Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce a Senate resolution congratulating the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors on its 100th anniversary. The Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors was founded on January 10, 1908, as the Philadelphia Real Estate Brokers Association, when loosely knit neighborhood broker groups joined together and brought order to Philadelphia's real estate market. It was one of the three original chapters of the National Association of Realtors. Since that time, the Association has become the most influential professional real estate association in the Philadelphia region. Over its 100 year existence, the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors has sought to improve the neighborhoods, business communities, and real estate markets in Philadelphia and its suburbs. I commend the Association for its work to improve Philadelphia's communities by helping individuals and families achieve the American Dream of homeownership. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to speak to an amendment to the pending legislation by myself and Senator Casey, which would authorize an addition of lane miles in Pennsylvania to the Appalachian Development Highway System so that a vital highway project can be constructed. The Central Susquehanna Valley Thruway project is a proposed 13-mile, four-lane limited access highway extending from the Selinsgrove Bypass of U.S. Routes 11/15 to PA Route 147 in Northumberland. Because the project involves construction of a bridge across the Susquehanna River, the estimated cost to construct it is $370 million. The current conditions are a major impediment to north-south travel in Central Pennsylvania and this project is widely supported by State and local elected officials. In addition to the traffic problems it will address, the project is a major economic development initiative in the predominately rural region between Williamsport and Harrisburg. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, PENNDOT, has thus far not been able to identify the funds necessary to construct this project, and neither has the Federal Government. However, it has been suggested that if the 12-mile route were added to the Appalachian Development Highway System, ADHS, it would open up a new source of funds which PENNDOT could use to construct this project. The ADHS encompasses 2,600 miles across the Appalachian States and is administered by the Appalachian Regional Commission. The intention of this highway system is to improve the connectivity of economically depressed Appalachian regions with metropolitan areas. Approximately 500 miles of the ADHS have yet to be completed, including 178 miles which need to be completed within Pennsylvania. Although the affected counties of Northumberland, Snyder, and Union are within the Appalachian region, this 12-mile route in question is not a part of the existing ADHS system and therefore does not qualify for ADHS funding. This amendment would authorize Federal ADHS assistance for the 13- mile thruway project. For purposes of connectivity, it would also authorize a larger 52-mile segment from I-180 near Williamsport to the intersection of U.S. 11/15 and U.S. 22 near Duncannon as part of the ADHS. This will connect the 13-mile system to the rest of Pennsylvania's existing ADHS system, but the only segment of this 52- mile addition that would be eligible for funding under the amendment is the 13-mile thruway project. Further the amendment provides that this addition will not affect Pennsylvania's Federal ADHS apportionment. It is important to note that the amendment does not provide more funding to Pennsylvania, it simply gives PENNDOT the ability to use existing ADHS apportionment funding for this high-priority project. Madam President, I also wish to speak to an amendment to the pending legislation by myself and Senator Casey, regarding the use of ``toll credits'' by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, PENNDOT, with respect to construction of the U.S. Route 219 highway improvement project in Somerset County, PA. The Somerset County Commissioners have identified the U.S. Route 219 improvement project as essential to improving north-south transportation mobility and safety in Somerset County. The project involves construction of a four-lane, limited access highway connecting the towns of Somerset and Meyersdale, PA. A 1999 study conducted by PENNDOT noted that this section of U.S. Route 219 has a number of deficiencies that cause traffic congestion and high accident rates. The project also promises economic benefits by linking motorists with a new business park. PENNDOT received approval to conduct environmental and engineering studies in 1999 and planned on using ``toll credits'' to match $45 million in Federal funds allocated to the project through the Appalachian Development Highway System, ADHS, program. However, the necessary land was not acquired until 2006, and in the meantime, the 2005 SAFETEA-LU bill prohibited the use of toll credits as a non- Federal match requirement to ADHS funds. Toll credits are a ``soft-match'' that allow States to substitute previous, toll-financed transportation spending as a credit toward the match requirement. In doing so, it effectively increases the Federal share to 100 percent, thereby reducing the pot of available Federal funds. With the limited availability of Federal resources, I can understand why Congress would have an interest in ensuring that States contribute actual dollars toward highway construction projects rather than credits. That is why this amendment does not eliminate the prohibition on the use of toll credits to match ADHS dollars. This is something that we can debate as we consider the next highway and transit authorization bill. This amendment provides for a narrow exception to that prohibition. It would allow PENNDOT, in the case of U.S. Route 219 only, to use toll credits so that this important transportation and economic development project can move forward. I believe this exception to the toll credit prohibition is warranted at this time because PENNDOT was planning on using them when it entered the environmental and engineering phase of this project. Without the ability to use credits, I am advised that PENNDOT has no matching funds available to finance this project.