Editorials - Bill Block Unwarranted

Buffalo News
Editorials – Bill block unwarranted
Senate’s ‘Dr. No’ unwisely puts a stop to law banning genetic discrimination

Updated: 08/21/07 6:52 AM

It may be time to take Dr. No’s prescription pad away from him.

The good doctor, carried on the rolls of the U.S. Senate as Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, has won a reputation as the foremost practitioner of one of that body’s more arcane rules, the hold. That’s the practice that allows one senator to stop any piece of legislation, often a presidential nomination or, more often in Coburn’s case, a spending measure directing perhaps millions of taxpayer dollars to a specific project or program desired by one particular member of Congress to benefit his friends or constituents.

Coburn’s eagerness to use the hold often and, unlike some of his colleagues, openly has understandably endeared him to some fiscal watchdogs who are offended by the frequent use of earmarks by members of both parties and all ideological persuasions to bring home the pork and make themselves popular back home.

But there is now reason to fear that Coburn, a physician turned politician who happily posts the latest Dr. No references on his official Web site, has become the legislative equivalent of Dr. Feelgood, prescribing holds the way, say, Elvis Presley’s doctors prescribed sleeping pills.

The evidence is what has happened to a bill, sponsored by New York’s Rep. Louise Slaughter, that would have banned discrimination against people based on anything found in their genetic profile. It passed the House overwhelmingly and was said to have a presidential signature awaiting it if it could get through the Senate.

But Coburn slapped a hold on it. He seemed unmoved by the fact that, unlike those spending earmarks that individual members slip into larger bills, the genetic discrimination bill was a stand-alone measure that had earned wide bipartisan support.

It is a proper response to the brave new world of genetic analysis, sought by Slaughter as a way of furthering genetic research by easing fears that information obtained could push employers or insurance companies to exclude anyone who might show a genetic predisposition for any kind of

genetic malady. It does not deserve to be unthinkingly blocked by one member of the Senate, and his colleagues now must consider whether, having so abused the privilege, he has given them cause to change the rules and make holds harder to hold onto.

Which would be too bad, in a way, because losing the hold would also make it harder to stop the next round of pork barrel spending. Coburn should think about that, and let Slaughter’s bill pass.

http://www.buffalonews.com/opinion/editorials/story/145439.html