for the elderly, including community service employment programs, part-time employment opportunities for low-income elderly, home delivered nutrition services, and the National Senior Volunteer Corps. We have as well school-to-work where there is a transition moving from school to work, coordinated also with the job training programs and Job Corps which provide educational opportunities and vocational training for those young people in our society who may not prefer that to the college education and may be more appropriately directed in that line. On education, Mr. President, we have moved ahead with an increase of some $3.1 billion in our discretionary education funds. I especially commend my distinguished colleague, Senator Harkin, for his leadership in this very, very important line. We have had difficulties in bringing this particular bill to the floor in the past. It was not until April 1996 when we were able to-- after an amendment offered by Senator Harkin and myself to increase funding for this subcommittee by $2.6 billion --move ahead. I commend the President for his initiatives and priority setting on education, which is, as I noted earlier, a priority second to none for the United States. In this line, we have special education programs funded at some $921 million. And I commend the chairman of the Educational Opportunities Committee in the House, my colleague, Bill Goodling from Pennsylvania, and also our colleague, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, for their leadership in this item where we are trying to maintain the Federal commitment to special education. We are coming very close to the high marks set in S. 1. Again, it is a matter of establishing priorities, which we have done here. On our student aid programs, the bill provides some $8.5 billion, which is an increase of almost $1 billion--$997.3 million over last year's appropriations. The Pell grant is going up by some $300 to a maximum grant of $3,000. The Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants Program is increased by some $51 million. I go into some detail for at least two reasons, Mr. President. These are important programs, and we are not taking up anybody's time, Senator Harkin and I being the only two Senators on the floor. I will yield in a few minutes for Senator Harkin's opening comments. On job training, we have provided $5.2 billion for the job training programs, which is more than $500 million over the 1997 level. That includes increases for Job Corps, adult training, and training for dislocated workers, which is a very, very important problem for Americans, especially in my home State of Pennsylvania where we have seen the demise of the steel industry and the coal industry and the glass industry. So many of the problems of the dislocated workers are caused by imports which are coming into the United States, which really ought not to be coming into the United States, where we are dealing with concerns on defense policy or on foreign policy. And so many American workers are taking it on the chin. The least we can do is to have retraining for the dislocated workers. Our bill provides very important funding for worker safety programs in the Department of Labor where we are now providing almost $1 billion--just $1 million short; $999 million--for worker safety programs. This is an increase of some $37 million above 1997's level for worker safety activities. Mr. President, I have gone over, believe it or not, just a few of the highlights of this bill, which totals almost $80 billion. We have in excess of $11 billion for the Department of Labor, almost $32 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services, and almost $30 billion on the Department of Education, coming to a total of almost $80 billion in discretionary funding. To repeat, Mr. President, on the schedule, which the majority leader and Senator Harkin and I have discussed earlier, it would be our plan-- our optimistic plan, but our plan nonetheless--to conclude action on this bill by tomorrow night. We would like to have all amendments filed by the close of business today and, in any event, no later than noon tomorrow. All the Senators will be here, as we have every expectation for the vote scheduled at 9:30 tomorrow so that we can make our plans and scheduling for any amendments which may be filed. At this time, I am pleased to yield to my distinguished colleague, Senator Harkin.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had referred earlier to the allocation of funding of the various Departments in fiscal year 1998 for the current bill, and the specific breakdown is as follows: Labor, $11 billion; Health and Human Services, $31.9 billion; Education, $29.3 billion; and related agencies, $7.5 billion; with the total being $79.7 billion. There is a long list of related agencies made a part of this bill, but illustrative of those agencies are agencies such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Federal Mediation Conciliation Service, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, the Railroad Retirement Board. Those are illustrative of the agencies covered by the bill. I make that delineation to give those watching on C-SPAN 2 a fuller picture of what this bill covers, and for the Record. Earlier I had referred to certain consolidations and eliminations of programs which Senator Harkin and I have worked on for fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 1997. There are a total of 134 programs, according to information provided by staff, totaling $1,471,405,000. I ask unanimous consent that the programs in the various departments and the amount of savings be printed in the Record, with this information being provided by staff, as I say, totaling 134 programs and almost $1.5 billion.