Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains under the agreement?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in light of the objection which has been raised, we will renew this request when the Senate reconvenes tomorrow morning at 9:30 when Senators have an opportunity to consider it. If we are able to proceed to complete the bill by the close of business tomorrow, there are substantial benefits for all Senators--although I can't make any commitment as to what will be scheduled on Friday. We will renew the request tomorrow morning at the start of the consideration of the bill.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee and I have discussed the progress of the bill. It is our hope, perhaps our expectation, that we can finish this bill tomorrow. We have a fair number of amendments listed so far. We think some can be worked out. Others may evaporate, requiring relatively few roll call votes. After consulting with Senator Harkin, I ask unanimous consent all amendments be filed no later than 12 noon tomorrow.

Mr. SPECTER. I will accept that.

Mr. SPECTER. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on the pending Gregg and Boxer amendments be concluded within 45 minutes equally divided.

Mr. SPECTER. For purposes of a unanimous consent request, so we can allow Senators to go home, I think we have a formula worked out. On behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on or in relation to the pending Gregg amendment at 10 a.m. on Thursday; that immediately following that vote, if agreed to, Senator Boxer be recognized to offer a second degree, the text of which is amendment No. 1809, and there be 2 minutes for debate to be equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the Boxer amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SPECTER. Let me make one more effort. I have since been handed a document in writing. On behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on or in relation to the pending Gregg amendment at 10 a.m. on Thursday, and immediately following that vote, if agreed to, Senator Boxer be recognized to offer a second degree, the text of which is amendment No. 1809, and there be 2 minutes for debate to be equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the Boxer amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Would the Senator from New Hampshire repeat the last statement?

Mr. SPECTER. If I may propound the unanimous consent agreement. I ask unanimous consent that the debate this evening on the Boxer amendment and on the Gregg amendment be concluded in 45 minutes, with the time equally divided, and that tomorrow morning the debate resume at 9:30, again equally divided, until 10 o'clock, when there is to be a vote on the Gregg amendment; and if the Gregg amendment prevails, then the Senator from California can offer a second second-degree amendment--which is her current amendment--with 2 minutes of debate, and the vote to follow shortly after 10 o'clock.

Mr. SPECTER. Four hundred additional.

Mr. SPECTER. We understand if the Gregg amendment prevails, there would be a second-degree amendment by the Senator from California-- another Boxer amendment; the same amendment--with a 2-minute speech, and then have a second vote tomorrow morning shortly after 10, giving the Senator from California a vote on her issue.

Mr. SPECTER. We have not drafted it yet. It is my suggestion we agree to, say, 45 minutes equally divided to conclude the debate on the Gregg amendment and on the Boxer amendment, and to agree to a half hour tomorrow morning, again equally divided, and to vote at 10 o'clock on the Gregg amendment and then on the Boxer amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, so if I may direct the question through the Chair to the Senator from California, the Senator is not prepared now to enter into a time agreement?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, after consulting with the majority leader, if we could come to an agreement on our proceedings for the remainder of the evening and tomorrow morning, I would be in a position to announce, on behalf of the majority leader, that there would be no more votes tonight. Would the Senator from California and the Senator from New Hampshire be willing to enter into a time agreement to conclude this evening and to have two votes scheduled tomorrow morning, first on the Gregg amendment and then on the Boxer amendment? If I could have the attention of the Senator from California.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in light of that agreement, I am authorized to say on behalf of the majority leader that there will be no further votes this evening. The next votes will occur in back-to- back sequence at 10 a.m. on Thursday. The Senate will reconvene at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, with an additional 30 minutes for closing debate.

Mr. SPECTER. Is the Senator from California saying she thinks we had it an hour ago?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is an objection until we see the amendment by the Senator from California. The issue is now on whether we are going to agree to set aside. I am not prepared to agree to that until we have had an opportunity to study the amendment. We have not seen it until this moment. We need to see what the amendment says. We have no objection to having the clerk report the amendment, but we are not prepared to set aside anything to take up the amendment at this time, but we will do so promptly after we have a chance to look at it.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire has broached a great many complex issues in his presentation. The question on school prayer is one of the most complex constitutional issues the Supreme Court has faced. And I do not believe those analogies are particularly apt here. I am certainly opposed to religious bigotry in any form whatsoever. When you deal with the issue of restraints on art, again, there are complex first amendment questions. I learned of the amendment earlier this afternoon and do not have a total grasp of the issues on this particular display at this particular museum. This amendment, while it may be offered on this bill, under our rules is not germane to the bill on Labor-HHS. We have decided to accept the matter with no assurance as to how hard we will pursue it in the conference, to put it mildly. But in the interest of moving the bill along, I think the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire has made his point. I do not think it has become the law of the land. In the interest of moving this bill, not contesting it in a long debate and having a rollcall vote, which takes time, we will simply let the matter go through on a voice vote, as Senator Smith suggested.

Mr. SPECTER. That is correct.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on our sequencing, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, has an amendment to offer at this time.

Mr. SPECTER. As of 5 minutes ago, I was told we didn't have it. We can straighten this out in the course of a few minutes. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for both focusing the attention of the Senate on this issue and for agreeing to an orderly process, which has been outlined, for expediting the processing of the bill by, as he says, withdrawing the amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Senator Jeffords would be willing to work with the Senator from Nevada on a bipartisan approach to needlestick prevention. I have not heard the issue broached at the hearings, but I will urge Senator Jeffords to include that in working with the Senator from Nevada. The issue poses a problem on the appropriations bill. This is authorization on an appropriations bill, and it is subject to our rule XVI which precludes that. But more fundamentally, it has not been aired with many of the interested parties. I am sympathetic to what the Senator from Nevada seeks to accomplish. I think there are problems. I found out about it for the first time yesterday, and I say that in no way to be critical. That is what happens here. When we take it up, we have heard rural hospitals would find it difficult in its present posture. I am told by CBO that there is a substantial cost figure involved. I don't cite it with any authority, but they are talking about $50 million. I don't quite see that, but that has been reported to me. I compliment Senator Reid for calling attention to the issue, for focusing on it, for raising it and taking a big step in having consideration by the authorizing committee. I will urge Senator Jeffords to include hearings as well as a cooperative approach to try to work it out.