Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am considering pursuing an amendment which would take a firm stand against the terrorism of the Palestinian Authority, Chairman Yasser Arafat, and I have thought through the possibility of offering an amendment on this bill. But after consulting with members of the Administration, I have decided to await a remedy of reprogramming, with my option remaining to offer this amendment on the foreign aid bill which will be marked up in the Appropriations Committee this week and offered on the floor sometime in the near future. But I do want to make a comment or two about it, as to what I think needs to be done on the modification of U.S. law as it relates to funding for the Palestinian Authority. In existing law, under an amendment offered by the Senator from Alabama, Senator Shelby, and myself, the $500 million in aid to the Palestinians, the Palestinian Authority is conditioned on a maximum effort by Chairman Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians to fight terrorism and also to change the PLO charter to rescind the provision calling for the destruction of Israel. Certain events have occurred in the immediate past which, in my view, raise a question as to whether there is compliance with the Specter-Shelby amendment and whether there is a need for further statutory language to act against terrorism which has been promoted by the Palestinians. The two specific matters that I have referred to are the bombing of the Tel Aviv restaurant resulting in the murder of three Israelis and the wounding of many more on March 21, 1997, where Prime Minister Netanyahu made a statement that Chairman Arafat had given a green light for that act of terrorism. When Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, was before the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations Appropriations a few weeks ago, I questioned her about that, and she said that there had not been a green light, but said that Arafat had not given a red light either. I do not want to become involved in what shade of amber, what shade of red, there is in using the expression of ``lights given by Chairman Arafat.'' But I believe it is indispensable, if the United States is to give assistance to the Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority, that there be a maximum effort made by the Palestinian Authority and by Chairman Arafat to stop terrorism. Short of that, it is my view that we ought not to be providing U.S. funds. The amendment that I have in my hand that I have been considering offering--I have had discussions with the distinguished chairman and ranking member and members of the Administration--calls for conditioning payment to the Palestinian Authority on the determination by the State Department that Chairman Arafat did not act in a way which failed to give a red light to stop terrorism. The second factor of concern to me is a report by Deputy Minister of Education of Israel, Moshe Peled, that Arafat had knowledge of the proposed bombing, a terrorist act against the Trade Center in 1993, which resulted in the killing of six United States citizens and the wounding of many, many more people, and that, if in fact that allegation is true, then Arafat--Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. May we have the Senate be in order please?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have conferred with the distinguished chairman of the committee and have his agreement that I might interrupt, since we are about to go into a quorum call anyway, to ask unanimous consent for up to 5 minutes to introduce a separate piece of legislation.

Mr. SPECTER. If it is in fact true that Chairman Arafat had knowledge of that proposed bombing before it occurred, that would make him an accessory before the fact and a co-conspirator and subject to extradition under the so-called long-arm statutes which we enacted in 1984 and again in 1986. I think that ought to be done. Upon learning about Chairman Arafat's possible knowledge of that bombing, I wrote to the Attorney General, asking for an investigation, received back a vacuous answer from a subordinate, wrote again asking for a detailed investigation, and I am awaiting a response from the Department of Justice on that point. The amendment which I have been considering offering on this bill and may offer on the foreign aid bill would condition payment to the Palestinian Authority on the determination by the Department of Justice that Chairman Arafat was, in fact, not involved, having prior knowledge of the Trade Center bombing. At the conclusion of my remarks, I will make part of the Record, the exchange of correspondence on this issue. I then placed a telephone call to Moshe Peled, the Deputy Minister for Education of Israel, to find out more about his assertions. I found out that he spoke Hebrew and not English, and I spoke English and not Hebrew. Then I had one of my deputies, David Brog, who speaks Hebrew, talk to him. The upshot of that conversation was that Mr. Peled stood by what had been reported but referred us to Israeli authorities to find out more about it. That, obviously, is a matter for the Department of Justice, perhaps for the Department of State. It is my view that before we make these payments, there ought to be a certification that Chairman Arafat was not in fact involved as an accessory before the fact nor was he a co-conspirator having knowledge of that matter. In conversations with the Administration, it may be that this objective can be achieved by a reprogramming of the funds which are going to the Palestinian Authority, some $10 million, and that this would, in fact, not affect some of the other funding going to the infrastructure, which is not in Chairman Arafat's control and not in the control of the PLO or the Palestinian Authority. It may be that my objective can be achieved without