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I begin by thanking my distinguished colleague from Alabama for his cogent, timely comments about the need to process the confirmation of judges. Republicans have reserved time in our period for morning business to speak to this issue in order to acquaint the American people with the importance of proceeding with the confirmation of Federal judges. The process has been slowed down very materially during the final two years of Presidential terms when the White House is controlled by one party and the Senate the other, as the White House is now controlled by Republicans and the Senate by Democrats. As I have said on the Senate floor, this is a problem that has been going on for the past two decades. In the last two years of President Reagan's administration, there was a slowdown when Democrats were in charge of the Senate. The slowdown continued during the term of President Bush, the 41st President. Then, Republicans retaliated during the term of President Clinton by slowing down the process. We have had very major disputes--I would even call them bitter disputes. Notwithstanding the disrepute of the word ``bitter,'' sometimes it is applicable, and I think it is certainly applicable to the filibusters of 2005. During that confrontation between the parties, filibusters were used repeatedly by Democrats. Republicans retaliated in kind with the threat of a so-called nuclear or constitutional option. As I have said on the floor on previous occasions, the fault lies, in my judgment, with both parties. I thought the Republican caucus was wrong in its response to President Clinton's nominees, and I backed up my opinion with my votes. I voted in support of President Clinton's qualified nominees. It is my hope that we can find a resolution to this issue, that we can reach across the aisle. There is no doubt the American people are sick and tired of party bickering. There is also no doubt that the American people want prompt justice in our courts. Where you have judicial emergencies, as you have in many courts where nominees have been pending for protracted periods of time, failing to fill vacancies does great harm to the litigants who are waiting to have their cases heard. As a simple illustration, I'll use an automobile accident case. If somebody has this type of case in court, first you look to the jurisdiction, which is a judicial emergency, and there is no district judge to try the case. The litigant waits and waits. You do not have to emphasize the consequences of that situation. People are perhaps out of work from their injuries as their medical bills are rising. They ought to have their day in court to have the matter adjudicated. If the matter is finally tried, then an appeal is taken in the courts of appeals, and there are judicial emergencies there. Again, the litigant waits and waits. The problem is clear. It is my hope we would move ahead here and process judicial nominees. I am pleased to note that some progress has been made, as announced by the majority leader after consultation with Senator McConnell, the Republican leader. There is an arrangement to have three circuit judges confirmed before Memorial Day. That is a step in the right direction, providing that the right judges are confirmed. It has been announced similarly that finally, at long last, after protracted disputes, there is an agreement between the White House and the Michigan Senators on the nomination of two circuit judges for the Sixth Circuit. It is my hope that the confirmations will be directed to three of the nominees who have been ready for hearings or committee votes and have been waiting the longest time. Peter Keisler, nominee for the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, has been waiting for more than 650 days. There has been some talk about the D.C. Circuit not needing an additional judge. That is simply not factually correct. Mr. Keisler has been lauded by newspaper editorials--The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times--and is preeminently well qualified to be confirmed to that position. Judge Robert Conrad, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court in North Carolina, has been waiting for over 270 days, and he is nominated to fill a judicial emergency. There is no blue-slip problem with Judge Conrad; the Senators from North Carolina are both urging his confirmation. Similarly, with the nomination of Steve Matthews of the Fourth Circuit, he has been waiting for more than 220 days. And, again, both the blue slips have been returned. So, it is my hope we will move quickly to confirm Mr. Keisler, Judge Conrad, and Mr. Matthews. They are the ones who have been ready for committee action the longest and are most pressing. By letter dated April 10, I wrote to Senator John McCain, Senator Hillary Clinton, and Senator Barack Obama, asking for their positions on prospective motions, which I intend to pursue in the Senate, to discharge from the Senate Judiciary Committee the nominations of Judge Conrad, Mr. Keisler, and Mr. Matthews. There are procedures where we can take the matters from the committee and take them to the floor for action by the entire body. The Constitution provides that confirmations will be handled by the Senate; there is no provision for committee action. In my judgment, when the controversies have raged for this period of time, the nominees ought to come to the full Senate. I have also written to the interrogators of the debate, which is scheduled for this evening at the convention center of Philadelphia, Mr. George Stephanopoulos of ABC News and Mr. Charles Gibson of ABC News, suggesting that these would be appropriate questions for Senator Clinton and Senator Obama during the course of the discussion this evening. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the letters to Senator McCain, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama and Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Gibson be included in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, in these letters to the three Senators, dated April 10, I said I would not make the disclosure of them public until April 15, in order to give them an opportunity to reply before these letters were released to the press. I said: I do not plan to make the news media aware of my inquiries until April 15th in order to give you ample opportunity to advise me of your response. Yesterday evening, I did receive a response from Senator Obama. I think it is worthwhile to read this into the Record. Senator Obama writes: I am responding to your letter of April 10, 2008, regarding several pending judicial nominations. As a former constitutional law instructor, I fully appreciate the important work that our Federal judges do and the need to fill judicial vacancies. However, I have great respect for the Senate's constitutional advice and consent role in the confirmation of these judges. The concerns you have raised in your letter are important ones. However, since I am not a member of the Judiciary Committee, I would defer to Chairman Leahy on the scheduling of any committee votes on these pending nominations, and I would defer to Senator Reid on the scheduling of any floor votes. Moreover, I am confident that we can work in a bipartisan fashion to continue to fill vacancies. Just last week, the Senate confirmed five judicial nominations. And today, Chairman Leahy has announced a resolution reached with the Administration over Sixth Circuit nominations. Those events highlight a desire on all sides to ensure that vacancies on the bench are filled. Thank you for seeking my views on this issue. Sincerely, Barack Obama, United States Senator. I begin by thanking Senator Obama for his reply. But, I disagree with him, disagree respectfully, on the position he has taken. When he says he is not a member of the Judiciary Committee, I believe his standing as a Member of the Senate is the determinative membership, and under the Constitution of the United States, the Senate has the constitutional responsibility to consent or not on pending nominations. When Senator Obama says that ``I would defer to Chairman Leahy on the scheduling of any committee votes on these nominations,'' and, ``I would defer to Senator Reid on the scheduling of any floor votes,'' again, I disagree, respectfully. A Senator's duties are not delegated. No Senator can delegate to anyone else his constitutional responsibilities. The Constitution does not refer to the Judiciary Committee. The Constitution does not refer to the majority leader. Even if it did, that would not provide a basis for a Senator, duly elected and sworn to uphold the Constitution, as I took an oath on five occasions and as Senator Obama has taken an oath and as every Member of this body has taken an oath, not to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution says: The Senate confirms. The Constitution says: Senators vote. You cannot delegate your constitutional responsibilities. There is an abundance of case law on this subject in a myriad of contexts, and so, I would respectfully ask my colleague, Senator Obama, to reconsider. I would also ask, respectfully, for Senator McCain to respond and for Senator Clinton to respond. Further, when Senator Obama talks about his confidence that we can work out, in a bipartisan fashion, an agreement to fill the current vacancies, I think that confidence is misplaced. When Senator Obama makes note of the fact that there were confirmations last week, he does not make note of the fact that these were the first confirmations this year, and that there was no hearing on any circuit judge from September 25, 2007, until February 21, 2008. What is required to move the process along is for Senators to discharge their duty. In proposing to bring these matters to the floor for action by the full Senate, it is my view that every Senator ought to stand up and say whether he agrees with what is going on today because I think we have an electorate that is concerned. And, the purpose of this discussion today is to fully acquaint the electorate with what is happening. As we have seen in prior elections, obstructionism costs at the ballot box. I would prefer not to resort to the political process. I would prefer not to make this a campaign or an election issue. I would prefer to see the Senate decide this on the merits. Again, I emphasize the need for independent judgments. I do not think it is sufficient for a Senator to say: I am going to defer to the chairman. I do not that it is sufficient for a Senator to say: I am going to defer to the majority leader. When I disagreed with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee--and we had a very distinguished chairman, Senator Hatch, sitting beside me--I said to Senator Hatch: Orin, I respectfully disagree. I am going to vote that way. Let the Record show Senator Hatch is nodding in the affirmative.

