Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I ask the Senator, do you want to speak now?

Mr. SPECTER. I think that would be acceptable, if it is OK with the Senator from California.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask consent that Senator Cardin be recognized now and then Senator Feinstein be recognized next, and if others appear, it is appropriate, as Senator Cardin suggested, that we alternate.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in listening to this debate and having received a letter from the Speaker, the concerns I have are whether there was a disproportionate share going to some localities in California. If I could direct a question to the Senator from California: What is your response to the concerns raised by the Senator from Wyoming that the formula was settled last year and that this, in effect, reopens the formula and is going to direct funds to areas in your State where those funds could be directed to the same serious problem which Pennsylvania has in our big cities--Pittsburgh and Philadelphia? If you could first respond on the issue as to whether the formula was resolved last year.

Mr. SPECTER. The problem is one of enormous seriousness, and it is very difficult to find the funding with what we have allocated on our discretionary spending. In a context where some $36 million is being added in the House bill and some $6 million has been allocated to San Francisco in the House bill--and I am very sympathetic to San Francisco's problem and I understand the distinguished Senator from California was mayor of San Francisco and it is within the district of the Speaker of the House, so I understand their interest there--what I am trying to evaluate is whether there is undue funding going because of the prominence of the advocates of the position by the Senator from California. I think I understand it now and I will weigh and consider it. I thank the Senator from California for yielding me the time.

Mr. SPECTER. How much time do we have, Mr. President?

Mr. SPECTER. When you talk about accountability, it is present. It is an open book. The Job Corps is administered by the Department of Labor. It is not unusual to have a sole-source contract. When you have somebody like the AFL-CIO, which has so much knowledge, and so many of their experts are at work on this program, it makes very good sense to give the opportunity to carry out the program. It is all subject to the review by the Department of Labor. I think the quality of this program speaks for itself. There is agreement on it. It has an important purpose. I believe the record shows that these funds have been wisely spent. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the chairman. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa, chairman of the subcommittee, has already advanced the substantive argument about our efforts to deal with health care for children. I have supported it with a very solid vote. We will take care of that issue. The President has vetoed the bill, and I and others have signified our willingness to vote to override. It was not overridden in the House. The President has signified his willingness to negotiate. There are some who do not want to negotiate on the congressional side. I believe that is a mistake. If they want to attach political blame to the President if the program should lapse, ultimately, we will have a negotiation because the American people would see through the facade and understand that those who refuse to negotiate are the ones responsible if the program lapses and is terminated. We will take care of congressional and Federal action for children's health. What the amendment seeks to do is to eliminate earmarks. Earmarks have a specific congressional designation budget-wise and are vitally important projects, such as the dredging of the Delaware in Philadelphia to provide a 45-foot channel which traditionally has been the responsibility of the Federal Government under constitutional provisions on waterways and related matters. It would eliminate flood control, which is vital. It would eliminate many items where there is congressional expertise and understanding. Take the budget that is on the floor now. It is $152 billion. We have allocated $400 million, which is about one-quarter of 1 percent. So 99\3/4\ percent goes to the bureaucrats in the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Labor. I suggest that is an imbalance. People in the House of Representatives know their districts much better than people sitting downtown in big bureaus in Washington. Senators know their States better than the bureaucrats. I dare say the astute Senator from Oklahoma, the proponent of this amendment, knows what is going on in Oklahoma better than the bureaucrats and would be in a better position to identify projects which are worthwhile. But to limit congressional control to one-quarter of 1 percent is certainly not appropriate, certainly not overbearing. I wouldn't call it de minimis because no dollar amount is de minimis. We understand it is not the Government's money; it is the taxpayers' money. The Senator from Iowa has made a very fundamental point. In fact, he made a couple of fundamental points; in fact, he has made several fundamental points. One is the transparency. It is all out in the open. We are prepared to debate any move to strike any of the so-called earmarks. Earmarks has become a dirty word. But when you reach a real need somewhere and have an application for Federal funds that a Member of the House or the Senate understands, and in the broader context of one-quarter of 1 percent, I don't think that goes too far to having Members who know their States and know their districts make those allocations. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on the matter of management, after these votes we will move ahead to take up any other amendments that any Senators wish to offer. We had an understanding to conclude this bill by 12:30 today, and we are anxious to come as close to that time as we can. If Senators want to pursue any other amendments, they ought to consult with the managers immediately or we intend to go to third reading to complete this bill.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the issue of providing health care for children will be taken care of on the SCHIP bill, which ultimately will be subject to negotiations between the President and the Congress. The allocations on earmarks amount to approximately one-quarter of 1 percent. Ninety-nine and three-quarters percent will go to the bureaucrats in the departments. Members of the Senate and House have more knowledge about what is going on in their districts and their States, and this is a very modest application for very worthwhile programs. The Senator from Oklahoma conceded in the argument earlier that he is not challenging the worthwhileness of any of these programs. Any of them are subject to attack to be stricken, and they are all defensible. I ask that the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma be rejected.