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, when the time comes to discuss the matter, there will be very vigorous objection from the managers, both Senator Harkin and myself, on this amendment. We think that low-income energy assistance is very, very important. But we will await the event after our distinguished colleague from Arizona has had a chance to make his presentation. In the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition, Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, in the absence of any other Senator on the floor, I will utilize this time to comment on the subject of campaign finance reform. I stated earlier that in my travels through Pennsylvania during part of the month of August, I heard considerable concern about the necessity for campaign finance reform, and I had commented about the overtone throughout my open house town meetings about people of my State being very suspicious of Government, very distrustful of Government. One of those items was Ruby Ridge, and I spoke at some length about that. Another item was the subject of campaign finance reform, where I have found very considerable interest, disagreeing with some of the pundits and some of the public comments. It is my hope, Madam President, that the hearings before the Governmental Affairs Committee, on which you and I sit, will stimulate an interest in campaign finance reform. I have said with some frequency in the past that I do not believe we will have campaign finance reform until the American people demand it. It is contrary to the interests of incumbents to have campaign finance reform. This is a matter of considerable disagreement within this body, and I respect the views of our colleagues who have disagreed. But I do believe that we are awash in money. After 6 months of investigation and after 4 weeks of hearings by our Governmental Affairs Committee during the month of July, it confirms my conclusion and the view of most Americans that campaign finance reform is necessary. Politics is awash in money, corrupting some, appearing to corrupt others, and making almost everybody in or out of the system uneasy about the way political campaigns are financed. I compliment our colleagues, John McCain and Russ Feingold, for providing leadership on campaign finance reform in Senate bill 25. I believe that the key provision there, which would give candidates free television advertising time, does not measure up to the constitutional standard of the fifth amendment on taking property without due process of law. I recognize the contention that the airwaves belong to the American people. But in the context where television stations and networks have operated, I do not see how you can square, constitutionally, the taking of that property without compensation. I voted last year for cloture, to bring the issue to the floor so we can debate it, consider it, and it would be my hope that it would be brought to the floor in the month of September. I am aware of the public statements made by Senator McCain and others that it may be brought and attached to other bills. So we will wait to see if that does occur. My intention is to offer my own bill on campaign finance. I am in the final stages of the drafting of the bill and the floor statement. It would target some of the specific abuses and would expand upon what any other legislation has done in terms of what we have found from our Governmental Affairs investigation. My own sense is that the evidence is conclusive that soft money ought to be eliminated. When you take a look at the millions of dollars which have been poured into the American electoral system, including corporate contributions on soft money, it has just totally distorted the Presidential campaigns--and also congressional campaigns--as that money moves in and out in a variety of contours. But we have public financing of Presidential elections. That public financing has been undertaken on the basis that there will not be private financing. But somehow soft money is not deemed to be a contribution, so says the Department of Justice of the United States in an inexplicable interpretation--inexplicable, in my opinion. And then according to the reports of both Dick Morris and former chief of staff Leon Panetta, the President of the United States edited and wrote Democratic National Committee campaign commercials. That, obviously, is coordination. There is a constitutional rule that an independent expenditure, constitutionally may not be limited by a statute. But here you have the President taking money from the Democratic National Committee that was raised as soft. And, when I talk about the President, the same thing is done on the Republican side. So that I think there is bipartisan blame here. The specific evidence has been forwarded as to what President Clinton's personal involvement was. And there are these commercials. They extol the virtues of one candidate, and they criticize the other candidate. And for some reason they are not classified as being advocacy commercials but only issue commercials. I ask unanimous consent to include illustrations of these commercials on a letter that I wrote to Attorney General Reno dated May 1, 1997, her response, and also the response of the Federal Election Commission on this subject.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. That, in a fairly abbreviated statement, Madam President, is the substance of legislation which I propose to offer. It is my hope that the hearings of the Governmental Affairs Committee will bring substantial public interest to this subject. I know that the Presiding Officer has cosponsored the McCain legislation, is very much in favor of campaign finance reform, and perhaps, if our hearings generate enough public interest, that kind of public demand will be created. It is worth noting that at an early stage in the Watergate hearings people were disinterested in campaign finance reform at that time. But as those hearings progressed more public interest was stimulated, and campaign finance reform was enacted in 1974. But I believe that this is very, very important if we are to bring back public confidence with what is done in Washington, DC. Madam President, in the absence of anyone on the floor seeking recognition, I again suggest the absence of quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the absence of any other Senator on the floor at the present time, I will utilize this occasion to discuss the open house town meetings which I held during the course of the past recess in August to share with my colleagues and those who may be watching on C-SPAN 2 some of the observations that I found in traveling in my State of Pennsylvania and in meeting with my citizens. I make it a point to have meetings in every one of the Pennsylvania counties as often as I can, and by the end of September, by the end of this month, I will have covered all of my 67 counties, something that I find very, very valuable. What I do as a matter of format--and I think this is similar to what many Senators do--is I make a