Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is my hope that we will proceed to take up the pending bill. It is obviously difficult procedurally to complete this bill before the end of the fiscal year, and it is already a matter of public record that arrangements have been made between the executive branch and the congressional leaders to have a continuing resolution, which is to be considered by the House of Representatives today and probably by the Senate today, to cover, on a temporary basis, the matters within this appropriations bill. And it is obvious that even if we could complete the Senate bill before the end of the fiscal year on September 30, we could not finish a conference in time. So the continuing resolution is the way that we will have to resolve these matters for now. Still, as a matter of protocol and as a matter of form, we in the Senate ought to take up this bill at some point and debate the measures and come to a resolution. With respect to the provision on striker replacement, that is a long, complex subject which has been on the floor of the Senate on many, many occasions. My own view is that there is a question as to the Executive authority on striker replacement in the context that the Congress has refused to act. But whatever that situation may be, it is my view that it is not appropriate to deal with this matter on an appropriations bill. In the full committee the striker replacement provision was reinstated in the bill to prohibit the use of any Federal funds to implement or enforce the President's Executive order. And it is unlikely that there are sufficient votes to terminate a filibuster. My own sense is that the issue will have to await action on another day. As I say, I think it preferable that such legislative matters not be taken up on an appropriations bill. It is currently 9:44. We have some substantial time remaining for argument. I invite my colleagues on the Republican side to come to the floor if anyone has any arguments which he or she wishes to make. How much time remains, Mr. President?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask my Republican colleagues who may be listening to come to the floor if they wish to speak in support of the motion to proceed. The distinguished Senator from Wisconsin has asked for 5 minutes. I yield him 5 minutes at this time, with the request to my colleagues on the Republican side to come to the floor if they wish to speak.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER. How much time does the Senator need?

Mr. SPECTER. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it would be my hope that we would proceed to consider this bill. It is, obviously, a party line matter at this point. As I had said earlier, when the bill came out of the subcommittee, we struck all of the legislative provisions, because in my view, and the view of the members of the subcommittee, we ought not to take up legislation on the appropriations bill. That was the policy of the Appropriations Committee as a general rule on all matters endorsed by our distinguished chairman, Senator Hatfield. But it is my hope that we will take up the bill. As a practical matter, it is difficult to proceed to finish this bill before the end of the fiscal year. Certainly, we could not have a conference even if we could finish it on the Senate floor, if this subject is going to be comprehended within a continuing resolution. I invite my colleagues on the Republican side, who wish to come to the floor to speak in favor of the motion, to do so. How much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER. I yield a minute to my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest one correction to what the Senator from Massachusetts said, and that is, that all of the legislative proposals were stripped by the subcommittee. When they got to full committee there was a vote 14-12 to reinsert this with respect to the striker replacement. It was my hope we would bring the bill to the floor solely in the context of an appropriations bill. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his statements about doing the best we could. It is my hope this bill will yet come up. There are many issues that need to be debated and voted on, a lot of differing views in this body. There are some who plan to offer amendments to try to increase funding for job training--or for education--which I certainly would like to see, if there is any way we could do it. At some point these matters will come to the floor, if not on this motion to proceed. It is my hope we will support the motion to proceed and go ahead with this very important bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as a pro forma matter, I voice an objection at this time since there is no other Senator on the floor to raise that objection. I do so pro forma to protect the record, not because I would not like personally to see us proceed.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. That is the most encouraging thing I have heard today, Mr. President.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for working out this procedure. I have been here almost 15 years. This is the first time, I think, that only Senator Dole and I have been on the floor at the same time. I hope everyone in Russell, KS, who has C- SPAN 2 is watching this proceeding. This is a full Russell, KS, delegation now on the floor conducting the Senate business. I do hope if Russell High School has not yet initiated a course in Senate procedure, they do so very, very promptly. Perhaps Senator Dole and I can nominate Mrs. Alice Mills, the sole remaining teacher who taught both of us, to be emeritus instructor of that course.