Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. My colleague is correct. Libraries are important in promoting literacy and I want to make it clear that the committee intends that library literacy projects continue to receive support through the additional funds allocated for library services. I will work in Conference Committee with the House to ensure that the conference report reflects this intent.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator for his kind words. Also, I believe he has offered good, solid advice, and would concur with him that the Department should award continuation grants for the two organizations in question. funding for library literacy

Mr. SPECTER. Senator Pell, we are pleased to be able to provide support in the amount of $5 million in fiscal year 1996 for the International Education Program in title VI of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Since this sum is one-half of the originally authorized amount for this program we would appreciate any guidance that you, as the author of this legislation and the ranking minority member of both the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Education Subcommittee, might be able to provide on the use of these funds.

Mr. SPECTER. I share your interest in ensuring that HCFA has the information necessary to reduce the costs of health-related entitlements while maintaining quality care. I also agree that the information management system referenced in the committee report is precisely the kind of project that HCFA should be exploring to achieve these objectives.

Mr. SPECTER. We have provided $51 million for the regional educational laboratories in the education research item. We have 10 laboratories across the Nation. This funding will provide them each with a $1 million increase.

Mr. SPECTER. The laboratories, by law, are to have their research priorities and program of work determined totally by their regional educational governing boards. These boards are responsible to meet the education needs of their region. We are not giving a specific charge. We expect the laboratory boards to determine what is needed.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before yielding the floor, I have been asked to take a limited leadership role here.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition for a few moments this morning to speak in morning business for a period not to exceed 5 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to do that.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the purpose of my seeking recognition is to introduce legislation that would provide for an antitrust exemption for the National Football League on the subject of franchise moves, because that has become such a major problem in the United States. Note the recent move of the Cleveland Browns to Baltimore, and previous moves of the Cardinals from St. Louis to Phoenix, of the Rams from Los Angeles to St. Louis, of the Colts from Baltimore to Indianapolis, and the tremendous dislocations that these moves have caused not only to sports fans who have a very close relationship with their team --really, America is in love with sports and it carries from the high school to the college and professional level--but to all Americans. We have recently seen the Pirates saved in the city of Pittsburgh because of the ability of professional baseball to control franchise moves, which is not possible for professional football, because baseball has a generalized exemption to the antitrust laws, whereas football does not. This is a matter which has enormous financial implications for the cities involved. There are thousands of jobs involved in hotels, restaurants, commercial opportunities, and more than even the financial matters and the status as a big-league city. As a Senator from Pennsylvania, with major sports teams in my State, it is a matter of very, very significant importance. It first came to my attention personally in my early years in the Senate, back in 1982, when Dan Rooney, the owner of the Steelers, approached me with then-Commissioner Pete Rozelle seeking hearings in the Judiciary Committee on the then- pending move of the Raiders from Oakland to Los Angeles. Senator Thurmond, then chairman of the Judiciary Committee, scheduled those hearings. They were very important hearings, which, regrettably, did not stop the move of the Raiders from Oakland to Los Angeles. Then we have seen the Raiders move back from Los Angeles to Oakland, and it led me to introduce a series of bills, as others have, on this very important subject. These are delineated in a fuller statement, which I will have made a part of the Record at the conclusion of this brief presentation. I believe, Mr. President, that legislation is necessary in this area to provide stability for professional football. It is my hope, as we move through this legislative process, that we will receive from football, as well as from baseball, for the preservation of their antitrust exemption, some consideration that will result in the avoidance of some cities putting up vast sums of money, like Baltimore is putting up some $200 million to bring the Browns to Baltimore from Cleveland, according to press reports. This antitrust exemption applies, as well, to basketball and hockey. Again, it is very important to have stability in those leagues so they can avoid dislocations and having franchises moved because of the threat of judicial holdings that the antitrust laws are violated when the league attempts to block a team from relocating. My legislation does contain a provision that where a team moves and it leaves the city at a loss because of infrastructure changes the city has made, or contractual obligations, the moving team has to reimburse the city for its share of that public debt. This is an idea brought to me by the distinguished mayor of Pittsburgh, Mayor Tom Murphy. It is based on a resolution adopted by the Conference of Mayors. My bill also has a provision that requires that when a team moves from a city, if the league expands, that city will have the first opportunity--in effect, the right of first refusal--to be considered for an expansion team. The bill does not impose an obligation on the league, because there are many complicating factors that the league has to consider in deciding where a team should be located. But we have seen tremendous instability in