I found on my desk this morning a ``Dear Colleague'' letter entitled, ``Oppose the Specter-Harkin Amendment That Seizes $123 Billion in State Funds.'' Instead of outlining the provisions of the Specter-Harkin amendment, I would just refer my colleagues to this ``Dear Colleague'' letter signed by the opponents, and tell them that the amendment is exactly contrary to what is in this ``Dear Colleague'' letter, so that by reading the letter, they can just conclude the opposite, and they will have a statement of what the pending amendment is. Before dealing in detail with the ``Dear Colleague'' letter, or this misstatement, permit me to outline in very general terms that the pending amendment has been offered by the chairmen and ranking members of the two Senate committees which are charged with authorization of appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services. Senator Jeffords, the chairman of the authorizing committee, and Senator Kennedy, the ranking member, are cosponsors of the amendment which has been offered by Senator Harkin, the ranking member on the appropriations subcommittee which has the responsibility for appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services, and the subcommittee which I have the honor to Chair. We must survey--the four of us in our positions as chairmen and ranking members--the health needs of America in a very, very constrained budget.
Arlen Specter: “I found on my desk this morning a ``Dear Colleague'' letter entitled, ``Oppose the Specter-Harkin Amendment That Seizes…”
On the recordMarch 18, 1999
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the Specter-Harkin amendment and its implications for state funds.
Share
More from Arlen Specter
Dec 21, 2010
I have sought recognition to comment briefly about the START Treaty, the consideration of which is now pending before the Senate, and to urge my colleagues to move forward to ratify this important treaty. I have long been interested in the…
Nov 17, 2010
We have a requirement, as you may know, for 60 Senators to be in agreement before a bill is taken up, and some people--we were two votes short.
Mar 16, 2014
I cannot applaud Rutland enough, because we had a similar hearing a few years ago when Senator Arlen Specter and I were here, and that shaped a number of federal programs for the better because of what we heard from you.





