Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I yield myself 1 additional minute. If we are to reach the balanced budget by the year 2002, there is going to have to be a fair share reduction on many items which we would like to have. And I think it is a fair submission that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is able to tighten its belt and do the job within the parameter of the existing budget, so additional funds should not be added at the expense of another worthwhile account. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SPECTER. If the time is extended for an additional 10 minutes--

Mr. SPECTER. I do.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I understand there was an agreement on an up-down vote. I was not present at that time. I withdraw the motion to table. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains on my side?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this has been a lively debate. I think all of the issues have been aired. I think the accounts as they currently stand express appropriate priorities as best we can determine them, and I move to table the Harkin amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Illinois. The committee's intent, in recommending this rescission, was to revisit funding once authorizing legislation has been enacted through the regular process of Judiciary Committee consideration. There is some concern that adding this responsibility to the Office of Refugee Resettlement in the Department of Health and Human Services could increase pressure on already underfunded domestic resettlement activities, as opposed to placing responsibility under the Immigration and Naturalization Service. I believe this is an issue the authorizing committees need to address. Nevertheless, it is indeed my intention to resolve this matter in conference to the satisfaction of all those who--like myself--value legal immigration and recognize the importance to our immigration policies of an effective naturalization process. I look forward to working with the distinguished Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman, Mr. Hatfield; my counterpart in the House, Congressman Porter, chairman of the House Labor/HHS Appropriations Subcommittee; and the other conferees to address this issue, and I thank Senator Simon, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Moseley-Braun for their attention to this important matter.

Mr. SPECTER. Yes, based on information supplied to me by the Department of Health and Human Services, there would still be about $2 million available for new research and demonstration projects by the Health Care Financing Administration, even after the Senate recommended rescission. essential air service

Mr. SPECTER. How much for the opposition?