professional sports with these franchise moves. My own concern arose a long time ago when the Dodgers moved from Brooklyn to Los Angeles. I thought Los Angeles ought to have a team, but not the Dodgers. They ought to have had an expansion team. At the same time there was the move of the Giants to San Francisco from New York. This legislation builds upon previous bills of mine, which I have specified in my longer statement. It is a part of the process, and I believe we need to have a dialog with the commissioners on the whole variety of issues confronting sports, as I have with Commissioner Tagliabue, talking about, for example, the need for multipurpose stadiums--with objections now to using the Vet in Philadelphia or Three Rivers in Pittsburgh for multiple sports--using, for example a kidney- shaped design to accommodate both football and baseball. We must try to see to it that we have stability and we do not impose enormous burdens on the taxpayers for new stadiums, but that we retain the big-league- city status of current markets that support their teams and expand the leagues, where appropriate, and find some way to stabilize professional sports with revenue sharing and salary caps to protect small-market teams. These issues raise complex matters which are yet to be worked out, but this bill is a start to addressing some of the issues facing professional football, basketball, and hockey. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the purpose of my seeking recognition is to introduce legislation that would provide for an antitrust exemption for the National Football League on the subject of franchise moves, because that has become such a major problem in the United States. Note the recent move of the Cleveland Browns to Baltimore, and previous moves of the Cardinals from St. Louis to Phoenix, of the Rams from Los Angeles to St. Louis, of the Colts from Baltimore to Indianapolis, and the tremendous dislocations that these moves have caused not only to sports fans who have a very close relationship with their team --really, America is in love with sports and it carries from the high school to the college and professional level--but to all Americans. We have recently seen the Pirates saved in the city of Pittsburgh because of the ability of professional baseball to control franchise moves, which is not possible for professional football, because baseball has a generalized exemption to the antitrust laws, whereas football does not. This is a matter which has enormous financial implications for the cities involved. There are thousands of jobs involved in hotels, restaurants, commercial opportunities, and more than even the financial matters and the status as a big-league city. As a Senator from Pennsylvania, with major sports teams in my State, it is a matter of very, very significant importance. It first came to my attention personally in my early years in the Senate, back in 1982, when Dan Rooney, the owner of the Steelers, approached me with then-Commissioner Pete Rozelle seeking hearings in the Judiciary Committee on the then- pending move of the Raiders from Oakland to Los Angeles. Senator Thurmond, then chairman of the Judiciary Committee, scheduled those hearings. They were very important hearings, which, regrettably, did not stop the move of the Raiders from Oakland to Los Angeles. Then we have seen the Raiders move back from Los Angeles to Oakland, and it led me to introduce a series of bills, as others have, on this very important subject. These are delineated in a fuller statement, which I will have made a part of the Record at the conclusion of this brief presentation. I believe, Mr. President, that legislation is necessary in this area to provide stability for professional football. It is my hope, as we move through this legislative process, that we will receive from football, as well as from baseball, for the preservation of their antitrust exemption, some consideration that will result in the avoidance of some cities putting up vast sums of money, like Baltimore is putting up some $200 million to bring the Browns to Baltimore from Cleveland, according to press reports. This antitrust exemption applies, as well, to basketball and hockey. Again, it is very important to have stability in those leagues so they can avoid dislocations and having franchises moved because of the threat of judicial holdings that the antitrust laws are violated when the league attempts to block a team from relocating. My legislation does contain a provision that where a team moves and it leaves the city at a loss because of infrastructure changes the city has made, or contractual obligations, the moving team has to reimburse the city for its share of that public debt. This is an idea brought to me by the distinguished mayor of Pittsburgh, Mayor Tom Murphy. It is based on a resolution adopted by the Conference of Mayors. My bill also has a provision that requires that when a team moves from a city, if the league expands, that city will have the first opportunity--in effect, the right of first refusal--to be considered for an expansion team. The bill does not impose an obligation on the league, because there are many complicating factors that the league has to consider in deciding where a team should be located. But we have seen tremendous instability in professional sports with these franchise moves. My own concern arose a long time ago when the Dodgers moved from Brooklyn to Los Angeles. I thought Los Angeles ought to have a team, but not the Dodgers. They ought to have had an expansion team. At the same time there was the move of the Giants to San Francisco from New York. This legislation builds upon previous bills of mine, which I have specified in my longer statement. It is a part of the process, and I believe we need to have a dialog with the commissioners on the whole variety of issues confronting sports, as I have with Commissioner Tagliabue, talking about, for example, the need for multipurpose stadiums--with objections now to using the Vet in Philadelphia or Three Rivers in Pittsburgh for multiple sports--using, for example a kidney- shaped design to accommodate both football and baseball. We must try to see to it that we have stability and we do not impose enormous burdens on the taxpayers for new stadiums, but that we retain the big-league- city status of current markets that support their teams and expand the leagues, where appropriate, and find some way to stabilize professional sports with revenue sharing and salary caps to protect small-market teams. These issues raise complex matters which are yet to be worked out, but this bill is a start to addressing some of the issues facing professional football, basketball, and hockey. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I make the request of the clerk, who is asking me to do that on behalf of leadership, to discount any personalized knowledge as to the complexities which we have ruled upon. I have been asked to further make this request for unanimous consent.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Santorum, and the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, in supporting this amendment. The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP, is vital for the poor, especially for the elderly. In many cases, they have to choose between eating or heating. This amendment will be of substantial assistance in conference as we attempt to provide advanced funding for LIHEAP for next year. It is critical because of the way the appropriations process has worked when we have had continuing resolutions. Under the continuing resolutions, if there is not advanced funding for the program, we will not have the funds available and the States and local governments will not be able to do their planning. So I think this is a very important amendment.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as we try to steer toward a growing economy and a balanced budget, there has been a growing consensus that all our goals must rest on a restored ethic of personal responsibility. There is an alarming teenage birth rate in the United States. The teen birthrate in the United States is double the rate in other industrialized societies such as Australia and the United Kingdom. Over 72 percent of teenage births in 1993 were to unwed mothers; 12,000 children were born to mothers under the age of 15. It is worth pausing to reflect on the enormous significance of these statistics regarding out-of-wedlock births. Adolescent pregnancy threatens the health of both the young mother and child. Teenage mothers are more likely to lack adequate prenatal care and to give birth to a low-birthweight baby. We can reduce unintended teenage pregnancies by encouraging abstinence and personal responsibility. If you want to reduce the number of abortions performed in the United States, teaching children to say ``no'' to peer pressure is a good starting place. The Adolescent Family Life Program, known as the title XX program, is a worthwhile program which focuses on the issues of abstinence, adolescent sexuality, adoption alternatives, pregnancy, and parenting. The Adolescent Family Life Program has broad bipartisan support when it was originally enacted in 1981 and when it was reauthorized in 1984. Congress appropriated $6,698,000 for this program in fiscal year 1995; my amendment would increase its funding to $7,698,000 in fiscal year 1996. amendment no. 3539 On Page 590, after the word ``for'' on line 19, strike all up to the word ``payment'' on line 23. On Page 590, after the word ``education'' on line 25, strike all up to the period on page 591, line 3.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I support this amendment. It is a very modest amendment to allow legal service providers who receive non- Federal funds to participate in a very limited way in responding to areas which are of interest on the legislative process and representation of the poor. The pendulum has swung very far in opposition to the representation of the poor from community legal services because of concerns which have arisen over their representation of plaintiffs in class actions or over other kinds of representation. We have really come a long way, Mr. President, in our society in relatively few years. It has only been since 1963, in the landmark case of Gideon v. Wainwright, that an individual was entitled to representation in a criminal case, as Justice Hugo Black put it, before he was hauled into court. Before that time, in a criminal case there was no requirement there be a defense counsel except in capital cases. Now we have seen evolve, with community legal services, broader legal representation of the poor, a much needed, highly controversial subject which has occupied much floor time and debate here. By and large, we have maintained representation for the poor. Now there is a restriction which goes much, much too far. To have an amendment that says a recipient may use funds derived from sources other than the Legal Services Corporation to comment on public rulemaking, which is a very limited matter, hardly inspiring litigation, or to respond to a written request for information or testimony from a Federal, State or local agency, legislative body or committee, or a member of one of those entities, so long as the response is made only to the parties that make the request, and the recipient does not arrange for the request to be made, is extraordinarily limited and circumscribed. I hope this amendment could be accepted; if not, that there be a very strong vote in support of this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues may be aware, a monstrous fire yesterday in Philadelphia has caused enormous damage to a long 2-mile stretch of Interstate 95. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports today that the eight-alarm blaze burned the bottom of I-95 as if it were a pot over an open flame, snapping support wires, charring concrete, and sending a column of sooty smoke south along the Delaware River. Early roadway damage estimates range from $2 to $5 million. I would like to discuss with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee the availability of emergency funding to restore this important roadway, which is so critical to the economy of my State and the eastern seaboard and to the quality of life of millions of Pennsylvanians. I understand that title II of this bill provides $300 million for the emergency fund of the Federal Highway Administration to cover expenses arising from the January, 1996 flooding in the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, and Northwest States and other disasters. Would my colleague agree that the substantial highway damage that occurred on Interstate 95 should be considered a disaster for the purposes of this legislation?