offering this amendment. I am informed by the distinguished Senator from Delaware that my proposed amendment is opposed by the Administration, and the President was sending a letter over, because it would complicate the peace process. If the Administration is prepared to deal with the Palestinian Authority and Chairman Yasser Arafat in the context where there are outstanding allegations that Arafat was an accessory before the fact or a co-conspirator on the Trade Center bombing, then I think the Administration is dead wrong. If the Administration is prepared to deal with Arafat, give him U.S. money in a context where he has given a green light or has failed to put up a red light, there again, I think they are dead wrong--maybe totally wrong. Dead wrong would be a bad expression, in the light of all the people killed by PLO terrorists. In any event, I am prepared not to resolve the issue this afternoon in light of the fact that we may be able to accomplish it by reprogramming and in light of the fact that we may be able to bring the matter to a head if it is necessary for the Senate to vote on the foreign aid bill, which will be up before the Senate in the very near future. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the Veterans' Affairs Committee, which I chair, we have been considering the situation of Mr. Timothy McVeigh, who has certain entitlements as a veteran. Curiously, the committee has concluded that a conviction for murder in the first degree does not significantly affect Mr. McVeigh's entitlements or benefits as a veteran. Veterans who are convicted of certain criminal offenses forfeit their benefits. Those offenses, however, are limited to convictions for mutiny and aiding the enemy; spying; certain national security crimes, such as treason, sabotage, disclosing classified or defense information, interfering with the Armed Forces during a time of war, communications of classified information by a Government employee to an agent of a foreign government; and certain nuclear material crimes, such as the unauthorized possession or transfer of nuclear material or receipt and communication of restricted data. Surprisingly, my staff on the Veterans' Affairs Committee has concluded that Mr. Timothy McVeigh would be entitled to veterans benefits, notwithstanding his conviction on 11 counts including the murder of some 168 people in the Oklahoma City bombing of the Federal building. He remains eligible for such benefits, including burial benefits, since he was not convicted of any of the crimes I just listed. Because of that, I now introduce legislation which would deny veteran benefits to any person who is convicted of a State or Federal capital offense. The specific provision would be: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who is convicted of a Federal or State capital offense is ineligible for benefits provided to veterans of the Armed Forces of the United States pursuant to title 38, United States Code. This bill would prevent Mr. McVeigh from having any veterans benefits in light of his conviction on 11 counts, including murder in the first degree. I send this bill to the desk and ask that it be filed with the appropriate authority.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the Veterans' Affairs Committee, which I chair, we have been considering the situation of Mr. Timothy McVeigh, who has certain entitlements as a veteran. Curiously, the committee has concluded that a conviction for murder in the first degree does not significantly affect Mr. McVeigh's entitlements or benefits as a veteran. Veterans who are convicted of certain criminal offenses forfeit their benefits. Those offenses, however, are limited to convictions for mutiny and aiding the enemy; spying; certain national security crimes, such as treason, sabotage, disclosing classified or defense information, interfering with the Armed Forces during a time of war, communications of classified information by a Government employee to an agent of a foreign government; and certain nuclear material crimes, such as the unauthorized possession or transfer of nuclear material or receipt and communication of restricted data. Surprisingly, my staff on the Veterans' Affairs Committee has concluded that Mr. Timothy McVeigh would be entitled to veterans benefits, notwithstanding his conviction on 11 counts including the murder of some 168 people in the Oklahoma City bombing of the Federal building. He remains eligible for such benefits, including burial benefits, since he was not convicted of any of the crimes I just listed. Because of that, I now introduce legislation which would deny veteran benefits to any person who is convicted of a State or Federal capital offense. The specific provision would be: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who is convicted of a Federal or State capital offense is ineligible for benefits provided to veterans of the Armed Forces of the United States pursuant to title 38, United States Code. This bill would prevent Mr. McVeigh from having any veterans benefits in light of his conviction on 11 counts, including murder in the first degree. I send this bill to the desk and ask that it be filed with the appropriate authority.