Mr. SPECTER. That is up to the Senator. I am not decided on how I am going to vote, so you have to decide that question and I will decide--

Mr. SPECTER. I am considering it.

Mr. SPECTER. I know it is unsenatorial to say that, but I haven't made up my mind.

Mr. SPECTER. I was listening to the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from California and trying to figure it out. I don't want to be too unsenatorial, to think about it, but that is where I am.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the two programs which have been commented on by the Senator from South Carolina are very good programs, contrary to his assertions. The AFL-CIO Appalachian Council is a nationally recognized provider of educational training service. It was founded in 1964 and the council has represented Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, DC, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. I believe if the Senator from South Carolina looked closely at what has happened in his own State, which has been a beneficiary, he would find it has been a good program. The council operates major employment and training programs through the Department of Labor and Job Corps, as well as employee assistance programs, and provides funding for recruitment/replacement of some 1,000 Job Corps students in long-term jobs. When you talk about the Job Corps, you are talking about a group of young people who might well be at risk. With the rising rates of violence in major American cities--two of them in my State, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia; Philadelphia had 406 homicides last year--taking some of these at-risk students off the streets, young people off the streets, and providing job training is very important. The Working for America Institute, which is a program very near and dear to the heart of the senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, has an important retraining component of our manufacturing base, where we have seen too many high-paying jobs shipped overseas. During the current administration, more than 3 million American manufacturing jobs have been lost. We are dealing with an area of some of the Rust Belt States where job training and job development is very important and the Appalachian Council runs through those States and provides a very important service. When the Senator from South Carolina talks about a political factor, that depends upon the eye of the beholder. These programs have worked very well. They are a very modest allocation with a total of $3.7 million tackling an issue of job training in an area which has been beset by unfair foreign competition. They have been very carefully considered by the subcommittee, very carefully considered by the full committee, and they have been a part of the budget for a considerable period of time. They have established their bona fides and their worthwhile nature. I believe they are worth the money. I urge my colleagues to reject the DeMint amendment. I yield to my distinguished colleague from Iowa.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, just a supplemental comment or two. The Job Corps program, which is part of this overall operation, funds young people ages 16 through 24. In Philadelphia, there is a program which places graduates with 61 major health care employers in higher skill jobs which are in great demand in Philadelphia. That attacks an area of great importance, considering the homicide rate in Philadelphia, much of which is caused by young people, so many at-risk youth. This goes right to the heart of a very serious problem, to support the funding. I want to supplement that, too, with the hearing which we held on July 22, 2004, where we had extensive testimony taken on the subject to establish the value of the program. How much time remains, Mr. President?

Mr. SPECTER. We reserve the remainder of that time awaiting the argument of the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I concur with my colleague and confirm this agreement with my colleague from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I oppose the motion to commit because the President's budget is $3.5 billion under the current expenditures, and figuring an inflation rate it would be $8.5 billion less. If we accept the President's figure, then we are abdicating our constitutional responsibility of the appropriations process. The Constitution gives to the Congress the appropriations power. If we automatically defer to the President on the total figure, all we do is fill in the blanks, and that would be an abdication of our constitutional responsibility. In fact, I think it would be unconstitutional for us to delegate that authority to the President. There is case law to the effect that Congress may not delegate its constitutional authority. I discussed an alternative motion to commit, and that is to arrive at a figure which would be acceptable to the President. On SCHIP the President has stated his willingness to negotiate. The Senate has its figure; the President has his figure. I would be prepared to commit this bill to committee to arrive at a compromise but certainly not to abdicate our constitutional authority and responsibility.

Mr. SPECTER. As a longstanding advocate of prevention and education programs, Senator Salazar, I believe that the CDC should conduct critical public health research regarding our current folic acid fortification policies, so that we have a chance to meet our public health objectives of significantly reducing the occurrences of spina bifida and other birth defects.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senators from Wyoming and Oklahoma for their concerns about the NIH public access policy, which I share. I will work with the chairman to closely monitor the policy's implementation.

Mr. SPECTER. I share my colleague's strong and enthusiastic support for this important program. I will continue to support the existing funding levels for the Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program when we conference this bill. Deafblind Programs

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I also want to thank Senators Clinton and Snowe for their hard work on this critical program, and I look forward to working with the chairman in providing the needed resources for the Even Start Family Literacy Program.