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

Mr. SPECTER. I yield.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment. Much as I would like to see additional funding for public broadcasting, the subcommittee of which I am the chairman, the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human Resources and Education, has made a very careful allocation and has in fact reduced considerably the rescission by the House of Representatives for fiscal years 1996 and 1997. The House wanted to cut public broadcasting by $47 million. We limited the rescission to $26,360,000 for fiscal year 1996. For fiscal year 1997, the House of Representatives wanted to cut public broadcasting by $94 million, and our subcommittee limited that rescission to $29,360,000, leaving public broadcasting at its current rate of $285,640,000. That is fairly complicated arithmetic, but what it boils down to is on the current mark, there has been substantial consideration given to public broadcasting. The responses which the committee has heard from those who are interested in public broadcasting is a sigh of relief that their funding has been maintained at its present level. I would like to see more funding for public broadcasting. But in setting this mark we feel there has been a realistic and appropriate balancing of priorities. When the Senator from Iowa talks about employment for older Americans and would like to add funding there, of course it would be fine to add $14 million additionally to the $396 million recommended by the committee. But here again, the Appropriations Committee has made a very careful balancing of priorities. It is possible to pick apart the appropriations bill in a thousand ways and to take accounts which sound wonderful, like older Americans or public broadcasting, and take them from accounts like Radio Free Europe which makes a great sound bite or looks complicated when the Sunday papers reprint the vote. But this has been very, very carefully worked out. Senator Biden has made as good an argument as you can make in 2\1/2\ minutes. I am sorry he is not on the floor to compliment him, because it is seldom that Senator Biden makes that good an argument in 2\1/2\ minutes. Usually it is longer and proportionately it may not justify the additional time. I wish he were here to reply to that. It is with some reluctance that I oppose my colleague, Senator Harkin, who serves as ranking member on the subcommittee. We have worked together for a very, very long period of time. But as the allocations now stand, there is an appropriate allocation and balancing of priorities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. We have 5 minutes left. Will the Senator from Delaware take 2\1/2\?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I feel a particular affinity for James Stewart for many reasons. In addition to playing a U.S. Senator for the movies, he was also the lead actor in ``The Philadelphia Story,'' for which he won an Academy Award. He is a Pennsylvanian from a small town, Indiana, PA, which has a very striking statue in his honor. In opening this museum on May 20--we talk about it on an appropriations bill--it is relevant to know that there is no Federal funding, at least to my knowledge, for this museum, which the people are offering as a tribute to James Stewart. He has really a remarkable career as an actor and as a great patriot, one of the first movie stars to enter in World War II. He rose from the rank of private to the rank of colonel. He had 20 missions over Bremen, Frankfurt, and Berlin. He is an all-American hero. He reminds us of that when he appears frequently on television and in the reruns of ``It's a Wonderful Life.'' James Stewart is an American success story, and it is entirely appropriate that he be honored in his hometown on May 20 of this year. Jimmy Stewart's achievements on and off the silver screen are well known to us, and Indiana, PA, is indeed fortunate to claim him as one of its own. He was born in Indiana, PA, on May 20, 1908, and graduated from Princeton University in 1932 with a degree in Architecture. Shortly after his graduation, Jimmy joined a summer theater group, debuting that same year in a production of ``Goodbye Again.'' After several years of performing in Broadway productions, Jimmy made his film debut in ``The Murder Man'' in 1935. His legendary film career was launched, and over the next several years he would bring us such classics as ``It's A Wonderful Life,'' ``Destry Rides Again,'' and ``The Philadelphia Story.'' His 1939 ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'' stands before us all--here in Washington and all throughout our country--as an abiding testimony to the importance of courage and integrity. Jimmy Stewart's excellence in film, however, is matched by his sense of duty and patriotism. When his country called him to serve in World War II, he answered willingly; he served as a bomber pilot in the U.S. Air Force with dedication and distinction, earning several medals and commendations--and yet all the while with a sense of modesty and humility that belied the star-of-the-screen status he had left behind. By the time he returned home to the States, Mr. Jimmy Stewart had become Col. Jimmy Stewart, and over the course of his continued service in the Air Force Reserve in the years after the war he rose to the rank of Brigadier General. His post-war return to the world of film brought us some of his greatest cinematic achievements, including such collaborative efforts with Alfred Hitchcock as ``Rear Window,'' ``The Man Who Knew Too Much,'' and ``Vertigo.'' In 1950, he brought us ``Harvey,'' in 1953, ``The Glenn Miller Story,'' and in 1962, ``The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.'' And in the most gloriously atypical fashion, he and his wife Gloria remained together through it all year after year until her recent passing. Jimmy Stewart's many contributions to the world of film, as well as the steadfast humility of his character and the tremendous sacrifice that he made as he served in behalf of his country, have endeared him to us all, and the occasion of the opening of this museum in his honor is a special one indeed. I am personally grateful for the joy that he has brought to us in his films and for the tremendous model of integrity and selflessness that he has exhibited for so many years, and I am hopeful that this modest museum erected in his honor will serve to enshrine his contributions and his character for many generations to come. These remarks, along with the remarks by my distinguished colleague, Senator Santorum, as we pay tribute to this very, very distinguished American and Pennsylvanian. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague, Senator Santorum, in commemorating the opening of the museum in Indiana, PA, on May 20 of this year, which will commemorate the 87th birthday of a great American. James Stewart spoke in the Senate of the United States to a spellbound crowd in the movie ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' unlike those assembled here today, who are still conducting some substantial business as we near the completion of this important appropriations bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, rather than taking time now from the amendment of the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Senator Santorum and I would like to amend the unanimous-consent agreement to take 10 minutes at the conclusion of the next vote.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I strongly support the conference report to H.R. 831, the Self-Employed Health Care Deduction Act. There are approximately 9 million self-employed business owners representing almost 10 percent of the working population. These individuals are employed in all types of industries: from mining and service industries to construction and manufacturing. They are the entrepreneurial small business men and women that spur our national economic growth. These are the individuals that embody the American dream. This provision is critical to their survival. My offices have been inundated with hundreds of calls from concerned taxpayers around Pennsylvania urging the Congress to reinstate the deduction. These callers are just a fraction of the 9 million self- employed taxpayers that are relying on us to pass this measure as quickly as possible so they can continue to utilize this deduction for the 1994 tax year. Mr. President, I have consistently supported this deduction for the self-employed. In the 103d and the 104th Congresses, I introduced legislation to provide targeted health-care reform. One of the major provisions I included in that bill was 100 percent deductibility for health insurance for the self-employed. Under current law, businesses are permitted to deduct 100 percent of what they pay for the health insurance of their employees, but self-employed individuals may not deduct any of their cost because that provision expired on December 31, 1993. It is hard to find a provision in the Internal Revenue Code that is more discriminatory than this one. According to the Congressional Research Service, 3.9 million uninsured workers are self-employed. Providing full deductibility of health insurance premiums, beginning with reinstatement of the 25 percent deduction for 1994 and researching 100 percent by 1993 for self-employed individuals is a simple matter of fairness. It should also make health insurance coverage more affordable for the estimated 3.9 million self-employed individuals and their families who are now uninsured. On January 19, 1995, I signed a letter along with 74 of my colleagues to Majority Leader Dole and Minority Leader Daschle urging them to reinstate this expired provision. I believed then, as I do now, that the interests of hard-working Americans need to be a top priority before the U.S. Senate. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the reinstatement of this provision. This legislation is an important first step in providing tax fairness to our Nations' self-employed business owners. I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor. (At the request of Mr. Dole, the following statement was printed in the Record.)