very brief statement, as to what we have done, and then I throw the floor open for questions. Usually I get somewhere in the range of 15 to 20 questions. Regrettably, our mail allocation has been cut down. In prior years, it had been possible to send mail to our entire counties. That mail allocation has been reduced so that it is not possible to send mail to all of the counties. This is something which I think the Senate ought to give serious consideration to revising. I believe that we ought to be frugal when it comes to mailings which do have some political import, but where a Senator himself or herself goes out into a community to appear to make a presentation and respond to questions, I think that is the very essence of our democratic process. To the extent that the mail notifies people in a very direct way of the presence of a Senator coming into the community, my sense is that is well worth doing. The dominant theme that I found in traveling through Pennsylvania, Mr. President, was a dissatisfaction or a distrust of government. There is great cynicism in America today about what is going on in Washington, DC. It is my sense that unless you go out and actually talk to the people--and not just in shopping centers and not just casually, as we have our social contacts during the course of a recess period-- that there is not a full understanding as to how much apathy, cynicism and outright distrust of our Government there is. I noted the Washington Post, on the 29th of August, just a few days ago, had on its front page a survey which noted ``three out of four say they do not trust the Government or its leaders to do what is right.'' My own findings would confirm that, as I have been in many open house town meetings during the course of the past month and throughout the past year. At one of my open house town meetings, one of the citizens was wearing a cap that had the word ``militia'' printed on it. There are many people in the militia in the United States today. How many exactly, we do not know. In my capacity as chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, we had hearings concerning militias during the 104th Congress. We had Colonel Olson from the Michigan militia come in and speak in very unflattering terms about the Congress of the United States. There have been estimates into the millions as to how many militia members there are. And in one of my open house town meetings, the word ``revolution'' was used in expressing very grave disagreement with what the Government was doing, on this occasion the importation of sludge from New York and New Jersey to fill abandoned mines in Pennsylvania. And there is great concern in my State, as there is I think in this country generally, about limitations on so-called second amendment rights, and great distrust as to what the Government is doing. During the course of the past month, Ruby Ridge was again in the news with a report by the Department of Justice. The report stated that there would not be any prosecutions as to the investigation which had been conducted by the Department of Justice. This investigation lasted almost 2 years after it was initiated in the fall of 1995, a period of time which I think is unwarranted on the facts as I know them. I have had discussions with both the Attorney General and the U.S. attorney in charge of that investigation and will talk about that in some greater detail. After the Department of Justice report was issued, the prosecuting attorney in Boundary County, ID, returned an indictment against Special Agent Lon Horiuchi of the FBI on the charge of involuntary manslaughter on the killing of Mrs. Vicki Weaver which occurred in that confrontation back on August 21, 1992. The DA for Boundary County returned the indictment of murder in the first degree against Mr. Kevin Harris for the killing of Deputy Marshal William Degan. The incidents which we have seen in Waco and in Ruby Ridge have fanned, I think, really great distrust for the Government, something which we are going to have to address in greater detail. In my personal opinion, the Congress has not yet had appropriate oversight hearings on Waco, notwithstanding the fact that we have done something there. I think we have made a start on Ruby Ridge when the subcommittee which I chaired back in September and October of 1995, with 14 days of hearings, heard from about 60 witnesses and published a 150-page report. I intend to talk about that in greater detail on the floor of the Senate when we have some time, perhaps yet this afternoon. But I do want to comment about the grave concerns which I have found in my State about distrusting the Government and how the Ruby Ridge subject came up because it was very much in the news during the weeks of mid-August, August 13, 14, and 15, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. And I was in western and central Pennsylvania, August 20, 21, and 22 when I was again doing open house town meetings. I also found great concern in the open house town meetings I conducted about the way campaigns are financed. And I believe that the hearings we have had before the Governmental Affairs Committee during the month of July have resonated more in America than many people believed. It is unfortunate, I think, that there has not been more television coverage because that is the way the American people get most of their information these days. Only Fox has carried them live, the Fox cable channel. And CNN has covered to a slight extent, and C-SPAN has not covered them live but has replayed them. And there are many people who watch C-SPAN. Insomniacs are people who watch during the late hours of the night. You can probably catch the Governmental Affairs hearings if you watch at about 3 a.m. to see what is going on. But I found that many people have been watching them and were very concerned about what is going on. My view is that we ought to have campaign finance reform. And I voted for cloture last year to bring the legislation offered by Senator McCain and Senator Feingold to the floor. I believe that there is a difficulty with that particular piece of legislation on calling for television stations to give free time because I think that is a taking of property without compensation required by the fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But I have been working on legislation, some of which has been motivated by what I have seen in the Governmental