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to announce my cosponsorship of the Domenici-Bond Women's Business Centers Act of 1997, which will reauthorize this valuable program administered by the Small Business Administration's, the SBA's, Office of Women's Business Ownership. Women-owned businesses are a major driving force for America's economy. As of 1996, there were nearly 8 million women-owned businesses nationwide, employing more than 18.5 million people and generating close to $2.3 trillion in sales. According to the National Foundation for Women Business Owners, women-owned businesses are growing faster than the overall economy in each of the top 50 metropolitan areas in the United States, including Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. In a study released in March 1997, the foundation reported that as of 1996, Philadelphia's 127,100 women-owned enterprises employed 448,500 people and generated over $56 billion in sales, and Pittsburgh's 54,800 women- owned enterprises employed 141,800 people and generated over $17 billion in sales. These numbers are truly impressive and highlight the significant impact of women in business on Pennsylvania's economy. Established through the Women's Business Ownership Act of 1988, the women's business centers have been vital in providing services and programs that support and accelerate women's business ownership. My constituents are fortunate to be served by the Women's Business Development Center, located in Philadelphia. Since its formation in July 1995, the center has provided information, business assessment, training, and counseling sessions to over 3,000 prospective, emerging, and established women business owners. It is critical to reauthorize the activities of these centers to ensure that women-owned businesses have the resources necessary to prosper and grow. Specifically, the Women's Business Centers Act of 1997 would double the authorized appropriation for the women's business centers to $8 million, authorize 5 years of project funding for new centers, extend funding for existing centers for an additional 2 years, and modify the Federal funding match requirements to facilitate self-sufficiency of the centers. This legislation complements my efforts on behalf of minority and women-owned business enterprises. On April 23, 1997, I reintroduced the Minority and Women Capital Formation Act, S. 635, which provides targeted tax incentives for investors to invest equity capital in minority and women-owned small businesses, as well as venture capital funds dedicated to investing in minority and/or women-owned businesses. I also worked to secure a $500,000 grant through the Small Business Administration in fiscal year 1997 to support the activities of the National Education Center for Women in Business, located at Seton Hill College in Greensburg, PA. The center promotes women's business ownership by conducting collaborative research, providing educational programs and curriculum development, and serving as an informational clearinghouse for women entrepreneurs. In conclusion, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support swift adoption of the Women's Business Centers Act of 1997 so that we can meet the needs of America's emerging women business owners, which are critical to the economic health of our Nation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to announce my cosponsorship of the Domenici-Bond Women's Business Centers Act of 1997, which will reauthorize this valuable program administered by the Small Business Administration's, the SBA's, Office of Women's Business Ownership. Women-owned businesses are a major driving force for America's economy. As of 1996, there were nearly 8 million women-owned businesses nationwide, employing more than 18.5 million people and generating close to $2.3 trillion in sales. According to the National Foundation for Women Business Owners, women-owned businesses are growing faster than the overall economy in each of the top 50 metropolitan areas in the United States, including Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. In a study released in March 1997, the foundation reported that as of 1996, Philadelphia's 127,100 women-owned enterprises employed 448,500 people and generated over $56 billion in sales, and Pittsburgh's 54,800 women- owned enterprises employed 141,800 people and generated over $17 billion in sales. These numbers are truly impressive and highlight the significant impact of women in business on Pennsylvania's economy. Established through the Women's Business Ownership Act of 1988, the women's business centers have been vital in providing services and programs that support and accelerate women's business ownership. My constituents are fortunate to be served by the Women's Business Development Center, located in Philadelphia. Since its formation in July 1995, the center has provided information, business assessment, training, and counseling sessions to over 3,000 prospective, emerging, and established women business owners. It is critical to reauthorize the activities of these centers to ensure that women-owned businesses have the resources necessary to prosper and grow. Specifically, the Women's Business Centers Act of 1997 would double the authorized appropriation for the women's business centers to $8 million, authorize 5 years of project funding for new centers, extend funding for existing centers for an additional 2 years, and modify the Federal funding match requirements to facilitate self-sufficiency of the centers. This legislation complements my efforts on behalf of minority and women-owned business enterprises. On April 23, 1997, I reintroduced the Minority and Women Capital Formation Act, S. 635, which provides targeted tax incentives for investors to invest equity capital in minority and women-owned small businesses, as well as venture capital funds dedicated to investing in minority and/or women-owned businesses. I also worked to secure a $500,000 grant through the Small Business Administration in fiscal year 1997 to support the activities of the National Education Center for Women in Business, located at Seton Hill College in Greensburg, PA. The center promotes women's business ownership by conducting collaborative research, providing educational programs and curriculum development, and serving as an informational clearinghouse for women entrepreneurs. In conclusion, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support swift adoption of the Women's Business Centers Act of 1997 so that we