Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I think we have aired it thoroughly. We will try to see if the world's greatest deliberative body can undertake some deliberation. I yield.

Mr. SPECTER. If the Senator from Iowa would agree to set aside his amendment, he and I could agree on that and in the absence of objection we could then proceed with other amendments.

Mr. SPECTER. I am saying agree to setting it aside without agreeing to a time tomorrow.

Mr. SPECTER. I do not have that authority to make that assurance, as I think the Senator from Iowa knows.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. That is correct.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am very sympathetic to the objectives sought by the Senator from Iowa. In the past, on budget resolutions in prior years, I have supported using Federal funds on school construction. But the difficulty this year is that there is no money available for this line. Senator Harkin and I, on a bipartisan basis, have worked out the allocation of $137 billion. I would like to have money for school construction, but it simply isn't there. It was not included in the budget resolution this year. It has always been highly controversial to pass this body, and it was only Senator D'Amato and Senator Campbell and I who supported it in the past, when Senator Harkin spearheaded this effort along with Carol Moseley-Braun. This is one of the many laudable objectives I would like to see funded. I fought hard for a larger allocation from the subcommittee. I would be glad to join Senator Harkin in supporting this measure, but as manager it is my duty to stay within the confines of the bill and within the confines of the allocation. So it is with regret that I have to raise a point of order. Mr. President, I raise a point of order under section 504 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004 that the amendment exceeds the discretionary spending limits specified in this section and therefore is not in order.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, that was raised against the amendment to be voted on first, which has already been noted by the Chair, the amendment of Senator Clinton. Similarly, I raise a point of order under section 504 of the concurrent resolution for fiscal year 2004 that the amendment of Senator Harkin exceeds the discretionary spending limits and therefore is not in order.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the assistant Democratic leader and the distinguished ranking member have been cooperative, I don't think realistically anything above and beyond the call of duty. Senator Harkin is always cooperative, and so is Senator Reid. We have been working on a list for some time and finally got the list late yesterday afternoon. But that was the first time a condition appeared that we would have to set a time certain for an amendment. That is the first time that occurred, and I found it rather surprising. The Senator from Iowa made reference to an agreement. I don't think there ever had been an agreement as to a time on Tuesday. That would be my preference to accommodate the Democrats. But I think it is not inappropriate to say the calendar, as the Democrats wish it, revolves around the absence of their Members who are running for President, a lofty ambition. It even happened once to Senator Harkin. It even happened once to me. But the Senate is in session on occasions when the people who run for President are not present. I can understand your interest in wanting a time certain to have all your Members here. But in regular order, we debate amendments and we vote. In this august body, any Member can tie it up at any time. So that tries to produce comity. I think Senators Reid and Harkin and I have gone a long way to establish comity and try to get the business of the Senate done. I will continue. There are concerns on this side of the aisle to set a time on that amendment. That is on the substance. There are also a lot of concerns about letting the absentee Democrats set the time. I am prepared to do that because that is the nature of our business here, and Senators do run for the office of President. But it is my hope that as we reflect on this matter over the weekend, cooperation will prevail on all sides, that we try to work to a time which is agreeable to the absentee Senators, that we do ultimately set aside amendments, and that we proceed to take care of the business of the Senate. I am distressed to know that the amendments which were going to be offered are not now going to be offered. That enables me to return to Pennsylvania a little earlier today. I have a primary campaign in the general election. We are in the election cycle, but this is my day job, and I would be here as late as necessary to finish the work of the Senate. As far as this week is concerned, on Tuesday we worked 6 hours 45 minutes and had two amendments on which to vote. And we thank the Democrats for offering them. On Wednesday we worked 9 hours 59 minutes, and on Thursday 10 hours 50 minutes. We have only had seven rollcall votes. Two amendments were accepted by voice vote, and we have 92 Democratic amendments and 27 Republican amendments pending. So we have a lot of work to do. Senator Harkin and I have worked seamlessly for more than a decade. I expect that to continue into next week. Senator Reid has been a master at organizing the Senate. He has spent more time in the Senate Chamber in the last several years than any other Member. I complimented him privately yesterday about his efficiency. I do so publicly today. I know there are partisan considerations. That is a part of the process. But I hope we can move ahead on Monday to finish this bill and accommodate all of the competing interests. I thank my colleagues for yielding.

Mr. SPECTER. And you are just yielding for a brief comment.

Mr. SPECTER. No, I didn't say that, but I agree that you maintain control of the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is entirely likely the Senator from Iowa can regain the floor. I would like to make a brief statement.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa yield?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we know there are many Members anxious to depart for planes, and Senator Harkin and I have decided to yield back our time and proceed directly to the vote.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, that would be agreeable.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have been asked, on behalf of the leader, to have that vote followed by a judge vote. So as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that following the scheduled vote at 5:40 under the previous unanimous consent agreement, the Senate proceed to executive session to the consideration of calendar No. 349; further, that there be 2 minutes equally divided in the usual form for debate, and that the Senate then vote on the confirmation of the nomination, with no intervening action or debate. Finally, I ask consent that following the vote the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I notice that the Senator from Washington is in the Chamber now. If she would like to have her 2 minutes of argument, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to 2 minutes of argument on each side.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the time has arrived for voting on the Murray amendment. I raise a point of order under section 504 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004 that the amendment exceeds discretionary spending limits specified in this section and therefore is not in order.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Well, if that is the best we can do, so stated.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my distinguished colleague from Ohio and I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 1578 To Amendment No. 1542

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator from Ohio be willing to take a voice vote, at this point, accepting this amendment?

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for offering this amendment. I share his concern about adequate care for seniors in nursing homes. That account is currently funded at $13.361 million. I note that the Senator from Wisconsin wants to add $1 million. We would like to be accommodating. However, as Everett Dirksen once said, a million here and a million there add up. I would be interested to know if the Senator from Wisconsin would care to respond why he picks $1 million instead of $2 million or $750,000? Where does the Senator from Wisconsin see the need for an additional $1 million when there already is $13.361 million? I am searching for some rationality as to why this million should be added.