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I ask my colleague from Vermont how much time he needs.

Mr. SPECTER. Let me respond briefly to the Senator from Arizona. We have made very substantial cuts in this program. And when he says that this is an illustration of, if we do not cut here, where are we going to cut, our job is to establish priorities. That is our responsibility. The Appropriations Committee met its responsibility and we cut other less-important programs. So we agree with the Senator from Arizona that the budget has to be cut, the budget has to be balanced, the deficit has to be cut, that it is a matter of priorities. I think when all of the Senators came running to the floor here to speak for the enormous amount of 90 seconds, they did so because of their very deep concern for the program and this is a priority item which ought to stay. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, and I ask unanimous consent that certain documents be included in the Record which lend some factual support--certainly not an exhaustive statement--but some factual support that should be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. SPECTER. May I ask unanimous consent that my colleague be permitted to speak for up to 2 minutes?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, those who may be watching on C-SPAN 2 may be wondering why so little time is allocated here. This has been an effort by the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl, to air the subject, but it is not going to be brought to a vote. Were it to be brought to a vote, there would be substantially more time allocated for this very important debate. The Senators who have come to the floor have spoken for very limited periods of time and have done so to register their passionate concern about this issue. As chairman of the subcommittee which had jurisdiction over this issue and brought it to the floor, we have very carefully considered the totality of the package, and the Senate has met the House figure--the House figure totaling $17.3 billion, and the Senate figure is in excess of $13 billion. But the difference is accommodated by deferring the expenditures on FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Our subcommittee and the full committee determined that this funding should remain in LIHEAP because of its importance. The statistics have already been cited and I shall not repeat them. But the overwhelming majority of people have annual incomes of less than $8,000, or even $6,000. And regarding the choice of many elderly for either heating or eating, when there are emergency measures taken on alternative makeshift heating and lighting devices, an enormous number of deaths result--11 people, mostly children, in Philadelphia in a 5-month period, from August 1992 to January 1993. While we do not have nationwide figures, they would be enormous. This is one of the most urgent programs in the Federal budget. It exemplifies what I have said. While I am committed and I think the Congress is committed on consensus to balancing the budget by the year 2002, it has to be done with a scalpel and not a meat ax. This is a very, very, important program. Were there a longer period of time, I think we would have heard many Senators coming to the floor. Some 35 have signed a letter. Mr. President, I note my colleague from Pennsylvania on the floor. I would ask how much time remains.

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