Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Well, how is that fee or compensation determined?

Mr. SPECTER. Well, if the Senator from Arkansas is prepared to have a judicial determination as to what a substantial investment is before the generic is offered for sale --I see my colleague shaking his head in the negative. I thought that is what the Senator from Arkansas said.

Mr. SPECTER. Well, since that is the purported intent of the legislation of the Senator from Arkansas, then the sale of the generic could not be made until the court had determined that there was a substantial investment. It is my understanding that the substitute proposed by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Senator Thurmond, in collaboration with the distinguished Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch, would do the same thing. The substitute would not accept the filing, but would require the generic manufacturer to go to court and satisfy the court that there had been a substantial investment. Is that not the effect of the legislation of the Senator from Utah?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may follow up on that, I do not fully understand what the Senator from Arkansas just said. Would it be the obligation, then, of the generic manufacturer to show that there had been compliance with the law, that there had been a substantial investment?

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have found the current controversy to be an extremely complicated one as it has worked its way through the Judiciary Committee in trying to structure an arrangement which would be fair to all sides--fair to those who have made investments in patent pharmaceutical products and fair to those who are relying upon generic drugs. As has been indicated at some length, we have very substantial investments which were being made to find new pharmaceutical products, to cure many ailments--wonder drugs, so to speak. At the same time, there is an enormously important consideration that generic drugs be available to senior citizens and others who are of modest means, and also to help reduce the tremendous governmental costs involved with health care in America. The controversy has arisen because of the ambiguity in the term substantial investment and the difficulty in defining equitable remuneration. It is my view that the Congress ought to define those terms, as opposed to leaving the matter to judicial interpretation. We talk a great deal on the floor of the U.S. Senate about not having judges involved in legislation and about having statutory definitions to express the will of the Congress. This, I think, is a classic case where the Congress really ought to come to grips with the complexities and define what we mean by substantial investment and what we mean by equitable remuneration. In order to try to reach a resolution of this matter, my staff and I have worked for many months, including long meetings where I have personally participated with representatives from both sides in an effort to try to structure a definition which would be fair and equitable. There has been a consideration that substantial investment would be determined solely by the filing by the generic of the abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) prior to June 8 of 1995. I am not persuaded that the filing of an ANDA in and of itself is sufficient to constitute a substantial investment. There is a contention that more has to be undertaken in order to constitute the so-called substantial investment. I have supported the amendment by Senator Hatch in the Judiciary Committee with substantial reservations, waiting until the time the matter reached the floor with the hope we might work out an accommodation among all of the parties. As I have said to the parties privately and also publicly, they have a much firmer handle on the intricacies of these definitions than do we in the Congress. I am still hopeful that a compromise may be worked out. What I have added to the so-called Hatch substitute is a very tight time line on judicial determination as to what is a substantial investment if we cannot find a legislative definition for substantial investment, and also a provision that any losses sustained by the generic companies for the lack of sales in the interim be compensated by the pharmaceutical companies which have the patents. Another consideration which I find to be very problematic is the fact this has taken so long. As the distinguished Senator from Arkansas has pointed out, the fact that it takes so long disadvantages the generics and also those who would rely upon the generic products. I just had a brief conversation with my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, and I told him I thought it might be useful if we had a colloquy on the record. We have had quite a number of conversations and have exchanged correspondence, and at one point several weeks ago Senator Pryor wrote me a very strong, friendly letter, but a strong letter in the sense of trying to resolve the issue. I responded the very next day because of the importance of the issue. I know the sincerity with which the Senator from Arkansas has dealt with the issue, as, candidly, have we all. I think it would be useful to discuss with the Senator from Arkansas, the originator of the original legislation, the content of his proposal, which, as I understand it, is to have a determination of substantial investment or the generic filing of the so-called ANDA prior to June 8, 1995. As I understand it, and I put this in the form of a question to my colleague from Arkansas, is it the intent of his bill that the generic, in order to qualify, would have to establish a substantial investment?

Mr. SPECTER. Well, as the Senator from Arkansas outlines, there is going to be a judicial determination, and the question is whether the generic drugs may be sold prior to the time the judicial determination is made, or whether the generic drugs may be sold only after the judicial determination is made. Under the expedited procedures that I am proposing, it would be a very, very prompt resolution. If the court determines that the generic had a substantial investment and had been denied access to the market for a period of time, then, for the period of time where the generic had been denied access, there would be damages paid. Really, we are very close together, as the Senator and I discussed this, with the essential difference being, who is going to bear the burden of proof in showing substantial investment? Those facts, really, are within the control of the generic manufacturer--after all, it is the generic manufacturer who knows what the generic manufacturer has sold, and it seems to me that there ought to be that determination made. As I listened to the Senator from Nevada earlier, I understood him to say that there would be a determination of substantial investment prior to the entry into the market of the generic manufacturer. As I had listened to the Senator from Arkansas earlier, it seemed to me that that was the same contention, that there would be a determination of substantial investment prior to the entry by the generic manufacturer.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague for the colloquy. I will try to help him find an expedited procedure. I will not suggest anything that would make a lawyer rich, even though my colleague may be returning to the practice of law after he finishes the distinguished service in this Congress. But it would be my suggestion that Senator Pryor, Senator Hatch, Senator Thurmond, and the Members sit down and try to work it out, to try to get the parties in the pharmaceutical companies and the generics, where they really understand the intricacies and the facts of the matter, to try to solve this off the floor, because I think that would be in the best interest of the American people.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I do intend to pursue the expedited procedure. One of the items that I agree with the Senator from Arkansas on is how much time has passed here. I think that his cause might be advanced by accepting the burden of proof on the generic manufacturer and allowing this litigation to go forward with the provision for expedited procedures, and then damages for any time that the generic manufacturers are denied entry into the market after a substantial investment had been made, as determined in judicial proceedings, because what is happening now is that there have been lengthy proceedings in the Judiciary Committee. We have a very busy calendar. The managers of this bill want to move ahead with the Department of Defense authorization bill. But having brought this matter to the floor, it is an important one which merits at least this much discussion. We think that the Members could come to an agreement and find some way to expedite a legislative determination, which even if the burden is shifted to the generics--and they have to establish the judicial determination first--it may be very much more to the Senator's advantage than having this matter go over from today to sometime in the future. And who knows when there will be a determination, given the short year, the election year, the appropriations bills, and all of the work of the Congress will have?

Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak on the Biden-Specter Bipartisan Welfare Reform Act of 1996, a companion measure to H.R. 3266, the Castle-Tanner Bipartisan Welfare Reform Act of 1996. At the outset, I want to compliment my colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, and Congressmen Castle and Tanner for their efforts in drafting a strong, bipartisan bill that represents commonsense welfare reform and should attract a broad consensus. Our basic objective in reforming the welfare system is the reduction of poverty and the improvement of the standard of living of millions of Americans. We should not let this goal become lost in partisan politics and we should not wait for the next election to achieve welfare reform and a balanced budget. This Congress can be known as the can do Congress if we work together on these vital issues. I support many of the principles reflected in the Bipartisan Welfare Reform Act, such as establishing new work requirements in conjunction with improved job training, child care, and other support services for welfare recipients trying to end their dependence on Government assistance. I also support its get-tough policy on collecting overdue child support and on reducing fraud in various Government benefit programs. Although I have concerns about some of the provisions in our legislation, such as the calculation of the formula for the State block grant, it is important to demonstrate that there is a bipartisan effort in the Senate on reforming welfare and I intend to address my reservations during the coming weeks as welfare reform proposals are considered in the Senate. While I have some reservations, I believe this bill is a good starting point for bipartisan legislation. Looking back to my youth, I began to learn about some of the problems of welfare while growing up in Russell, KS, a small agricultural-oil community. Then, upon moving to Philadelphia for college I saw the problems that can arise in a large city. I have observed problems of welfare dependency for more than 30 years, going back to my earliest days of public service. As an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia, I saw the tremendous impact, the tremendous cost occasioned by a program which did not realistically move people from welfare rolls to payrolls. I learned a great deal about the problems of poverty and the interrelation of jobs, housing, education, welfare, and crime. Later, as district attorney, I brought prosecutions on welfare fraud which I believe were among the first to be brought in the country. So my concern about welfare reform goes back a long way. Mr. President, in the mid-1980's I had the pleasure of introducing and cosponsoring several pieces of welfare reform legislation that included job training for economically disadvantaged individuals. In the 99th Congress, I cosponsored Senate bills 2578 and 2579 with Senator Moynihan, which were directed toward improving the welfare system. In the 100th Congress, I introduced similar legislation with Senator Dodd and worked closely with Senator Moynihan on the legislation that became the first comprehensive welfare reform bill, the Family Welfare Reform Act of 1988, which was signed by President Reagan. It is against this background of my own involvement with the problem of welfare that I am seeking to work with my colleagues again this year in fashioning legislation that will constitute firm action to put many able-bodied people back to work while ensuring that a social safety net continues to exist, particularly where children are involved. As we revisit this debate, it is painfully obvious to me that our welfare system has not worked. When one weighs all the factors, it is apparent that we must try a new approach at the Federal level. Consider, for example, the astonishing fact that the overall percentage of persons in poverty in 1994 was roughly equivalent to poverty rates in 1965--the year the Federal Government broadened its role in reducing poverty in our society. In my own State of Pennsylvania, I have been troubled that as many as 5 percent of our more than 11 million residents were receiving some form of welfare benefits as of the end of 1994, more than double the 2.4 percent that were receiving benefits in 1965. Further, since 1965, the number of Pennsylvanians receiving aid to families with dependent children has risen from 276,000 to 608,000. There are ongoing efforts at real welfare reform at the State level, such as in Wisconsin, where Gov. Tommy Thompson has made notable progress. In Pennsylvania, Gov. Tom Ridge recently signed into law far- reaching welfare reform which will institute agreements between the government and welfare recipients that spell out the steps they must take to move from welfare to work. Pennsylvania's new law emphasizes work, personal responsibility, job training, child care, and other support services, all of which are key elements of the Biden-Specter reform plan. While I do not agree with all provisions of the proposed Pennsylvania legislation, I do concur that reform legislation is needed. Because a new approach is merited, Congress should pass welfare reform legislation that the President will sign into law. Last year, Congress passed H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1995, and H.R. 2491, the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995, both of which were vetoed by President Clinton. In order to bridge the differences between Congress and the President concerning how to balance the budget and reform welfare, I began working with the centrist coalition, a bipartisan group of 22 Senators led by Senators Chafee and Breaux, to craft a 7-year comprehensive balanced budget proposal. This plan, which would achieve $45 to $53 billion savings by reforming the welfare system, was offered as a substitute to the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution, but failed by a vote of 46 to 53. Although the coalition budget failed to win a majority, it showed once again that there is great potential in this body for initiatives presented in a bipartisan manner. If the policies work, there is ample credit to be shared. But, if we don't try to work together, we deserve to share the blame. The bill which I am jointly introducing today, the Bipartisan Welfare Reform Act of 1996, represents another attempt to generate a broad consensus and achieve meaningful welfare reform this year. The Biden- Specter bill builds on the conference report to H.R. 4 and the bipartisan Governors' proposal, but is more specific and requires stronger State accountability and maintenance of effort in important areas, such as child care and contingency funding. Like other proposals considered by this Congress, this legislation delivers a strong message that many Americans who are currently on welfare need to get into the work force and pursue job