Affairs hearing. I intend to talk about that as well, perhaps later this afternoon if there are no other Senators on the floor who come to offer amendments. I have also heard, Mr. President, considerable concern about what is happening with Social Security and Medicare. And regrettably there has been a practice of using those issues for campaign purposes, something done by both political parties. I do not suggest blame in what has been done in the campaign sense. But I think we would be better advised if we tailored our representations a little closer to what the facts are. But these open house town meetings are populated very significantly by our senior citizens who have more time to come to the open house town meetings. And perhaps there is greater interest among senior citizens in what is going on in Government because of Social Security and Medicare. But people are questioning whether Social Security is really secure. And my view is that it is. They are questioning about what is happening with Medicare. And I think the American people have not understood that when we have considered changes in Medicare that we have not sought to cut Medicare but instead to restrain the growth of Medicare. We have looked at an increase in funding for Medicare in excess of 10 percent a year. We have sought to reach compromise between Democrats and Republicans to restrain the growth somewhere in the 7-percent range, give or take a little. And that is two or three times the rate of inflation. But if we are to maintain Medicare, we are going to have to be able to pay for it and to contain the rate of growth on Medicare. I am pleased that we have established in the recent legislation a commission which will take up Medicare in some detail on a bipartisan basis to try to give assurance to the public that what we are doing here is sound governmentally and sound financially. It is not for political scare tactics. We had the Commission for Social Security back in 1983 which put Social Security on a solid basis. We had then Senator Pepper as a Member of the House, a very distinguished representative of senior citizens, someone the senior citizens had a lot of confidence in. We had a slight increase in the tax on Social Security and a slight delay in receiving benefits and put Social Security on a sound basis back in 1983. And it is my hope that we will be able to do that again. People want to know about a trust fund, why we do not have Social Security off budget. That I believe, Mr. President, is something we ought to be doing. It is currently part of the unified budget so that it makes the deficit appear smaller. But it really ought to be segregated in a trust fund. Similar concerns were expressed about the highway trust fund. Across Pennsylvania, and I think reflective of America, people want the moneys used for the gasoline tax to be used for the highway trust fund or mass transit. Across my State, I hear enormous concerns about Continental 1, a major highway, transcontinental highway, which will start in Toronto, Canada, and go all the way to Florida. It picks up a stretch of highway known as U.S. 219 in Pennsylvania where people are very anxious to have that on the books. And we would have the money, if we use the highway trust fund, for that purpose. We had amendments narrowly defeated in both the Senate and the House by 2 votes, I recollect, 216 to 214 in the House, and I know it was 51 to 49 here in the Senate where we attempted to allocate more funds for highways. I hear concerns all over my State about the need for more transportation funding. And the Mon Valley Expressway linking Fayette County, Uniontown to Pittsburgh would be a bonanza to develop that section of southwestern Pennsylvania which has been hit so hard by the losses of the steel industry, the coal industry, and the glass industry. And all over the State there is this interest in highways. I can personally attest, traveling around the back roads of my State, how tough it is to travel, to get behind a big truck. It happens all the time on a two-lane highway, and what had been planned as a 45-minute trip takes an hour and 10 minutes. The infrastructure is so very, very vital. We ought to be taking a much closer look there. There are similar concerns on airports, as I traveled through the State, where airports ought to be improved. Infrastructure would improve job opportunities. Major corporations, companies want to settle in communities which have access to air service. I also heard grave concern about what is going on with the managed care and with HMO's and with the issue of the so-called gag rule where family doctors are not permitted to have a referral to a specialist. We legislated on what was called the drive-by deliveries, requiring that women giving birth spend at least 48 hours in the hospital. Further, we have pending legislation on so-called drive-by mastectomies, where women who undergo that very difficult operative procedure are not ousted from the hospital. These complicated issues are obviously matters which are better left without congressional micromanagement, but something which we may have to get into, to some extent. But there is grave concern as managed care move across America, that there be fair access for the people who are insured and concern about HMO's paying their fair share on medical education and the so-called DSH proposals of disproportionate share for care for the indigent. These are some of the items which I heard a great deal about as I traveled through my State.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, we are currently on the legislation of the appropriation bill for the Department of Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education. I, again, repeat the earlier request that anyone who has an amendment to offer, come and do so at this time. There is plenty of time available right now. Earlier the majority leader had been on the floor, and Senator Harkin and I and Senator Lott, our majority leader, had discussed the timing. It was our hope that we might complete action on this bill by tomorrow evening. We request that anybody who has amendments to file do so by the close of business today or, in any event, not later than noon tomorrow. We have a vote scheduled for 9:30 tomorrow morning. It is the practice that Senators will be present at that time to vote, so we can move ahead if there are amendments to be considered on this bill.