can meet the needs of America's emerging women business owners, which are critical to the economic health of our Nation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to commemorate the 13th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem during the Six-Day War. I congratulate the residents of Jerusalem and the people of Israel on this important anniversary day. On June 5, 1967, the Israelis responded to threats from their Arab neighbors and 6 days later the war ended with a reunified Jerusalem that once again gave Jews access to the old city and its holy sites. Some called this unexpected price of war a miracle; it is indeed an issue of great importance for the Jewish people. Jerusalem holds a special place in Jewish history. Since King David, Jerusalem has been at the center of Jewish traditions and the very core of Jewish faith. The very city itself, not just the sites of religious significance, is considered hallowed by those of the Jewish faith. This issue has personal significance to me as well, as members of my own family live and worship in Jerusalem. Jews have long been the majority of residents of Jerusalem. However, Jerusalem is not only important for the Jewish faith, but for Islam and Christianity as well. I am a cosponsor of the sense-of-the-Congress resolution that recognizes the significance of a unified Jerusalem to the people of Israel and reiterates the Senate's position that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected. This resolution also calls on the President to publicly affirm as a matter of United States policy that Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of Israel. Since coming to the Senate, I have supported initiatives that recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. I also supported the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Implementation Act of 1995, legislation that will move the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. I will continue to work to ensure that never again will access to the old city and its holy sites be denied to Jews or to persons of any faith. Mr. President, I join my colleagues on this momentous day in celebrating the triumph of Israel in the Six-Day War and the reunification of Jerusalem.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to pay tribute to Alice Lieberman, the mother of my former executive secretary Sylvia Nolde. Alice Lieberman is a woman of grace and strength and a role model for all ages. In testament of her service to her community and her positive impact on the youth of our Nation, I am submitting ``A Senior Portrait'', written by Ms. Abby Altshcul. The following was written by Abby for her essay on her college admissions application to Cornell University, where she was accepted. A Senior Portrait With Congress pushing for cuts in Medicare and the baby boomers struggling to stay young, irreverence for old age seems to be at an all time high. Fortunately, a few teenagers, who have at one point lived in Charlottesville, Virginia still hold great respect for their elders. The reason for this is Alice Lieberman, an 85-year-old Jewish grandmother who has become the matriarch for the city's Jewish community. These teems fondly remember chicken dinners at her house and Friday night services by her side at congregation Beth Israel. She had been a role model as a long-time active member of Hadassah (a Jewish women's organization), even assuming the presidency at the age of eighty. Her fifty plus year marriage to Myer Lieberman and commitment to her family has been an inspiration in this age of high divorce rates and dysfunctional families. Her care for her husband when he went to a nursing home led the way to her volunteer work at Cedars Nursing Home. Alice even influenced a girl named Abby to join her and work at the Cedars for her bat mitzvah community service project and to continue to visit the elderly friends they had made after the bat mitzvah. Alice inherited this sense of duty from her mother and passed it on to her two daughters, a teacher and a congressional aide, who continue to volunteer while retired. For many of her ``young friends'' it became a threat rather than a chore to go to synagogue on Friday night and sit quietly next to her. She transmitted the comfort and tranquility she received from the prayers to Abby and anyone else who was lucky enough to be seated beside her. One of Abby's earliest memories is of sitting in services and drawing a picture of her best friend, Alice, who sat next to her. Alice still proudly displays the drawing next to Abby's senior photo in her dining room. Ever since Abby moved away two years ago, services haven't been as meaningful or enjoyable without Alice. Her devotion is an inspiration to many Jews especially the young people whom she effects. The vitality Alice displays brings a whole new meaning to the phrase ``aging gracefully.'' She goes everywhere and does everything on her own without fear, even after a fall a few years ago that resulted in a broken hip and landed her in a nursing home for a few weeks. She entertains often and continues to be an important part of Hadassah as head of their ongoing and most successful fundraiser. Some people use their golden years to relax and let the world serve them, but for Alice Lieberman it is a chance to imbue the next generation with motivation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in 1992, I sponsored a joint resolution in collaboration with Congressman Louis Stokes, who served as chairman of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, to expedite disclosure of materials relevant to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. That act created the Assassination Review Board, which was directed to oversee the identification and release of records related to the assassination of President Kennedy. While the review board has made significant