Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Up or down on both.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I amend the request to 55 minutes on each side.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, does that ruling supersede the rule that the first Senator seeking recognition gets it?

Mr. SPECTER. If the Senator will yield, I ask him what makes him think I am going to oppose his legislation?

Mr. SPECTER. Isn't it the rule of the Senate that the first person seeking recognition gets recognition and the Senator does not have the authority to yield to another Senator without unanimous consent?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had sought a parliamentary inquiry a few minutes ago. I am glad to wait 5 minutes until Senator Kennedy has finished his comments. I have asked the Parliamentarian to review his rules. There was a very heated exchange for more than an hour back in 1987, shortly after Senator Byrd had Senator Packwood arrested, as to the practice of having one Senator, the leader, yield time to other Senators. I believe the correct application of the rule is that the first Senator who seeks recognition is recognized and then the question arises as to whether time will be yielded to him when there is a time agreement. That is the point I was making. I have no concern about waiting 5 minutes or longer for another Senator. I do have a concern about the propriety of a Senator being recognized who first seeks recognition. I have sought recognition to comment briefly about this legislation. I believe the Jeffords amendment is a solid amendment. His committee has looked into this issue very extensively with respect to eliminating discrimination based upon genes and medical information and research with respect to health care. I do think the objectives of the Daschle amendment are sound, in seeking to avoid discrimination in employment as well as in health care. I have had an opportunity to review the Daschle amendment very briefly. From the review which I have made and which staff has made, I have some grave concerns about some of the provisions which are very complicated and which have not been subjected to hearings. Again, I think its objectives are laudable. I think the American people do expect protection and confidentiality on these issues on employment as well as on health care. I express my concern about our ability to handle this matter in conference on this state of the record. I think it is more than a matter of people's rights and obligations and objectives and what we ought to have. We need to have a bill which sticks together, which makes sense, and which will stand the kind of scrutiny and examination and analysis to which it will be subjected. One of the grave problems our legislation has, when subjected to judicial review, is that it is hard to figure out sometimes, especially when there are no hearings, no markups, and no analysis. I have discussed with the Senator from Vermont the possibility of his committee having hearings in July. He may have a problem with that. My subcommittee will have hearings on this subject so that if the Daschle amendment passes and we have in conference its consideration, we will try to work through the complexities of this legislation. Again, I think the objectives of what Senator Daschle looks to are exactly right. I do think those people who vote against the Daschle amendment are going to be questioned for not having concerns about privacy on a very important matter. Last week we had a motion to recommit this bill for prescription drugs. If that motion had passed, I, frankly, don't know what my subcommittee would have done on prescription drugs. Our subcommittee is a very competent subcommittee, but I don't know that our competence extends to legislating on prescription drugs, taking that into account and working that through, which is really a matter for the Finance Committee. I have been questioned about why I was unwilling to have the recommitment. I have said, because I have the responsibility for dealing with it as the manager of the bill. So there is a lot to recommend the Daschle amendment in terms of objectives and moving along, but I caution my colleagues about where we end up in terms of this bill without the hearings, without the refinement, without the analysis. I am not making any critique or criticism of the author of the bill. Any bill which is constructed without hearings and without markup and without that kind of rigorous analysis has natural problems. Even with hearings and with markup, there are still problems that have to be worked out. I express my agreement with the Senator from Vermont on his legislation, express my agreement with the objectives of the legislation of the Senator from South Dakota, and say that if we have it in conference, we will do our best to try to work through the kinds of problems and deal with this very important issue.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President----

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from North Dakota to yield for a moment.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it would be my preference to stack these votes at the end. We always run into delays. We have a number of amendments. If we vote in between, it is going to add considerable time to the bill. We will have three or four votes. It will be my hope--it requires the Senator's consent, of course--that we stack the votes.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am very much inclined to support the Daschle legislation, but I recognize the job ahead of trying to work it through for the reasons I have said. I think the objectives are admirable. I am not committed yet. I want to hear the balance of his argument. I have not stated an intention to oppose it.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I renew the request, and, as previously stated, I ask unanimous consent that there be 55 minutes on each side.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Jeffords amendment be modified to be formatted as a first-degree amendment. I further ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the minority leader, a vote occur in relation to the Daschle amendment No. 3688, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Jeffords amendment, with no other amendments in order to either amendment prior to the votes. I further ask consent that the time for debate prior to votes in relation to the amendments be the following: Senator Jeffords, 25 minutes; Senator Daschle, 25 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have just had a discussion, and it may be that someone on our side of the aisle will want to offer a second- degree amendment. We are prepared, and have taken the quorum call off, on the assurance that that opportunity will be present. I ask unanimous consent at this time there be 30 minutes of debate equally divided, and that at the end of 30 minutes someone on our side will have an opportunity, if he or she chooses, to offer a second- degree amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. The Conrad amendment will be voted on first.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be an additional 22 minutes, at which point we will return to the Ashcroft amendment. After that, we will present a second-degree amendment and work through the time sequence.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. We will not vote before 2 o'clock. May we proceed, Mr. President?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we proceed with 45 minutes on each side to get this moving.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. We have already had a considerable amount of time.

Mr. SPECTER. Now we are up to 35 minutes. Mr. President, the unanimous consent request is modified to 35 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. We will take 30 minutes. It will save time in the long run.

Mr. SPECTER. Would the Senator like 30 minutes?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I have been asked to announce that we will resume consideration of H.R. 4762. Under the previous order, there will be closing remarks on the bill with a vote on final passage to occur at approximately 9:40 a.m. and following that vote, a vote on or in relation to the Frist amendment, which is the Frist amendment to the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill, will occur. I have been asked to announce that it is the leader's intention to finish this bill by midafternoon and then to proceed to the Interior appropriations bill. I note a smile by our distinguished Presiding Officer. He has the Interior bill. But that is what the script says. We will be pushing as hard as we can to accomplish that and get that done. Our distinguished leader was in a persevering, strong mood last night, and I assume he will be this morning as well. We want people who have amendments to come to the floor. We will work out a schedule and work out time agreements so we can meet that demanding schedule. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.