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished chairman and look forward to working with him in conference on this issue.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition this morning to comment briefly about the significant amendment which was enacted yesterday adding funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, the subcommittee of Appropriations that I chair, and to say at the outset, again, my compliments to the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, who is the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, for his tireless work and the work of his staff, as well as my staff, in crafting that legislation in a bipartisan compromise. But I am very fearful that if the partisan bickering and the political credit-taking continues, we are going to jeopardize our chance to see that amendment as the cornerstone of this omnibus appropriations bill go through in the House of Representatives and be signed by the President, so that it becomes law. We have seen political gridlock in Washington in the hours of the past many months of an unprecedented nature. We have seen the Government close down twice, and we have seen the American people recoiling in disgust at the kind of fighting for political advantage which is taking place in this city. I believe that it is a matter for blame to be equally proportioned, 50 percent on each side of this aisle. I think that what the American people are looking for is to have an accommodation and to work out these differences of opinion so that we can keep the Government going and not have another shutdown, and work in the interests of the American people. Yesterday, Senator Harkin and I submitted a bill which we had worked on jointly in accordance with our responsibilities as chairman and ranking member of that subcommittee and on which we had reached a good- faith, bipartisan compromise. And there was a very, very strong vote in this body--84 to 16--an unusually strong vote on an issue which is as highly contested as that one was yesterday, or what would be expected. And 37 of 53 Republicans joined in supporting that expenditure, although there were many questions as to whether that was a wise approach in the overall matter, because we are looking for a settlement on the overall budget dispute. But those differences were laid aside in the interest of funding for education, for health, and for labor and plant safety, to get that done. No sooner was the issue resolved on the Senate floor than we had back to usual political posturing--taking credit for what had been done in a very, very partisan way. Today's New York Times quotes one Member of the Senate on the opposite side of the aisle saying--and this is attributed--``Many of our Republican friends that have been reluctant to indicate their support for this, really fell over themselves to support this measure.'' Well, that is not so, Mr. President. There has been a lot of Republican support for education--both on the subcommittee with Senator Jeffords being the leader for education funding, and Senator Domenici, as well as my own participation. When an amendment was offered on the other side of the aisle several weeks ago to add substantial money for education, it received 51 votes, and there were many on the Republican side of the aisle who joined there. Then that Member is quoted going on to say, ``They expected Republicans in the House to bridle at the agreement, but they predicted that the overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate for the White House stance on the issue would help them prevail in the final legislation.'' Mr. President, I had hoped that would be the case, and I still hope that will be the case. But I am not so sure when we have this kind of political credit-taking by Democrats for what was clearly a bipartisan movement. It is a move headed by Senator Harkin and myself. It is a move that received an 84-to-16 vote with 37 Republican Senators supporting the measure. If we are going to go back to politics as usual and a claim of credit by the Democrats, I think this is going to be a very, very hard matter to hold in conference. There have been some very key legislative proposals that have been defeated this year when somebody crows and takes credit in the political context before the ink is dry and before the bill is finally worked through a conference committee and is finished. Another Member on the other side of the aisle was referenced in the Washington Times today saying: Senator Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican and coauthor of the amendment, ``knows how politically vulnerable Republicans are on education.'' That is not true, Mr. President. When a reference is made to what Arlen Specter knows, the best source is Arlen Specter. I do not believe that Republicans are any more vulnerable than Democrats on these volatile issues of public policy. I think the American people are coming to the conclusion that they ought to throw out all of the incumbents because of dissatisfaction for what is going on and the political infighting and political bickering which leads to gridlock. When we work through a very, very tough, bipartisan amendment and accomplish the goals of adequate funding for education and do it in a way which protects the balanced budget concept, because there are offsets on all of these lines, I would ask for a moratorium on the political infighting and the political credit-taking so that we can get on with the business of the American people. There is an old saying that ``a lot could be accomplished in Washington, DC, if people were not too concerned about who got credit for what was being undertaken.'' I would say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that we ought to tone down the political rhetoric and we ought to get on with the business of the country. What we have hanging in the balance from the additional funding which we passed yesterday of $814 million for title I school districts, which is very vital for education in America, is: $182 million for school-to-work programs; we have some $200 million for safe and drug-free school programs; we have some $635 million for summer youth job training; we have very substantial funding for training for dislocated workers, a matter of enormous importance in America today with a downsizing of American business. All of this is in jeopardy