progress in its important work, it will need additional time to complete its task. Today, I am introducing a bill that will authorize the board's extension for 1 year. Through October 1996, the review board was successful in transferring nearly 10,000 documents to the National Archives and Records Administration for inclusion in the JFK Collection. Although much has been accomplished, Congress, in setting its original 3-year timetable, was simply unable to anticipate a number of problems the board has encountered since beginning its work. The board was not appointed until 18 months after the legislation was signed into law. In addition, Federal agencies have been slow in identifying records to be processed and the hiring and training of new employees to work with the board has taken longer than expected. Nevertheless, the review board serves a vital function of removing some of the uncertainty and speculation about the contents of Government files relating to President Kennedy's assassination. An additional year will permit the board to finish its important task. According to information provided to me, over the past 5 years, the review board has worked to facilitate the maximum appropriate disclosure of any additional materials which may have been withheld by the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, or any other Federal agency. In addition, the House committee decided to withhold certain materials for 50 years following the publication of its report in 1979, or until the year 2029. According to information provided to me, the review board has also worked to facilitate the maximum appropriate disclosure of any of these materials which may have been withheld by the House committee.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this is a very important amendment because it will determine whether we will have an increase in NIH grants and, in fact, whether we will have NIH grants at their current level. Night before last, by a vote of 98 to 0, this body passed a sense-of- the-Senate resolution which increased NIH grants by $2 billion. But the fact is that the 550 account on health is cut by $100 million. This amendment asks the Senate to put its money where its mouth is. If the sense of the Senate which passed two nights ago is to have any sense, this amendment has to be agreed to. I understand that the leadership is opposed to this amendment. I understand that there is an argument that nothing we do here on this budget resolution amounts to anything; that it is all up to the appropriators. In a sense, that is correct. But I believe the appropriators will be influenced by a positive vote here, especially when the leadership is going to try to defeat this amendment. If this amendment is defeated, I can explain to the constituency groups who come to me as chairman of the subcommittee that there was no money. But if this sense-of-the-Senate resolution for $2 billion is to be understood, this amendment has to pass. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call for a vote on amendment No. 340.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask Senator Santorum be added as original cosponsor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. SPECTER. I do.

Mr. SPECTER. I will not yield time but await response, if any, from the distinguished Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, not until I hear what Senator Domenici says. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I wish to comment on the impact this budget agreement will have on America's veterans, and to express my concerns that funding assumed under the agreement will not be sufficient to provide for adequate health care for America's veterans. If it is approved, the budget resolution will require the Committee on Veterans' Affairs [VA] to report legislation which will reduce entitlement spending, over a 5-year period, by $2.7 billion compared to the budget baseline. That sounds like, and is, a substantial sum. However, I believe the committee will be able to meet this goal by extending the expiration dates of savings provisions already enacted as part of prior deficit reduction measures, and by agreeing to round down to the nearest dollar future cost-of-living adjustments. No one is happy that controlling the deficit requires restrained growth in mandatory-account spending for veterans' benefits. But I am confident that the committee will be able to meet its mandatory spending instructions in such a way as to ensure that no provision in the final reconciliation bill will result in a veteran who receives a benefit this year not also receiving the same benefit next year. Indeed, even after the committee has complied with its reconciliation instructions, spending for veterans' benefits from mandatory accounts will increase each year the budget agreement is in effect. I am also pleased that the proposed budget resolution permits the committee to report legislation which will allow VA to retain money it collects from private health insurance carriers when VA treats the nonservice-connected illnesses of veterans who have health insurance. Under current law, VA is required to bill insurance companies when it treats the nonservice-connected illnesses of insured veterans. However, VA is required to transfer the money it collects to the Treasury. Allowing VA to retain the money it collects will provide a real incentive for more efficient and effective collections. However, the administration proposed its health insurance proceeds retention provision with a hook. The President, in requesting the authority to allow VA to retain health insurance proceeds, also proposed that VA receive, initially, a cut in appropriated funds for VA medical care and that appropriations be frozen at that reduced level over the succeeding 4 years. historically, VA has needed an increase of almost a half a billion dollars a