training. Significantly, we will be giving the States greater latitude to analyze and deal with the problems closer to home. I am hopeful that this will result in better tailored, more cost-effective social programs. However, effective welfare reform is not simply a matter of increasing flexibility or shifting incentives. The movement toward block grants is a sound one, provided that there are some limitations and requirements that continue to be imposed by the Federal Government in Washington. We need to make sure that we simply do not give the States a blank check where money may be spent for other purposes that fail to protect a national interest identified by Congress. Among its key provisions, the legislation we are introducing today does the following: First, it limits benefits--no cash assistance beyond 5 years except exemptions for up to 20 percent of a State's caseload for reason of hardship or if individual was battered or subject to extreme cruelty; second, it requires that 50 percent of welfare recipients must be working by the year 2002--all able-bodied recipients must engage in work activities within 2 years of receiving benefits, generally 25 hours/week, but 20 hours/week for parents with children 6 and under; third, it requires States to meet 85 percent level of maintenance of effort, which is stronger State accountability than last year's GOP plan, 75 percent, Chafee-Breaux, 80 percent or this year's GOP plan, 75 to 80 percent; fourth, it requires welfare recipients to sign an individual responsibility contract developed by the State upon becoming eligible for cash assistance, which would outline steps the individual must take to get in private sector and would outline the State's obligations; fifth, it allows eligible work activities to include unsubsidized employment, subsidized private and public sector employment, on-the-job training, vocational training, community service; sixth, it provides an additional $3 billion for work-related programs beginning in 1999 if States are meeting 100 percent of their fiscal year 1994 spending levels and need more funds for work participation; seventh, it provides $20 billion in mandatory and discretionary child care funding over the next 6 years, an amount higher than last year's Senate bill, similar to Chafee-Breaux, and recommended by the National Governors Association--also maintains current law's Federal health and safety protections for licensed child care providers; eighth, during economic downturns, States can access a $2 billion contingency fund if they have high unemployment rates or high rates of increase in their food stamp population--also provides $800 million in additional funding for States with rapid population increases and a $1.7 billion loan fund for States that need additional money; and ninth, it requires States to enforce and improve existing child support laws, including the suspension of certain licenses for overdue child support--also increases the likelihood that a child's paternity will be established. As my colleagues are aware, I had some real reservations about some aspects of last year's welfare reform legislation. Although I supported the conference report on H.R. 4 because it advanced the underlying goal of reforming a program that has discouraged poor families from working, I would have preferred that the original Senate-passed bill, agreed to by a virtual consensus of 87 to 12, become law. Some of my concerns are met by the legislation we are introducing today. I am hopeful that my additional concerns will be met as the Senate considers this and other welfare reform legislation during the balance of the 104th Congress. Mr. President, as we move forward with budget reconciliation, I will continue to work with my colleagues to craft legislation that will not only save money and help families mired in poverty to move off of welfare and become self-sufficient, but also protect children and preserve the rights, dignity, and well-being of those currently involved in our welfare system. I urge my colleagues to support the Biden-Specter Bipartisan Welfare Reform Act of 1996 as a commonsense approach to this difficult, complex issue which is so important to the future of our society.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak on the Biden-Specter Bipartisan Welfare Reform Act of 1996, a companion measure to H.R. 3266, the Castle-Tanner Bipartisan Welfare Reform Act of 1996. At the outset, I want to compliment my colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, and Congressmen Castle and Tanner for their efforts in drafting a strong, bipartisan bill that represents commonsense welfare reform and should attract a broad consensus. Our basic objective in reforming the welfare system is the reduction of poverty and the improvement of the standard of living of millions of Americans. We should not let this goal become lost in partisan politics and we should not wait for the next election to achieve welfare reform and a balanced budget. This Congress can be known as the can do Congress if we work together on these vital issues. I support many of the principles reflected in the Bipartisan Welfare Reform Act, such as establishing new work requirements in conjunction with improved job training, child care, and other support services for welfare recipients trying to end their dependence on Government assistance. I also support its get-tough policy on collecting overdue child support and on reducing fraud in various Government benefit programs. Although I have concerns about some of the provisions in our legislation, such as the calculation of the formula for the State block grant, it is important to demonstrate that there is a bipartisan effort in the Senate on reforming welfare and I intend to address my reservations during the coming weeks as welfare reform proposals are considered in the Senate. While I have some reservations, I believe this bill is a good starting point for bipartisan legislation. Looking back to my youth, I began to learn about some of the problems of welfare while growing up in Russell, KS, a small agricultural-oil community. Then, upon moving to Philadelphia for college I saw the problems that can arise in a large city. I have observed problems of welfare dependency for more than 30 years, going back to my earliest days of public service. As an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia, I saw the tremendous impact, the tremendous cost occasioned by a program which did not realistically move people from welfare rolls to payrolls. I learned a great deal about the problems of poverty and the interrelation of jobs, housing, education, welfare, and crime. Later, as district attorney, I brought prosecutions on welfare fraud which I believe were among the first to be brought in the country. So my concern about welfare reform goes back a long way. Mr. President, in the mid-1980's I had the