{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2000-12-15-pt1-PgS11808-2", "2000-12-15", 106, 2, null, null, "LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S11808", "S11809", "[{\"name\": \"Arlen Specter\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Susan M. Collins\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"106\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"3280\"}]", "146 Cong. Rec. S11808", "Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 155 (Friday, December 15, 2000)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 155 (Friday, December 15, 2000)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S11808-S11809]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n            LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION\n\n  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment\nabout the pending appropriations bill on Labor, Health and Human\nServices, and Education, which comes from the appropriations\nsubcommittee which I chair. There has been an extraordinarily rocky\nroad for this bill this year. I think it is very regrettable that on\nDecember 15 we are still debating that bill and the entire package is\nas yet unsettled, although hopefully it will be resolved before the end\nof the day. But there have been many days when we have been hopeful\nabout resolving matters before the end of the day and that has not\noccurred.\n  Without going into the background on prior years, it has been a very\ndifficult matter to get the bill on Labor, Health and Human Services,\nand Education to the President for signature and to resolve the\ncontroversies. This year, my ranking member on the subcommittee,\nSenator Tom Harkin, and I have worked as partners on this matter. When\nhe chaired the subcommittee, I was ranking, or when I have chaired the\nsubcommittee, he has been ranking. Both of us understand--and have for\na long time--that if you want to get something done in Washington, you\nhave to cross party lines. That is more true today than ever. It will\nbe even more true in the 107th Congress when we have a 50-50 split.\n  But we brought that bill to conclusion on the Senate vote on June 30\nof this year, which tied the record going back to 1976. We completed a\nconference report on July 27, the last Thursday before we adjourned for\nthe Republican convention and the August recess. We did that with a lot\nof extra effort, hard work by our staffs led by Bettilou Taylor on my\nstaff, so we could get the bill to the President right after Labor Day.\nThere is no use sending it in August, but we were prepared to submit it\nto the President the day after Labor Day.\n  We had met the President's figure of $106 billion, which was a $10\nbillion increase over the program authority from last year. We did that\nbecause the experience in the past had been that when we quarreled with\nthe President about the total figure, invariably there were add-ons at\nthe end when the issue\n\n[[Page S11809]]\n\nwent beyond September 30 into October or November.\n  Candidly, it was difficult to get the Republican caucus to agree to\n$106 billion in the Senate and in the House, but we did that. But in\npresenting the bill, the conference report, we had some priorities\nwhich were somewhat different from those of the President. We had, for\nexample, added $2.7 billion for the National Institutes of Health\nbecause we thought that was a very high priority item. We had also made\nsome changes on the $2.7 billion which the President had requested for\nschool construction and additional teachers, giving him that money but\nadding a provision that if the local boards of education wanted to use\nthe money for something else after fulfilling very stringent\nrequirements, that they could use it for local control.\n  When we sat down to negotiate with the White House, the President and\nthe Democrats in the House upped the ante and asked for an additional\n$6 billion. From my way of thinking, that was totally unacceptable\nbecause we had provided the $106 billion which the President had\ninitially requested. After all, it is the congressional prerogative to\nset the priorities on appropriations. That is spelled out in the\nConstitution. The President has to sign the bill but we have the lion's\nshare of responsibility, in my view, to establish the priorities.\n\n  Those negotiations degenerated--at least in my opinion--until there\nwas an inclination by some in the conference to pay $114 billion. I\nrefused to be a party to that amount of money because I had fought hard\nto raise the figure to $106 billion and I felt there would be no\ncredibility in what I would present as chairman of the subcommittee if\nI would be a will-o'-the-wisp and raise it to any figure to satisfy the\ndemands of the White House and the House Democrats. There was a\ntentative agreement of $114 billion and I declined to sign any\nconference report which reflected that figure.\n  Ultimately that arrangement broke down. Now we have come to the point\nwhere the negotiations have produced a figure of $108.9 billion, which\nis still more than the $106 billion we had originally projected, but in\nthe spirit of accommodation, trying to finish the business of the\nCongress, I am prepared to go along with that figure although very\nreluctantly.\n  There have been changes in the bill which I find totally\nunacceptable. The National Institutes of Health has had an increase of\n$2.7 billion over fiscal year 2000, which had been in all along, now\ncut by $200 million to $2.5 billion. I believe that the National\nInstitutes of Health is the crown jewel of the Federal Government. It\nmay be the only jewel of the Federal Government. We have added almost\n$9 billion to the funding on NIH in the last five cycles. The Senate,\nin one of the first years under my chairmanship, came in at the figure\nof a $950 million increase. The House would not go along. We\ncompromised out at $907 million. The next year we added $1 billion; the\nyear after, $2 billion; the year after that, $2.3 billion, which was\ncut a little on an across-the-board cut. This year we put in $2.7\nbillion, now reduced to $2.5 billion. But we have a total of almost $9\nbillion added in these last five cycles and they have made tremendous\nstrides on the most dreaded diseases--Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and\ncancer and heart ailments and the whole range.\n  It is my hope in the future that whoever chairs the subcommittee will\nhave better cooperation on all sides to present the bill to the\nPresident before the fiscal year ends. I think, had that been done, we\ncould have mustered a very strong position that our priorities were\nsuperior to what the President had in mind, and that if he were going\nto veto the bill, we ought not to be fearful of his veto but we ought\nto accept it as his view and then take the case to the American public.\nI think, had the bill been submitted to the President on September 5,\nwe would have won that fight. Or if we had not won it outright, we\nwould have compromised in terms so we wouldn't be here on December 15,\nstill arguing about this Labor-HHS-Education bill as the principal\nsource of contention.\n  (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 3280\nare located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills\nand Joint Resolutions.'')\n  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I again thank my distinguished ranking\nmember, Senator Jay Rockefeller, who works collaboratively on veterans\naffairs matters and all members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. It\nis a committee which has worked in a bipartisan way. It has a very\nexcellent staff, with staff director Bill Tuerk. I thank the staff for\ntheir assistance and commend to the public and the Congressional Record\nthe legislation which has been passed during the 106th Congress.\n  I know my time has expired, and I note the presence on the floor of a\ndistinguished Senator, Ms. Collins. I yield the floor. I was about to\nsay ``another distinguished Senator,'' but I modified that to ``a\ndistinguished Senator.''\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.\n  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, before the Senator from Pennsylvania\nleaves the floor, if that is his intention, I thank him for the\nexceptional job he has done in ensuring that we do have funding\nincreases for critical programs such as those at the National\nInstitutes of Health.\n  I heard the Senator from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the\nsubcommittee, describe it as the crown jewel of the Federal Government,\nand I totally agree with his comments. He has also been an advocate for\nmore education funding, combined with more flexibility. I wish we had\nfollowed his advice earlier this year and sent the appropriations bill\ndown to the White House, completing his work in a very timely fashion\nback in July, I believe it was.\n  I commend the Senator for being an outstanding chairman. I am a great\nadmirer of his and appreciate all of his hard work.\n  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I express my thanks to Senator Collins.\nWe work very closely together with a very distinguished group of\nSenators--Senator Jeffords, Senator Snowe, and who is the fifth member?\nYes, Senator Chafee, who is presiding. I thank the Chair and thank\nSenator Collins.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-2000-12-15-pt1-PgS11808-2"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 13.613344170153141, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}