if we are going to go back to crass politics and political credit-taking and political bickering as usual. I anticipate great concerns in the House of Representatives when they exercise their legislative discretion. In the United States, we have a bicameral form of government. We have the views of the Senate. We have the views of the House. I have great respect for what the House of Representatives has to say. This kind of political bantering, political dialog, and political credit-taking is going to be very, very difficult to deal with, because I expect to hear all about it when we go to conference with the House of Representatives. They have their own points of view. They have their constituencies. They are elected on a 2-year basis. They have certain commitments that they have made. This does not help the process at all. So, it is my hope that the political rhetoric and the political credit-taking will be toned down as we move ahead to try to get this omnibus appropriations bill completed. Mr. President, beyond this omnibus appropriations bill, it is my hope that the leadership and the Government coming from the President, the administration, and the leaders of the Congress will go back to the bargaining table and try to work out an overall global settlement. We are about to undertake now the appropriations process for fiscal year 1997. We are already scheduling the appearances of the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of Labor for the fiscal year 1997 budget. It is a little hard to look to the next year's budget when we have not even completed this year's budget. We were able to have this revenue-neutral on a tough vote for many Senators, Democrats as well as Republicans, because we offset it against expenditures which are available only on a one-time basis. There had been talk on a global settlement where we addressed the issue of entitlements and had savings there. There might be as much as $10 billion available for the issues arising out of the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. If we are to find a way to have a budget which can be adopted for fiscal year 1997, again looking to the concerns of education, we are going to need a global settlement. If we have the same allocation, 602(b) allocation for my subcommittee, for next year as we had for last year when we go through the budget resolution, I do not know how it will be possible to find light at the end of the tunnel to add the kind of money which we added yesterday in the amendment. And we are looking to a very, very tough political season. My thought is that, if the Congress of the United States and the administration cannot come to terms, it is not only going to be bad public policy for the schoolchildren who very badly need the money which we passed in the Senate yesterday and hope we can get through conference, but what will happen in fiscal year 1997? It is not going to get any easier as we move from March into April, May through to October and November. So it is my hope that the people who have been negotiating on that overall budget global settlement will come to terms, or I think we are all going to have havoc to pay when we look to fiscal year 1997. But first things first. Let us focus on the bill which is currently on the floor. Let us try to get the job done without rushing to take the credit. Again, I thank my colleague, Senator Harkin, for his outstanding work and leadership on this important matter and for setting a bipartisan tone which, if carried out by all Members in this body on both sides of the aisle, I think will lead us to sound public policy for the education interests and the labor interests, the funding of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education programs. Mr. President, in the absence of any other Senator in the Chamber, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. The facts that I have differ to some extent of significance. What we have come to in offsets of $2,634,000,000 is $1.3 billion, where I agree, as to the sale of the Uranium Enrichment Corporation. Then there is $292 million from the sale of oil from the strategic petroleum account and $526 million from the FAA rescission, $159 million of unobligated balances from Pell grants, and $166 million from unused budget authority in the committee allocation, $200 million in year-round youth training, which is back to the fiscal year 1995 level, and $25 million from the unemployed trust fund. I think it is useful to talk about these in specifics so that our colleagues who may be watching will have some of the specifics. But with respect to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, I had thought when I called Mr. Panetta this morning and finally talked to Ms. Barbara Chow--and she brought up the subject--that would be more than enough, $1.3 billion. But there are no savings from that account until 1999. I think that is why Senator Daschle has inserted in this amendment the emergency provision, which he hopes will take his amendment out of the limitations of the Budget Act. So, I guess my question would be, or the point of discussion really, not so much a question, but debate as a dialog on where we are heading here, that if those offsets do not exceed $2.634 billion, you do not really get the $3.09 billion that Senator Daschle wants. And we look to send a bill to the House of Representatives which will be tough enough to get if there are hard offsets. What would Senator Kohl's response be?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I agree totally----

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, as I had started to say earlier before yielding to my distinguished friend from Connecticut, I did not know he was going to mention Ruby Ridge, or I might not have yielded to him. What is wrong with Ruby Ridge?

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague for that comment.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to outline a second-degree amendment which will be offered----

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Iowa for his comments. I believe this is a well-crafted bill that accommodates education while maintaining the balanced budget principle. As Senator Harkin has pointed out, people now in school districts know what they can do by way of planning if this finally becomes law. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.