pleasure of introducing and cosponsoring several pieces of welfare reform legislation that included job training for economically disadvantaged individuals. In the 99th Congress, I cosponsored Senate bills 2578 and 2579 with Senator Moynihan, which were directed toward improving the welfare system. In the 100th Congress, I introduced similar legislation with Senator Dodd and worked closely with Senator Moynihan on the legislation that became the first comprehensive welfare reform bill, the Family Welfare Reform Act of 1988, which was signed by President Reagan. It is against this background of my own involvement with the problem of welfare that I am seeking to work with my colleagues again this year in fashioning legislation that will constitute firm action to put many able-bodied people back to work while ensuring that a social safety net continues to exist, particularly where children are involved. As we revisit this debate, it is painfully obvious to me that our welfare system has not worked. When one weighs all the factors, it is apparent that we must try a new approach at the Federal level. Consider, for example, the astonishing fact that the overall percentage of persons in poverty in 1994 was roughly equivalent to poverty rates in 1965--the year the Federal Government broadened its role in reducing poverty in our society. In my own State of Pennsylvania, I have been troubled that as many as 5 percent of our more than 11 million residents were receiving some form of welfare benefits as of the end of 1994, more than double the 2.4 percent that were receiving benefits in 1965. Further, since 1965, the number of Pennsylvanians receiving aid to families with dependent children has risen from 276,000 to 608,000. There are ongoing efforts at real welfare reform at the State level, such as in Wisconsin, where Gov. Tommy Thompson has made notable progress. In Pennsylvania, Gov. Tom Ridge recently signed into law far- reaching welfare reform which will institute agreements between the government and welfare recipients that spell out the steps they must take to move from welfare to work. Pennsylvania's new law emphasizes work, personal responsibility, job training, child care, and other support services, all of which are key elements of the Biden-Specter reform plan. While I do not agree with all provisions of the proposed Pennsylvania legislation, I do concur that reform legislation is needed. Because a new approach is merited, Congress should pass welfare reform legislation that the President will sign into law. Last year, Congress passed H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1995, and H.R. 2491, the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995, both of which were vetoed by President Clinton. In order to bridge the differences between Congress and the President concerning how to balance the budget and reform welfare, I began working with the centrist coalition, a bipartisan group of 22 Senators led by Senators Chafee and Breaux, to craft a 7-year comprehensive balanced budget proposal. This plan, which would achieve $45 to $53 billion savings by reforming the welfare system, was offered as a substitute to the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution, but failed by a vote of 46 to 53. Although the coalition budget failed to win a majority, it showed once again that there is great potential in this body for initiatives presented in a bipartisan manner. If the policies work, there is ample credit to be shared. But, if we don't try to work together, we deserve to share the blame. The bill which I am jointly introducing today, the Bipartisan Welfare Reform Act of 1996, represents another attempt to generate a broad consensus and achieve meaningful welfare reform this year. The Biden- Specter bill builds on the conference report to H.R. 4 and the bipartisan Governors' proposal, but is more specific and requires stronger State accountability and maintenance of effort in important areas, such as child care and contingency funding. Like other proposals considered by this Congress, this legislation delivers a strong message that many Americans who are currently on welfare need to get into the work force and pursue job training. Significantly, we will be giving the States greater latitude to analyze and deal with the problems closer to home. I am hopeful that this will result in better tailored, more cost-effective social programs. However, effective welfare reform is not simply a matter of increasing flexibility or shifting incentives. The movement toward block grants is a sound one, provided that there are some limitations and requirements that continue to be imposed by the Federal Government in Washington. We need to make sure that we simply do not give the States a blank check where money may be spent for other purposes that fail to protect a national interest identified by Congress. Among its key provisions, the legislation we are introducing today does the following: First, it limits benefits--no cash assistance beyond 5 years except exemptions for up to 20 percent of a State's caseload for reason of hardship or if individual was battered or subject to extreme cruelty; second, it requires that 50 percent of welfare recipients must be working by the year 2002--all able-bodied recipients must engage in work activities within 2 years of receiving benefits, generally 25 hours/week, but 20 hours/week for parents with children 6 and under; third, it requires States to meet 85 percent level of maintenance of effort, which is stronger State accountability than last year's GOP plan, 75 percent, Chafee-Breaux, 80 percent or this year's GOP plan, 75 to 80 percent; fourth, it requires welfare recipients to sign an individual responsibility contract developed by the State upon becoming eligible for cash assistance, which would outline steps the individual must take to get in private sector and would outline the State's obligations; fifth, it allows eligible work activities to include unsubsidized employment, subsidized private and public sector employment, on-the-job training, vocational training, community service; sixth, it provides an additional $3 billion for work-related programs beginning in 1999 if States are meeting 100 percent of their fiscal year 1994 spending levels and need more funds for work participation; seventh, it provides $20 billion in mandatory and discretionary child care funding over the next 6 years, an amount higher than last year's Senate bill, similar to Chafee-Breaux, and recommended by the National Governors Association--also maintains current law's Federal health and safety protections for licensed child care providers; eighth, during economic downturns, States can access a $2 billion contingency fund if they have high unemployment rates or high rates of increase in their food stamp population--also provides $800 million in additional funding for States