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have been in a quorum call trying to work out an arrangement on the bill on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, of which I am the manager for the majority as chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, and in the absence of any action on the bill up to the moment--we are optimistic we will have agreement on a procedure to move ahead--I thought it would be useful to take this time to make what would in effect be an opening statement on the bill so that people will be aware of what this bill means. The Labor, Health and Human Services and Education bill, which will shortly be before the Senate, totals $62.8 billion in discretionary budget authority, including $65 million in funds from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. Mandatory spending totals $200.9 billion, an increase of $17.7 billion over the 1995 levels, but those are mandatory expenditures over which we have no control, entitlements. These totals are within the subcommittee's 602(b) allocation for both budget authority and outlays, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The allocation falls over $7 billion below the original appropriated funds for fiscal year 1995 and $4.4 billion below the postrescission levels. That means we have an enormous cut this year, but this is on a trend line to have a balanced budget by the year 2002 so that we do not burden further generations with excessive spending in the present. In structuring this bill, we have tried to deal with this budget with a scalpel instead of a meat ax and very carefully approaching the allocations for the most important items, and I think we have succeeded in doing that. This year has been an extremely difficult one for the subcommittee, and very many difficult decisions had to be made in order to stay within that allocation. Senator Harkin and I have taken a careful look at all of the programs within the bill and have sought to make some modifications in some of the proposals made by the House, particularly in education, workplace safety, and also funding for programs to protect women against violence. I take this opportunity to thank my distinguished colleague, Senator Harkin, for his help and cooperation in bringing this bill forward to this point. Senator Harkin and I have worked together on this subcommittee. Last year, in the 103d Congress, he was the chairman, I ranking; this year it is nicer to be chairman, and Senator Harkin has been a very cooperative ranking member. The important programs funded within this subcommittee's jurisdiction provide moneys to improve the public health, strengthen biomedical research, assure a quality education for America's children, and job training activities to keep America's work force competitive within world markets. The funds are not adequate, Mr. President, but they are the best that can be done under the circumstances. The House budget was less than ours. We had almost $1.6 billion additional funding, and we have put all of that money into education. That is a subject, Mr. President, that I feel very strongly about from my days growing up where education was very heavily stressed in the Specter household really because my parents had so little of it. My father, as an immigrant from Russia, coming to this country as a young man of 18, had no formal education at all. My mother came with her family when she was 5 years old from a small town on the Russian- Polish border and she went to only the eighth grade. Her father, my grandfather, died of a heart attack in his mid-forties, and she had to leave school in the eighth grade to help support the family. My brother, my two sisters and I, having had excellent educational opportunities, have been able to share in the American dream. I think in the long run education is the answer. If you take a look at virtually all of the problems that beset our society, problems of welfare, problems of teenage pregnancy, problems of disintegration of the family, problems of crime, education would be the long-range answer. Twenty-eight years ago, when I was an official in the city of Philadelphia, working as district attorney and a candidate that year for mayor, there was an impressive book written, ``Cities in a Race with Time,'' and not a whole lot has changed because we really have not dug into the educational system in America. One of the proposals in this bill which we have funded in the Senate but was not funded in the House has been the Goals 2000 program, initiated under a Republican President, President Bush, carried forward under a Democratic President, President Clinton. There are two States which have not taken funding under Goals 2000, the State of Virginia and the State of New Hampshire, and one State, Montana, will not take funding next year. It is my view, Mr. President, that Goals 2000 constitutes a very important step forward. They are voluntary goals. They are not mandatory. States may adopt other goals as they see fit There are some standards. Terrel Bell, in 1983, was Secretary of Education when a book came forward talking about the crisis in the American educational system, and still we have failed to deal adequately with that issue. We held hearings in the Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, on September 12, looking for a way to eliminate some of the Federal strings to satisfy all of the States, and we may have found changes to pursue in an authorization bill. Also, there is a possibility that funds might be given directly to local school districts subject to veto power by the State which has sovereignty. But it is my hope that states will use Goals 2000 to set these standards to strengthen education in America. On biomedical research, Mr. President, we have for the National Institutes of Health nearly $11.6 billion, an increase of some $300 million over the fiscal year 1995 appropriations. These funds will boost the biomedical research appropriations to maintain and strengthen the