[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 27116-27117]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



            LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment 
about the pending appropriations bill on Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, which comes from the appropriations 
subcommittee which I chair. There has been an extraordinarily rocky 
road for this bill this year. I think it is very regrettable that on 
December 15 we are still debating that bill and the entire package is 
as yet unsettled, although hopefully it will be resolved before the end 
of the day. But there have been many days when we have been hopeful 
about resolving matters before the end of the day and that has not 
occurred.
  Without going into the background on prior years, it has been a very 
difficult matter to get the bill on Labor, Health and Human Services, 
and Education to the President for signature and to resolve the 
controversies. This year, my ranking member on the subcommittee, 
Senator Tom Harkin, and I have worked as partners on this matter. When 
he chaired the subcommittee, I was ranking, or when I have chaired the 
subcommittee, he has been ranking. Both of us understand--and have for 
a long time--that if you want to get something done in Washington, you 
have to cross party lines. That is more true today than ever. It will 
be even more true in the 107th Congress when we have a 50-50 split.
  But we brought that bill to conclusion on the Senate vote on June 30 
of this year, which tied the record going back to 1976. We completed a 
conference report on July 27, the last Thursday before we adjourned for 
the Republican convention and the August recess. We did that with a lot 
of extra effort, hard work by our staffs led by Bettilou Taylor on my 
staff, so we could get the bill to the President right after Labor Day. 
There is no use sending it in August, but we were prepared to submit it 
to the President the day after Labor Day.
  We had met the President's figure of $106 billion, which was a $10 
billion increase over the program authority from last year. We did that 
because the experience in the past had been that when we quarreled with 
the President about the total figure, invariably there were add-ons at 
the end when the issue went beyond September 30 into October or 
November.
  Candidly, it was difficult to get the Republican caucus to agree to 
$106 billion in the Senate and in the House, but we did that. But in 
presenting the bill, the conference report, we had some priorities 
which were somewhat different from those of the President. We had, for 
example, added $2.7 billion for the National Institutes of Health 
because we thought that was a very high priority item. We had also made 
some changes on the $2.7 billion which the President had requested for 
school construction and additional teachers, giving him that money but 
adding a provision that if the local boards of education wanted to use 
the money for something else after fulfilling very stringent 
requirements, that they could use it for local control.
  When we sat down to negotiate with the White House, the President and 
the Democrats in the House upped the ante and asked for an additional 
$6 billion. From my way of thinking, that was totally unacceptable 
because we had provided the $106 billion which the President had 
initially requested. After all, it is the congressional prerogative to 
set the priorities on appropriations. That is spelled out in the 
Constitution. The President has to sign the bill but we have the lion's 
share of responsibility, in my view, to establish the priorities.
  Those negotiations degenerated--at least in my opinion--until there 
was an inclination by some in the conference to pay $114 billion. I 
refused to be a party to that amount of money because I had fought hard 
to raise the figure to $106 billion and I felt there would be no 
credibility in what I would present as chairman of the subcommittee if 
I would be a will-o'-the-wisp and raise it to any figure to satisfy the 
demands of the White House and the House Democrats. There was a 
tentative agreement of $114 billion and I declined to sign any 
conference report which reflected that figure.
  Ultimately that arrangement broke down. Now we have come to the point 
where the negotiations have produced a figure of $108.9 billion, which 
is still more than the $106 billion we had originally projected, but in 
the spirit of accommodation, trying to finish the business of the 
Congress, I am prepared to go along with that figure although very 
reluctantly.
  There have been changes in the bill which I find totally 
unacceptable. The National Institutes of Health has had an increase of 
$2.7 billion over fiscal year 2000, which had been in all along, now 
cut by $200 million to $2.5 billion. I believe that the National 
Institutes of Health is the crown jewel of the Federal Government. It 
may be the only jewel of the Federal Government. We have added almost 
$9 billion to the funding on NIH in the last five cycles. The Senate, 
in one of the first years under my chairmanship, came in at the

[[Page 27117]]

figure of a $950 million increase. The House would not go along. We 
compromised out at $907 million. The next year we added $1 billion; the 
year after, $2 billion; the year after that, $2.3 billion, which was 
cut a little on an across-the-board cut. This year we put in $2.7 
billion, now reduced to $2.5 billion. But we have a total of almost $9 
billion added in these last five cycles and they have made tremendous 
strides on the most dreaded diseases--Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and 
cancer and heart ailments and the whole range.
  It is my hope in the future that whoever chairs the subcommittee will 
have better cooperation on all sides to present the bill to the 
President before the fiscal year ends. I think, had that been done, we 
could have mustered a very strong position that our priorities were 
superior to what the President had in mind, and that if he were going 
to veto the bill, we ought not to be fearful of his veto but we ought 
to accept it as his view and then take the case to the American public. 
I think, had the bill been submitted to the President on September 5, 
we would have won that fight. Or if we had not won it outright, we 
would have compromised in terms so we wouldn't be here on December 15, 
still arguing about this Labor-HHS-Education bill as the principal 
source of contention.
  (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 3280 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I again thank my distinguished ranking 
member, Senator Jay Rockefeller, who works collaboratively on veterans 
affairs matters and all members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. It 
is a committee which has worked in a bipartisan way. It has a very 
excellent staff, with staff director Bill Tuerk. I thank the staff for 
their assistance and commend to the public and the Congressional Record 
the legislation which has been passed during the 106th Congress.
  I know my time has expired, and I note the presence on the floor of a 
distinguished Senator, Ms. Collins. I yield the floor. I was about to 
say ``another distinguished Senator,'' but I modified that to ``a 
distinguished Senator.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, before the Senator from Pennsylvania 
leaves the floor, if that is his intention, I thank him for the 
exceptional job he has done in ensuring that we do have funding 
increases for critical programs such as those at the National 
Institutes of Health.
  I heard the Senator from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, describe it as the crown jewel of the Federal Government, 
and I totally agree with his comments. He has also been an advocate for 
more education funding, combined with more flexibility. I wish we had 
followed his advice earlier this year and sent the appropriations bill 
down to the White House, completing his work in a very timely fashion 
back in July, I believe it was.
  I commend the Senator for being an outstanding chairman. I am a great 
admirer of his and appreciate all of his hard work.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I express my thanks to Senator Collins. 
We work very closely together with a very distinguished group of 
Senators--Senator Jeffords, Senator Snowe, and who is the fifth member? 
Yes, Senator Chafee, who is presiding. I thank the Chair and thank 
Senator Collins.

                          ____________________