with rapid population increases and a $1.7 billion loan fund for States that need additional money; and ninth, it requires States to enforce and improve existing child support laws, including the suspension of certain licenses for overdue child support--also increases the likelihood that a child's paternity will be established. As my colleagues are aware, I had some real reservations about some aspects of last year's welfare reform legislation. Although I supported the conference report on H.R. 4 because it advanced the underlying goal of reforming a program that has discouraged poor families from working, I would have preferred that the original Senate-passed bill, agreed to by a virtual consensus of 87 to 12, become law. Some of my concerns are met by the legislation we are introducing today. I am hopeful that my additional concerns will be met as the Senate considers this and other welfare reform legislation during the balance of the 104th Congress. Mr. President, as we move forward with budget reconciliation, I will continue to work with my colleagues to craft legislation that will not only save money and help families mired in poverty to move off of welfare and become self-sufficient, but also protect children and preserve the rights, dignity, and well-being of those currently involved in our welfare system. I urge my colleagues to support the Biden-Specter Bipartisan Welfare Reform Act of 1996 as a commonsense approach to this difficult, complex issue which is so important to the future of our society.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the tributes to Senator Dole be printed as a Senate document.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. For the information of all Senators, on Wednesday the Senate will be resuming debate on the budget resolution conference report. Under a previous order, if the Senate has received the official papers on the conference report from the House by 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, the Senate will proceed at that time on a vote on adoption of that matter. If the Senate does not receive the papers from the House by that time, then a vote on the adoption of the conference report would then occur on Thursday, June 13, at a time to be determined by the majority leader after consultation with the Democratic leader. The Senate may also be asked to turn to the consideration of any other items cleared for action. Therefore, other rollcall votes are possible on Wednesday.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 11:30 on Wednesday, June 12; further, that immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that there then be a period for morning business until the hour of 12 noon with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each with the following exception: Senator Grassley for 10 minutes. I further ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon, the Senate then resume debate on the conference report to accompany the concurrent budget resolution.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the resolution, as amended, be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; further, that any statements relating thereto be placed at an appropriate place in the Record as if read.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 172 just received from the House.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, in behalf of Senator Ford, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Craig.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on April 30, 1996, the Select Committee on Intelligence reported S. 1718, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 from committee. Knowing that this would be a relatively short legislative year and that the Armed Services Committee would take our bill on referral for up to 30 days of session--as it does every year, the committee marked up this bill at the earliest possible date. The Congressional Budget Office was not able to complete its scoring of our bill before we filed the report. We have now received the report of the Congressional Budget Office and I ask that it be printed in the Record so that Members will have an opportunity to review it before the Intelligence bill comes up for consideration by the full Senate. The report follows: U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, May 22, 1996. Hon. Arlen Specter, Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1718, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, as reported by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on April 30, 1996. The bill would affect direct spending and receipts, and thus would be subject to pay-as-you-go procedures under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. Sincerely, James L. Blum (For June E. O'Neill, Director). Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 1. Bill number: S. 1718. 2. Bill title: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997. 3. Bill status: As reported by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on April 30, 1996. 4. Bill purpose: This bill would authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for intelligence activities of the United States government, the Community Management Staff of the Director of Central Intelligence, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System. 5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Table 1 summarizes the budgetary effects of the unclassified sections of the bill on direct spending, revenues, and authorizations of appropriations for 1997. CBO could not obtain the necessary information to estimate the costs for the entire bill because parts are classified at a level above clearances now held by CBO employees. 6. Basis of estimate: The estimate assumes that S. 1718 will be enacted by October 1, 1996, and that the full amounts authorized will be appropriated. CBO used historical spending rates for estimating outlays. Direct Spending and Revenues Title V of S. 1718 defines economic espionage and contains provisions governing fines and forfeitures that would affect direct spending and revenues. Although the bill would provide for penalties that could accumulate to be in the millions of dollars in any one year, CBO cannot predict the frequency of successful prosecutions for economic espionage or the amounts of the fines that would be levied and collected. Nevertheless, the only net budgetary impact would stem from civil fines.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have been asked to perform the wrap- up--a high honor to be acting majority leader--perhaps majority leader since there is no majority leader at the moment.