tremendous strides which have been made in unlocking medical mysteries which lead to new treatments and cures. Gene therapy offers great promise for the future. In the 15 years that I have been in the Senate, all those years on the appropriations subcommittee dealing with health and human services, where cuts have been proposed by Presidents, both Democrat and Republican, we have increased funding for medical research, which I think it is very important. Two years ago, I had a medical problem and was the beneficiary of the MRI developed in 1985, after I had come to the Senate, a life-saving procedure to detect an intracranial lesion. So I have professional, political, and personal experiences to attest to the importance of health research funding. On Alzheimer's disease, Mr. President, this last year the United States spent over $90 billion to care for Alzheimer's patients. This devastating disease robs its victims of their minds while depriving families of the well-being and security they deserve. We have been working to focus more attention and more money into the causes and cures of Alzheimer's. To address this problem, the bill contains increased funding for research into finding the cause and cures for Alzheimer's disease. The bill also includes nearly $5 million for a State grant program to help families caring for Alzheimer's patients at home. The statistics are enormously impressive, Mr. President, that if we could delay the onset of Alzheimer's disease, we could save billions of dollars. On women's health, in 1995, 182,000 women will be diagnosed as having breast cancer and some 46,000 women will die from the disease. The investment in education and treatment advances led to the announcement last year that the breast cancer death rates in American women declined by 4.7 percent between 1989 and 1992, the largest such short-term decline since 1950. And while this was encouraging news, it only highlighted the fact that the Federal Government investment is beginning to pay off. While it was difficult in a tight budget year to raise funding levels, the subcommittee placed a very high priority on women's health issues. The bill before the Senate contains an increase of $25 million for breast and cervical cancer screening, increases to expand research on the breast cancer gene, to permit the [[Page S 14406]] development of a diagnostic test to identify women who are at risk, and speed research to develop effective methods of prevention, early detection and treatment. Funding for the Office of Women's Health has also been doubled to continue the national action plan on breast cancer, and to develop and establish a clearinghouse to provide health care professionals with a broad range of women's health-related information. This increase has been recommended for the Office of Women's Health, because of the very effective work that that office has been doing. On Healthy Start, Mr. President, children born of low birthweight is the leading cause of infant mortality. Infants who have been exposed to drugs, alcohol or tobacco in utero are more likely to be born prematurely and of low birthweight. We have in our society, Mr. President, thousands of children born each year no bigger than the size of my hand, weighing a pound, some even as little as 12 ounces. They are human tragedies at birth carrying scars for a lifetime. They are enormously expensive, costing more than $200,000 until they are released from the hospital. Years ago, Dr. Koop outlined the way to deal with this issue by prenatal visits. The Healthy Start program was initiated, and has been carried forward, to target resources for prenatal care to high incidence communities; it is funded as well as we could under this bill with increases as I have noted. On AIDS, the bill contains $2.6 billion for research, education, prevention and services to embattle the scourge of AIDS, including $379 million for emergency aid to the 42 cities hardest hit by this disease. When it comes to the subject of violence against women, it is one of the epidemic problems in our society. The Department of Justice reports that each year women are the victims of more than 4.5 million violent crimes, including an estimated 500,000 rapes or other sexual assaults. But crime statistics do not tell the whole story. I have visited many shelters, Mr. President, in Harrisburg and Pittsburgh and have seen firsthand the physical and emotional suffering so many women are enduring. In a sad, ironic way the women I saw were the lucky ones because they survived violent attacks. The Labor-HHS-Education bill contains $96 million for programs authorized by the Violent Crime Reduction Act. The bill before the Senate contains the full amount authorized for these programs, including $50 million for battered-women shelters, $35 million for rape prevention programs, $7 million for runaway youth, and $4.9 million for community demonstration programs, the operation of the hotline and education programs for youth. These funds have been appropriated, Mr. President, after very, very careful analysis as to where the subcommittee and the full committee felt the money could best be spent. On the school-to-work program, the committee recommends $245 million within the Departments of Labor and Education, which is maintenance of the level provided in 1995. We would like to have had more money, but that was the best we could do considering the other cuts. On nutrition programs for the elderly, for the congregate and home- delivered meals program, the bill provides almost $475 million. Within this amount is $110.3 million for the home-delivered meals program, an increase of $16.2 million over the 1995 appropriation because there are such long waiting lists, so many seniors who really depend upon this for basic subsistence. On education, we have allocated the full amount