[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 19 (Monday, February 23, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Page S1450]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 CONFERENCE DELIBERATIONS ON H.R. 3108

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, on Thursday, February 12, 2004, the Senate 
appointed conferees on the pension bill, H.R. 3108.
  The legislation, as amended, passed on January 28 on an overwhelming 
86-9 vote.
  Of course, the regular order on a bill of this type would have been 
to insist on the Senate position and appoint conferees to begin 
negotiations with the House over the contents of this bill. Normally, 
this would have occurred without comment immediately after passage of 
the legislation.
  Sadly, that was not the case.
  Instead, the Senate was diverted into an argument over past patterns 
and practices--how many times a bill has gone to conference, or been 
preconferenced, or simply agreed to by the other body or who has been 
at what meeting, when, or where. This argument may mean much to a few, 
but it stood in the way of the many.
  The Senate and the House are different institutions, with different 
rules, different pressures, different Members, and different outlooks. 
The most reasonable way for them to blend these differences is 
together, with representatives from both bodies sitting down at a 
table, reconciling legislation that each House has endorsed as its best 
idea to resolve pressing national problems.
  The pension legislation passed both the House and the Senate with 
large bipartisan majorities. In the Senate, the legislation was 
developed over 3 months with bipartisan input from across the 
ideological and party spectrum. Both leaders, as well as the chairmen 
and ranking members of the HELP and the Finance Committee, wrote the 
bill, negotiated with multiple interested members, and spearheaded the 
legislation to passage.
  When it came to the pension legislation, I listened carefully to what 
the minority leader said in various statements. I was gratified by the 
leader's assurance, given on the floor February 4, that he was ``not 
asking for any predetermined outcome,'' and that he was ``not asking 
for a certain set of expectations with regard to the legislation 
itself.'' Such an expectation on the part of any Member would have been 
another sharp departure about how we do our work here.
  It was the regular order that we go to conference on this 
legislation. I also believe it is the regular order that Senate 
conferees, majority and minority, participate in conference 
deliberations as compromise between the House and Senate is developed.
  I will work with my Senate majority colleagues to validate this 
commitment. We should not stymie over process when there is so much 
substance for us to work on, together, as the year progresses.

                          ____________________