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I join my many colleagues in expressing my congratulations to Senator Dole for a historic career in the Congress of the United States, which ended with his resignation today, and I also express my regrets that we will no longer have Robert J. Dole as our majority leader and as our Republican leader. I speak for both the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which I represent, and in a sense, also for Russell, KS, because Senator Dole and I both grew up in Russell, KS. I moved to Russell from Wichita when I was 12 years old, so I have known Senator Dole for a good many years. My father, Harry Specter, was a friend of his father, Doran Dole. My dad was in the junk business, and the only scale big enough at the time to weigh the junk yard truck was the Dole scale and elevator run by Bob Dole's father. Our brothers, Kenny Dole and Morton Specter, both passed away at the same time, approximately 3 years ago. Senator Dole's story is a story like Horatio Alger, except that Bob Dole's story, compared to Horatio Alger, looks like Horatio Alger was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Both the Doles and the Specters, figuratively, lived on the wrong side of the tracks. It is a true story that the Dole family, during the depression, moved out of the first floor of their home to live in the basement to help defray expenses at a very tough time when Kansas was a dust bowl. Bob Dole grew up and worked at Dawson Drugs at the soda fountain. There is sort of a legendary and famous story about how he would flip the ice cream and catch it behind his back. I recounted that story not long ago on a campaign appearance for the Presidency in Delaware County. Bob added that sometimes when the ice cream fell to the floor, it became a chocolate shake. He went to college--a tough thing to do in the early 1940's. Russell High School had the State debating championship, but Bob Dole chose not to be a debater. He was a renowned high school athlete. And then we all know of his heroics during World War II, and of his injuries and how he laid his life on the line. He did not suffer loss of life but did suffer loss of limb, and came back with a phenomenal rehabilitation. So he has a real understanding of what it is like to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when you have neither bootstraps nor arms to pull yourself up by; and has a real feeling for the disabled; and a real understanding of the need for medical care; and a real understanding of what it is like to be an underdog. That historic, monumental rehabilitation has been recounted on many occasions. Then he became a State legislator while going to law school. He came back and was county attorney, in Russell, KS. He told the story today about how his parents had been Democrats and how he became a Republican, checking the local registrations. I originally heard the story in Russell, about how he was courted by both parties to become their nominee for county attorney and then checked the registration in Russell County and found it was 2 to 1 Republican. And as Senator Dole has said previously, as a matter of conscience he instantly became a Republican. And then so much of the rest is history: Elected to the House of Representatives in 1960 serving four terms, and then to the U.S. Senate in 1969. I have had the privilege of serving with him in this body for the last 15\1/2\ years. I watched him, as the chairman of the Finance Committee, and he did a really extraordinary job in that capacity. It was in that capacity that I think Senator Dole earned the confidence of his colleagues for the leadership position that he sought in 1984. I recall the 1982 tax bill, when Senator Baker, then the majority leader, stood at the leadership position, and at 11:45 p.m. on that complex bill said that there were 63 amendments pending, amendments like mushrooms grew overnight, and that we were going to plow ahead. Standing beside him was Senator Dole, the chairman of the Finance Committee. Senator Baker said Senator Dole thought we ought to persevere. We worked through the night, as it was Senator Baker's custom to do on occasion. There were, perhaps, half a dozen rollcall votes, many more voice votes, many amendments dropped. At 6:30 a.m. we walked out of the Chamber having finished an extraordinary bill, which showed Bob Dole's leadership. Then we had the extraordinary election for majority leader in 1984, contested by Senator Ted Stevens and Senator Pete Domenici and Senator Dick Lugar and Senator Jim McClure. We had to have a series of ballots. First one dropped and then the next and then the next. And finally--and I happened to be sitting next to Senator Dole on the left-hand side of the Chamber in the rear of the whole Senate when Senator Dole won by a narrow margin of 28 to 25; two votes changed and Senator Dole went on to be the leader. I was in the photo in the scene when Senator Dole shook hands. He was an extraordinary leader in many, many ways. Always a conciliator, always with a velvet touch. Some of us were not too easy to lead, in terms of the votes. But never a demand, never a ruffled feeling, never a sense of pressure or, certainly, not undue pressure. I recall legislation changing the Grove City decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, as illustrative of what Senator Dole would do. Senator Packwood and Senator Hatch were on opposite ends of the issue. Suddenly Senator Dole came up with compromise language. In unison, Bob Packwood and Orrin Hatch said, ``But that is unsatisfactory because it will leave the issue open to controversy as to what it means.'' Senator Dole smiled and said, ``That's the perfect solution.'' It wasn't quite that language, but Senator Dole got it worked out. Today's speech by Senator Dole, I think, was historic. I hope he can continue to speak with the same easygoing manner, the same light touch, the same sense of substance, and at the same time, the same sense of humor. Because I think if Senator Dole does that, he will really establish a rapport with the American people for his next challenge. In a sense, Senator Dole's farewell address to the Senate has significant similarity to George Washington's farewell address. It was a different time, a different tempo, different tenor, but I think it was a historic farewell address. This Chamber was filled with respect and admiration, and, really, love. I do not know, if on prior Senate occasions, there has been a recording of the time sequence for the length of applause, but that event speaks for itself as Senator Dole moved from one part of the Chamber to the other, surrounded by his colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans; many of the colleagues expressing themselves on more than one occasion. Then a few of us who were privileged to be his fellow Republicans in the Republican caucus had an opportunity to hear Senator Dole's last speech in the Mansfield Room. The balcony, now named for Senator Dole, as we have paid tribute to a few of our colleagues by memorializing their presence, became that accolade. Then, at 3 or a little after 3, a number of us