of the increase that our subcommittee received, some $1.6 billion. The bill does not contain all of the funds we would like to have provided, but it is a maximum effort on this important subject. As to job training, Mr. President, we know all too well that high unemployment means a waste of valuable human resources, inevitably depresses consumer spending, and weakens our economy. The bill before us today includes $3.4 billion for job training programs. And again, candidly, I would like to see more, Mr. President, but this is the maximum that we could allocate. As to workplace safety, the bill contains an increase of $62 million over the amount recommended by the House for worker protection programs. While progress has been made in this area, there are still far too many work-related injuries and illnesses, and these funds will provide programs and inspect businesses and industry, weed out occupational hazards, and protect worker pensions within reasonable bounds. LIHEAP is a program which is very important, Mr. President, to much of America. It provides low-income heating and fuel assistance. Eighty percent of those who receive LIHEAP assistance earn less than $7,000 a year. It is a program which was zeroed out by the House, and we have reinstated it in this bill. We have effectively included a total of $1 billion here, $100 million of which is carryover funds, as we understand the current state of affairs, although it is hard to get an exact figure, and an additional $900 million. As the Congress consolidates and streamlines programs, Federal administrative costs must also be downsized. In this bill, with the exception of the Social Security Administration, we have cut program management an average of 8 percent. Many view administrative costs as waste and others suggest that deeper cuts are justified. It is our judgment that any further reductions would be counterproductive. In closing, Mr. President, I want to thank the extraordinary staffs who have worked on this program. On the Senate side, Bettilou Taylor and Craig Higgins have been extraordinary and professional in taking inordinately complicated printouts and working through a careful analysis of the priorities. We received requests from many of our colleagues. And to the maximum extent, we have accommodated those requests. We have received many requests from people around the country. We have accommodated as many requests for personal meetings as we could, both with the Senators and with their staffs. And we think this is a very significant bill. There are people on both sides who have objected to provisions of the bill. When a motion to proceed is offered, it is my hope that we will proceed to take up this bill and that we will pass it. We are aware that there has been the threat of a veto from the executive branch, and I invite the President or any of his officials to suggest improvements if they feel they can do it better. There is a commitment in America to a balanced budget and, that is something we have to do. We have structured our program to have that balanced budget within 7 years by the year 2002. The President talks about a balanced budget within 9 years. I suggest that our targeting is the preferable target. To the extent people have suggestions on better allocations, we are prepared to listen, but this is our best judgment. We urge the Senate to proceed with this bill. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, for 20 years the United States Government has been prohibited from training foreign police forces. Section 660 of the Foreign Assistance Act reflected earlier congressional concern that U.S. personnel should not train security forces in repressive regimes. But for more than a decade we have realized that some overseas police training is necessary and important--particularly in the area of antiterrorism. This year's pending foreign operations appropriations bill adds another important exemption: It allows the training of overseas police forces to monitor and enforce sanctions. But I believe that another exemption is needed. The President, civilian officials, and U.S. military commanders, need the authority to conduct public- safety training during and after significant military operations. As the United States discovered in Grenada, Panama, and Haiti, public order is likely to collapse when existing regimes collapse. In each of these cases, U.S. forces were unable to depart until order was restored--and a mechanism for maintaining public safety was created. In none of these cases was this done smoothly or efficiently. The U.S. Justice Department's International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program [ICITAP], which is permitted under current law to perform training in this hemisphere, did not perform well. Given the relatively small size of its training organization, and the demands created by hostile and demanding environments, this was not surprising. During the past 10 years, there has not been an effective civilian organization for conducting public-safety training in the context of a U.S. military operation. In the words of the Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces, ``our recent experience in Latin America, the Caribbean, and [[Page S 14008]] Africa shows that there are no civilian agencies capable of short- notice law-enforcement operations and training in hostile, demanding environments.'' In the absence of an effective civilian training organization, the U.S. military was compelled to perform public-safety training. Military commanders worked hard to ensure that they did so without violating section 660. In Somalia, for example, marines trained ``auxiliary security forces'' rather than police forces. But because of section 660 restrictions, U.S. military commanders could not plan and train for this mission. In short, it was done on an ad hoc, reactive basis. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate has accepted my amendment on overseas training, which would permit the President to use whatever agency of Government was most appropriate to train public-safety forces during and after a military operation. In some cases, such as Haiti, the environment was relatively peaceful, and the training mission could be carried out by the Justice Department. But in other, more dangerous situations, such as Panama, the President might direct local military commanders to conduct short-term training. Once order is restored, civilian agencies could take over longer-term training and assistance. In the post-cold-war world, the United States in my judgment will from time to time be compelled to use military force to protect our interests, and to carry out other operations where public safety will be an issue. Mr. President, I believe this amendment will help U.S. military commanders perform this mission much more effectively in the future. I thank the distinguished managers of the pending legislation for accepting my amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, for two decades, section 660 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 has prohibited the U.S. Government from training foreign police forces. There are a number of exemptions, however: For example, antiterrorism and counterdrug training have been permitted. The foreign operations bill contains a new exemption; namely, for training foreign police to monitor and enforce sanctions. The 1996 foreign operations report contains an additional exemption; that is, training for monitoring and enforcing embargoes. Deputy Secretary John White and other officials believe that another exemption is needed. In their view, the U.S. Government should be allowed to carry out police training during and after U.S. military operations. During military operations in Grenada, Panama, Somalia, and Haiti, public order broke down. Creating new public safety forces in these countries was essential: U.S. forces were unable to leave until there was a new police force in place to protect the public. But section 660 prohibitions technically prevented the Defense Department--the most effective organization in hostile environments-- from performing this training; as the report of the congressionally mandated, bipartisan Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces stated, ``there are no civilian agencies capable of short notice training in hostile, demanding environment. We expect DOD will continue to be called upon to carry out law enforcement operations in the future.'' The Commission recommended that legislation that restricts the ability of the Federal Government to conduct constabulary training, for example, section 660, should be amended to allow greater DOD participation. The Pentagon is prepared to accept its responsibility for short-term training in hostile environments, for example, Somalia. Before they do so, however, they wish to see section 660 amended. The amendment would not require the Defense Department to do the training. Rather, it would allow the President to use whatever Government agency he felt was appropriate. In a lsss hostile environment, for example, Panama after Noreiga's capture, the FBI or other agency might do the training. amendment no. 2715 On page 67, line 11, add the following section: (b) Direct costs associated with meeting a foreign customer's additional or unique requirements will continue to be allowable under such contracts. Loadings applicable to such direct costs shall be permitted at the same rates applicable to procurement of like items purchased by the Department of Defense for its own use.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished managers and the Senator from Wisconsin for permitting me to speak for 5 minutes at this point on the welfare reform package. I have been engaged for the past several weeks, almost continuously, with the Ruby Ridge hearings, but I did want to make a few comments and have them printed in the Record before the vote. Mr. President, I think we have passed a reasonable welfare reform package today with overwhelming, bipartisan support. The issue of welfare reform has been one that I have been very much concerned about for many years, having introduced welfare reform legislation going back to the 99th Congress, with Senate bills S.2578 and S.2579, and then in the 100th Congress, with Senate bills S.280 and S.281. I especially compliment my colleague, Senator Santorum, for his outstanding contribution on this bill and all the Senators for working on a bill which has broad bipartisan support--a virtual consensus--of 87 votes in favor of this bill. I am very much worried, frankly, about the admonition of our distinguished colleague from New York, Senator Moynihan, who has issued the concern, the warning, that we may find children sleeping on grates. As we have structured this 5-year reform package, we have to be vigilant on that. Certainly, we have seen the development of a homeless class in America as a result of the release of people from mental institutions in the late 1970's without appropriate community support. I am pleased to see that there have been significant improvements on this bill, characterized by the Congressional Quarterly this week at page 2805, September 16, 1995, commenting about how centrist Republicans have been able to achieve significant results with what you might characterize as the balance of power, coming in with a very strong stand on important matters like child care and maintenance of effort provisions for the States. The bill did contain a provision, on which I worked from the outset of the welfare reform debate, that would not sanction the benefits of a single, custodial parent with a child under 5 who demonstrated an unmet need for