year just to pay for VA employees' cost-of-living salary adjustments and for the increased costs of medical supplies and equipment. In its April 24, 1997, ``Views and Estimates'' letter to the Budget Committee, the Veterans' Affairs Committee expressed its serious concerns about the wisdom of relying on an untested source of revenue-- insurance collections--for a program as critical as veterans' health care. I continue to have that concern. The budget resolution now before this body is even worse than the President's initial proposal. It does not merely carry forward the President's proposal to cut appropriations for VA medical care, and then maintain that reduced level of appropriations for 5 years. Under this proposal, VA discretionary spending in 1998 will be $400 million less than it was in fiscal year 1997, and $3.1 billion less than current levels over the 5-year term of the agreement, even after allowing for retained health insurance collections. The cost of providing health care for veterans consumes over 417 billion of $18 billion plus in VA discretionary spending. Almost all of the rest of VA discretionary spending is expended on construction, medical research, and for the salaries of VA employees who process veterans' disability claims. There are no unimportant discretionary accounts with VA's budget. According to VA, each 4100 million pays for about 1,400 VA care givers, and for care for about 22,000 veterans. In February, 1997, Dr. Kenneth Kizer, VA's Under Secretary for Health, announced an initiative to increase the number of veterans VA treats by 20 percent and to reduce VA's cost per patient by 30 percent. In time, reforms in the delivery of VA care may enable VA to absorb real reductions in health care funding. But those reforms have not yet taken root. Further, it takes money to make money. According to VA, reforms needed to achieve Dr. Kizer's ambitious goals will cost money to implement. If Congress reduces VA medical funding before VA's reforms are implemented, we should not be surprised if VA's goals of increasing the number of veterans treated, and reducing the average cost of treating each patient, are postponed or even abandoned. I believe that would be a false economy, and a tragedy for our veterans. I recognize that discretionary spending assumptions are just that assumptions. The actual decisions will be made as the Congress debates and enacts appropriations bills to fund discretionary programs. The Appropriations Committee always faces heavy pressure to ensure adequate funding for VA medical care. This budget resolution will only increase that pressure. Mr. President, 26 million American veterans will watch to see how-- and if--the Congress will rise to the challenge presented by the discretionary spending assumptions affecting the VA in this budget resolution. I will fight to assure that adequate funding for veterans' health care is provided. In my estimation, appropriations for discretionary spending on veterans' programs, which are assumed under this budget agreement, are not sufficient. I intend to work hard, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and as a member of the Appropriations Committee, to correct this inequity.

Mr. SPECTER. I am delighted I did not have an offset here on fraud and abuse. I have an offset on administrative costs. As the distinguished chairman knows, there has to be an offset. I chose an offset which I think is realistic. When the distinguished Senator from New Mexico says the appropriators are going to do whatever they want to do, I wonder why we are here at all. Why have we been spending the last 2 days on a budget process that does not mean anything? The fact is that it does mean something. When the Senator from New Mexico says, call on the subcommittee chairman of Veterans' Affairs, how about the chairman of Veterans' Affairs? I chair the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Let me tell you, it would be a boon to that committee to have this researched. Now the question is whether there is going to be any sense of the Senate at all, and if there is, this amendment will be adopted.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, beyond the assurance as to where the money is going to go, there is money there, so that if there needs to be a reallocation, there will be some funds that can be allocated. The subcommittee has the responsibility for job training, student aid, Pell grants, LIHEAP, the Center for Disease Control, child care, Social Security administrative costs, Medicare, and a long list of items which have very, very high priority. And when the Budget Committee returns to the health account less money than it had last year, obviously, there is no money for NIH because the other items have been cut to the bone as it is. The last 2 years Senator Harkin and I consolidated or eliminated 134 programs to save $1.5 billion to put into NIH and to put into education. And the additional funds here are on projected programs. So it is a very clear vote. It is a vote as to whether we want to put our money where we spoke so eloquently last night on $2 billion or whether we want to have NIH unable to have an inflation rise and, in fact, have a pro rata cut. How much time remains, Mr. President?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if it were the old U.S.S.R., and Senator Gramm were Premier Stalin, he could cut the $400 million for Goals 2000. That happens to be one of the President's premier projects. Every time you turn around within that item, there are matters which are very, very important to someone. But I will await the vote. I will abide by the will of the Senate. I will be fascinated to see Senator Gramm's amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 340.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the distinguished manager articulates it correctly. I will offer one amendment.