were waiting outside in the boiling Sun to watch him walk down the Senate steps for the last time, at least the last time on the day of his resignation. The steps were filled with well-wishers, staff, and citizens from all walks of life. He came down and it was a symbolic transition from the U.S. Senate, where he had achieved such heights, walking out as citizen Dole, to see the people of America. When he finished saying goodbye to his colleagues on the steps, he moved across the yard to greet Americans who were waiting to see him, smell him, touch him. From there he moved over to the large crowd that was assembled between the two chambers. I think it was a very, very significant and a symbolic move, as he has left the U.S. Senate in his quest for the Presidency of the United States. It was obviously not an easy decision for Robert J. Dole to make, to leave the embellishments and accouterments of office, as majority leader, one of the loftiest positions in the Government of the United States or in the world. But he did so in his quest for what he saw as a higher calling. In the contemporaneous time period with his departure, he addressed one of the toughest issues in America, the issue of abortion, which has been the most divisive issue facing America since the Civil War, with his characteristic and traditional Solomon-like judgment. It is a political issue, but worthy of a moment or two, leaving the Republican platform intact to accommodate one segment of the party and offering the olive branch, the spirit of tolerance and the big tent to another segment of the party. Almost, in a sense, squaring the circle and accommodating almost seemingly irreconcilable differences. But that has been the life of Senator Dole. That has been his tradition as a young man growing up on the plains of Kansas where he learned, really, fundamental American values--accountability, integrity, honor, and trust, serving his Nation so well in war and serving his Nation so well in peace. Seeing him go is a tough thing for all of us who have known him, in many ways over the years. We wish him the very best as he continues in his quest to serve America. I ask unanimous consent that my comments appear in the Congressional Record in advance of Senator Dole's statements. All of us could not be recognized in the limited time before he spoke today, and although it is obvious on the face of my comments that they were made after he spoke, I would ask they appear in advance of his text, including my unanimous-consent request, so the sequence makes some semblance of sense.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Mississippi for his kind comments and would amplify what he said. After his leadership in bringing this issue before the subcommittee and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, it was the subject of extended additional discussion. Secretary Shalala did say that she would be prepared to recommend to the President that he sign a separate bill. There are really few black and white issues on the floor of the U.S. Senate or in the Congress of the United States. I believe that the gridlock is visible right down the middle between Republicans and Democrats. I think there are, as a rarity, some clear-cut issues, as I mentioned a few moments ago on the Clinton health care plan or on the balanced budget amendment, where there is a clear philosophical and factual difference. The posturing which has been undertaken on Medicare I think has been a plague on both Houses and is so recognized by the American people. Senator Cochran and I put it on the table in a direct conclusive way today and Secretary Shalala agreed with the Cochran-Specter proposal, and that is not giving up on the attempt to reach an overall reconciliation bill, to have a balanced budget, which will be presented by the Congress; but, at the same time, that there be a second bill, and if the first overall bill is rejected--which will be a global settlement on the deficit, an agreement between the President and Congress--Secretary Shalala said she would recommend that a separate bill be approved. That bill would be to accept the figure of the President, where he has recommended--and on this floor it is always articulated in terms of ``cuts,'' which is inaccurate. It is $116 billion of reduction on the rate of increase. Nobody is suggesting cuts. Every time somebody talks about a cut, it is factually incorrect. Last year, there was not a proposal for cuts in Medicare. There was a proposal to have the rate of increase of 7.1 percent instead of a higher figure on increase. This year, the proposal is 6.1 percent of increase, which is a decrease in the rate of increase. That is to say that the increase is not as much as it would have been. President Clinton has proposed a reduction of $116 billion in the rate of increase. And the proposal which Senator Cochran suggested, and I seconded, and Secretary Shalala agreed to, would be to have that as a separate bill, which would be an accommodation to the Medicare trust fund, which would keep it solvent for a period estimated on a variety of between 5 and 10 years. Right after Senator Cochran's questioning and comments to Secretary Shalala, I said that it was the most forceful statement I have heard on the Appropriations Committee in the 16 years that I was present. I was about ready to say the most forceful statement by Senator Cochran, but I amended that to be the most forceful statement from anyone that I have seen in my 16 years. Then I walked over to him and said, had it been on national television, he would have been an instantaneous national, if not worldwide, hero. But that happens to be an area where, perhaps in an off moment, we have had agreement between a Democrat and two Republicans. I said to Senator Cochran that if he would introduce the legislation, I would cosponsor it. Now I say, if he will not, I will, and I hope that he will cosponsor it. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 6, 1996, at 5 p.m. to hold a closed markup on the DOD authorization bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment briefly on the vote earlier today rejecting the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. I supported that amendment, as I have on a number of occasions during my tenure in the U.S. Senate. I was disappointed to find the amendment failed today in light of the repetitive speeches on the floor of the U.S. Senate about the importance of balancing the budget. It is true that, if discipline could be imposed in the Congress of the United States, a balanced budget amendment would not be necessary. But the historical fact is unmistakable that the kind of discipline necessary is simply not present, given the nature of our system where there are so many demands for programs to spend and where there is such an aversion, understandably, to increases in taxation. So if there is to be a balanced budget, it is mandatory that it be a requirement of law which would rise to constitutional proportion. Every other unit of government has the requirement for a balanced budget. My State, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, has such a requirement. Cities have such a requirement. Townships have such a requirement. Counties have such a requirement. On an individual basis, all of us must live within our means or we wind up in the bankruptcy court. The issue of a balanced budget came into sharper focus for me 2 years and 4 months ago when my wife Joan and I had our first grandchild. It would be absolutely unthinkable, as individuals, for us to purchase on a credit card for young Sylvie Specter or her sister Perry Specter. But that is precisely what we are doing as a nation in building up deficits in the range of $200 billion a year and a national debt which now exceeds $5 trillion. There has been a unique opportunity to deal with this in an institutional way to achieve a balanced budget. That is through a constitutional amendment. There are many subjects which are talked about on the Senate floor, repetitively, where it is very hard to find out which philosophy is correct and which political party is at fault. I suggest, Mr. President--and I do not do this often--that there is a defining difference between the philosophy of the Republicans and the philosophy of the Democrats on this subject. That has been continuously demonstrated by the votes on this subject. Today's vote was 64 to 35. So the Senate fell three votes short of the two-thirds necessary to have a constitutional amendment. Among the 53 Republicans, 52 voted in favor of the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. Among the 46 Democrats who voted, one Democrat being absent, 12 Democrats voted in favor of the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget and 34 voted against. President Clinton has stated his position in being in opposition to a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. Senator Dole, the presumptive Republican nominee, has led the fight for a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. I believe that this is very similar to the Clinton health care proposal as a defining issue as to where the parties stand. The Clinton health care proposal was a very drastic change to put the Government into the health care business. When I read the Clinton proposal in September 1993, I started to make a list of all the agencies, boards, and commissions which were created. I found I could not tabulate them all and asked an assistant to make me a comprehensive list. My assistant, instead, made a chart instead of a list. I am sparing C-SPAN viewers showing again the chart. It has been fairly extensively shown with boxes in red showing more than 100 new agencies, boards, and commissions under the Clinton health care plan, and the boxes in green, 50, giving additional tasks to 50 existing bureaus. Bob Woodward of the Washington Post said that chart was the critical fact to defeat the Clinton health care plan. A picture is worth 1,000 words. A chart in some situations is worth 1,000 pictures and perhaps worth more than $100 billion in this case. I believe that the health care program that President Clinton proposed was a defining issue, just as this vote today on a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget is a defining issue. I am convinced that the budget can be balanced with a scalpel and not a meat ax. I serve as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human Services and Education. The allocation to that subcommittee was reduced from $70 billion last year to $62 billion. Senator Tom Harkin, my distinguished ranking member on the Democratic side, Senator Harkin and I worked collaboratively, as we did when he was chairman of the subcommittee and I the ranking minority member, and we structured a budget that handled it with a scalpel and not a meat ax. We found that budget would not meet the President's requirements, and we came back on the floor of the U.S. Senate this spring. Senator Harkin and I offered an amendment which added $2.7 billion. It was like threading a needle to find a way to reach an amount which was satisfactory to the President, which would pass muster with the House committee in conference. After 20 hours of negotiations, the House Members approved the compromise by a vote of 6 to 5 and we got it done. This year, Senator Harkin and I looked at the budget resolution, saw that we were still going to be short of a mark which would be satisfactory, and we structured another amendment for $2.7 billion. This time, Senator Domenici, chairman of the Budget Committee, came in and added another $2.3 billion for a total of $5 billion in excess of what his committee had reported to the floor, so that we would have a realistic figure to do the job. I cite that as an illustration. If you examine the fine print and look at the semicolons, there would be agreement that it was done within our confines, moving toward the balanced budget, and done with a scalpel and not a meat ax. I believe that we can establish priorities to have a balanced budget and do it carefully, preserving the important programs and eliminating those that are unnecessary, cutting those where cuts can be made. I am personally convinced that the American people are prepared to have shared sacrifice to have a balanced budget if the cuts are uniform. As I said on this floor last year before we took up the budget resolution, I thought as much as I would like a tax cut I was opposed to it, because while you can justify the cuts if they are fairly made, if there is a tax cut at the same time it simply is unacceptable--some will be favored for a tax cut, with some of the proposals favoring those in the $100,000 category while others at a much lesser figure had to have the reductions. If the reductions are fairly stated, I think shared sacrifice is something that the American people are prepared to accept. That is the concept of a balanced budget. It is my hope that this issue, like the issue of health care, will be dealt with by the American people in November. I thought it a mistake when the Government was closed down last November, not something I am saying for the first time on June 6, 1996. I said it back on November 14, as the Congressional Record will show during the first shutdown. That was an opportunity to crystalize the issue for the November election. I think this is a watershed, a landmark signal issue on today's vote. When you take a look at the party alignment, with President Clinton leading the Democrats and 34 out of 46 voting Democrats in the Senate today voting ``no'' on the balanced budget amendment, and 52 out of 53 Republicans voting ``yes'' on the balanced budget amendment, that is an issue which ought to be submitted to the referendum this November. I yield the floor.