child care. There were a couple of important provisions where, frankly, I casted a couple of votes I was not happy about but did so in order to set the stage for compromises. One of them was an amendment to fund child care offered by Senator Dodd, which was defeated narrowly, 50 to 48. My principal concern for opposing the amendment was a lack of an offset for six of the eleven billion it proposed. But that negative vote was cast in anticipation of a compromise which was later reached, providing for some $3 billion over 5 years exclusively for child care. The second issue was the maintenance of effort provision, where Senator Breaux offered an amendment requiring States to maintain 90 percent of their 1994 match on welfare spending for 5 years--the duration of the bill. I opposed the Breaux amendment with the assurance from the managers and the distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, that a 80 percent provision on maintenance of effort for the States would be inserted and would be fought for in conference as opposed to the 90 percent provision which would not be retained in conference. As usual, the better is the enemy of the good. I supported the majority leader's position, voted to defeat the Breaux amendment, and we have eight-tenths of the loaf with an 80 percent maintenance of effort. Senator Domenici led a very important battle on the vote to strike the family cap, which was agreed to by a very substantial number, 66 to 34. So that as we have come to the end of the debate on welfare reform, I think we have a reasonably good bill. Of course, we will all be watching it very, very closely to see what the outcome is from the conference. Beyond the conference report, we will have to maintain a very close vigil over this very important subject to make sure that the prediction and concerns expressed by Senator Moynihan do not eventuate, where we do not find the situation where children are sleeping on grates.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this is a very sad day for many reasons. I think we are losing an outstanding Senator at a time when the Senate and the country needs his expertise very badly. I join my many colleagues and express my sentiment about the friendship which I have enjoyed with Senator Packwood. I think that the Senate, the country, Senator Packwood, and the people who have registered complaints about him would have been better served had there been public hearings. This is a view that I have always held and expressed with my vote in favor of those public hearings. I understand the business of the Senate. But I believe that we could have found the time here with many of the quorum calls, or perhaps on weekends, or perhaps evenings, to have heard this matter. I believe that America was entitled to full disclosure. I believe the people who came forward with complaints were entitled to be heard, and I think Senator Packwood was entitled to have a defense. I think that I, as a ``juror,'' a Senator, who had to pass on the issues, would have been prepared and better off had that been done. I have always been opposed to plea bargains of any sort. I understand the kind of pain that would have been involved had we gone through those hearings. But I think it would have served the institution well and all of the parties well. I have had one other very painful experience with Senator Packwood when I got six stitches under my left eye a decade ago. But I consider this day much more painful.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. By final comment, this increase in operating mass transit is necessary for the working poor, disabled, and the elderly. I urge my colleagues to defeat the motion to table.

Mr. SPECTER. If the Senator would allow me, I wanted to offer some documents. I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated July 25 to me from James J. Lutz, from the Pennsylvania Association of Municipal Transit Authorities be printed in the Record, together with a survey of losses to cities in Pennsylvania, together with a document showing the offsets needed to increase mass transit.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Santorum and myself and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SPECTER. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to table.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, at the outset, I add my words of commendation to those already articulated for the distinguished chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee and the distinguished ranking member for an outstanding job which they have done and acknowledge the very grave difficulties in stretching a limited number of dollars to a great many important aspects of transportation. I serve on the Transportation Subcommittee and advised the distinguished chairman at the markup on the subcommittee of a number of concerns I had, one of which was the mass transit operating expenditures, which have been reduced very materially from $710 million in Federal operating assistance to $400 million. These Federal funds are used to keep transit fares down and to maintain service. The amendment which I have offered on behalf of Senator Santorum and myself would increase the funding by $40 million in budget authority and $24 million in outlays with a series of offsets which total $43.2 million in budget authority and $24 million in outlays. This amendment is being offered to make some adjustment in operating assistance which is relatively minimal--a 10-percent increase but at least some effort to ameliorate and improve the tremendous losses which will be suffered across the country. These offsets have been very carefully calibrated to do the minimum amount of harm to the areas where the offsets are obtained. For example, on GSA rental payments, there is a $5 million offset in both budget authority and outlays which still leaves the Senate at $134.6 million which is above the House figure; a $10 million reduction in budget authority and $6 million in outlays from FAA research and development, which still leaves the Senate $205.9 million ahead of the House figure of $143 million; DOT working capital fund, a $5 million offset in budget authority and $3 million in outlays, which leaves the Senate at $95.4 million compared to $92.2 million for the House; the Federal Transit Administration, administration expenses, a reduction in budget authority of $2.74 million and outlays of $2.47 million, which leaves the Senate at $39.2 million equal to the House $39.2 million; an offset of $1.1 million in budget authority and $1 million in outlays from the Secretary of Transportation salaries and expenses, noting a very small reduction; and $3.37 million in budget authority and $2.53 million in outlays from Transportation planning, research and development, which leaves the Senate still ahead of the House $6.3 million to $3.3 million. I omitted the figure of the Secretary of Transportation salaries and expenses, which still leaves the Senate figure $55.4 million, ahead of the House figure of $55 million. This has been a very, very carefully calibrated reduction in a number of accounts which I think can be accommodated without any undue problems. The information which has been provided to me from my Pennsylvania constituent group, the Pennsylvania Association of Municipal Transportation Authorities, and also provided to my distinguished colleague, Senator Santorum, shows the impact on transit authorities across the State which are very, very substantial. For example, in Wilkes-Barre there would be a loss of $409,000, which would require an increase in fares of 104 percent, from $1.10 to $2.25 on fares, or a reduction of service of 39 percent, which would result in a customer loss of 680,000 riders. In Indiana, PA, for example, an operating loss of $28,260 would cause a fare increase of 80 percent, from $1 to $1.80, or reduction in service of some 25 percent. There would be losses across the board of a very substantial nature-- Allentown, Altoona, Harrisburg, Lancaster, Scranton, State College. In addition to the ones already referred to, a loss to Pittsburgh of some $3.75 million, and Philadelphia, $11.5 million. Now, this is minimal, as I say, Madam President. And I offer this modification with some fine-tuning to an excellent job already done by Senator Hatfield and Senator Lautenberg, looking across the entire spectrum of expenses in the transportation account. But this is being offered in an effort to try to bring some help to the mass transit riders. There has been a reduction in the fares for urban areas of 43.7 percent, in rural transportation of 19.4 percent, which we had considered making it a modification and did not do so. But this I would consider minimal and necessary. The point has already been made about mass transit being necessary for the elderly and for the working poor. And at a time when we are considering the changes in the welfare laws, we really need to keep people on the move in the Philadelphia area, for example. Keep people moving from center city to suburban areas and moving in all the towns across Pennsylvania. I am sure these figures are duplicated, really, across the country. That states the essence of the position. And I would be delighted to yield at this time to my distinguished colleague, Senator Santorum. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, my amendment would provide $1 million to the Forest Service for the acquisition of subsurface oil and gas rights beneath the Kane Experimental Forest to protect the vital research and experimentation programs in the forest. I am advised that if these subsurface rights are not purchased this year, the landowner is likely to allow the commencement of exploration for oil and gas under the forest. Located on the eastern boundary of the Allegheny National Forest, the 1,737-acre Kane Experimental Forest is the field headquarters of the Allegheny Plateau Research Center of the U.S. Forest Service's Northeastern Forest Experimental Station. This research station has been a leader in the development of Allegheny hardwood management techniques since the 1930's. Over the years, the Forest Service has pursued an acquisition program of subsurface rights where important research would be adversely impacted by further oil and gas exploration. This program of acquisition has now moved to the Kane Experimental Forest, where new extraction activities are planned, some of which would likely eviscerate the vital research and experimental programs of the forest. The Forest Service has requested a $1 million appropriation for fiscal year 1996 to allow the agency to purchase the subsurface oil and gas rights beneath the Kane Experimental Forest. These funds would allow the consolidation of surface and subsurface rights throughout the forest to continue while protecting invaluable forest research and data. This would also reduce the management costs that the Forest Service currently incurs by having to monitor the extraction activities in the Kane Forest. Mr. President, I would note that my amendment makes these funds available for the purchase of these subsurface rights, but leaves the decision to the discretion of the Forest Service. I urge the adoption of my amendment and yield the floor. amendment no. 2319 (Purpose: To provide that $275,000 shall be made available from the cash equalization account in the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the acquisition of Mt. Jumbo in the Lolo National Forest, Montana) On page 69, line 11, insert ``, of which $275,000 may be made available from the cash equalization account for the acquisition of Mt. Jumbo in the Lolo Natonal Forest, Montana'' before the period.