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

Mr. SPECTER. When I disagreed with the majority leader, I said so. I would ask other Senators to do the same. Mr. President, we have the Senator from South Carolina on the floor. He arrived in the middle of my remarks. I would ask that he be permitted to speak, and also Senator Hatch, be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I renew my request for 5 minutes for the two Senators who are on the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition today to speak about Michael A. Hanna, who passed away on April 2, 2008. Mr. Hanna was born July 1, 1952, in Oakland, MD to former county Democratic chairman and district attorney Michael A. Hanna and Eliza Jane Gibson Hanna of Monongahela. He spent time working on Capitol Hill and had the distinction of serving as the youngest U.S. House of Representatives page in the history of the program. He also served as a personal assistant to former Speaker of the House John W. McCormick. An author and producer, Mr. Hanna graduated from Washington & Jefferson College and attended Duquesne Law School. Although perhaps best known for the animated series ``Rockin' at the Rim'' and authoring the book ``Cuba: Fire Island,'' his professional experience extended a good deal further. He served as a special envoy to the country of Haiti and traveled extensively in various professional capacities throughout Europe and the Middle East. Mr. Hanna is survived by his mother and brother, Mark Hanna, as well as Mark's wife Ashley and their son Michael. On their behalf, I would like to recognize and honor Michael A. Hanna's life and work.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is a strong sentiment in the Republican caucus that President Bush's nominees for judicial confirmation have not been fairly treated. We have not had a single confirmation of a Federal judge this year. I know we have some listed today, but up until this moment there has not been a single confirmation. There was no hearing for any circuit court nominee from September of last year until February 21 of this year, and only one circuit court nominee has had a hearing in over the past 6 months. This is totally unacceptable. In the last 2 years of President Clinton's administration, 15 circuit judges and 54 district judges were confirmed; thus far in this Congress, only 6 of President Bush's circuit judges and 34 district judges have been confirmed. Even with confirmation of those on the list today, President Bush is far behind where President Clinton stood. The Fourth Circuit is a judicial emergency. The nominations of Judge Conrad and Mr. Matthews are long overdue. Peter Keisler, a very distinguished nominee for the DC Circuit, has languished for an interminable period of time. There are not adequate reasons for failure to move the nominees in Maryland, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, and I am negotiating now with Senator Casey on the pending nomination of Gene Pratter for the Third Circuit. Thomas Farr in North Carolina deserves confirmation to the district court, as does Davis Dugas in Louisiana, James Rogan in California, and William Powell in West Virginia. So a number of Republican Senators will be coming to the floor today to protest what has been going on. I believe the Republican caucus is correct on this issue. I deviated from a Republican caucus position and voted to confirm qualified nominees of President Clinton, and I was prepared to stand up and to say that it is the constitutional prerogative of the President to nominate and the constitutional obligation of the Senate to consent or to dissent--to not consent--to nominees, but not to hold them in limbo and not to fail to have appropriate consideration of these judges. There is a growing movement in the Republican caucus to hold up legislation if we cannot move in any other way to get justice on the confirmation of these judges. It is a time-honored practice in this body to put holds on legislation or holds on nominations or otherwise to delay legislation from being considered. I think that it is a very problematic tactic myself, but it is used frequently by the minority to get some action by the majority. I think that it is only fair to note that in some quarters within the Republican caucus there is consideration at the present time to holding up the patent reform bill. Now, the patent reform bill is a very important piece of legislation--very important--to reform the patent laws and to protect intellectual property and to maintain American competitiveness--very important legislation. But the confirmation of Federal judges is also very important. Very important indeed. Now, Senator Leahy, Senator Hatch, and I have been engaged in very extensive discussions to try to come to agreement on the substance of a patent reform bill. We have had many conversations. Every day for the past many days--including yesterday--we have had several discussions between myself and Senator Leahy, between myself and Senator Hatch, and yet we do not have it right, in my judgment. We are very close on a critical issue of inequitable conduct. We certainly have to stop the surge of litigation where there is no reasonable basis to do so, and I think the inequitable conduct provision, which I have been pressing for, is indispensable. Perhaps we have agreement there, but it may be conditioned on something else. The damage provision is not yet satisfactory, and I think we have to get it right even if it takes time. Now, I am aware that the majority leader would like to move ahead with a bill, with a window which may be open in the immediate future. There is nothing to stop any other Senator from introducing the bill in its present form and to take it up and to take up the disagreements we have on damages, for example, and to vote on them. There is the issue of cloture on a motion to proceed, and I would not anticipate difficulty on that unless the Republican caucus moves ahead with a judgment that we are not going to permit the patent reform bill to move ahead, as a matter of leverage to get fair and equitable treatment on the judges. At this moment, I am not prepared to say where I would be on that issue. It would be my hope that we could work these matters out and that Senators could come to an agreement on these matters. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. SPECTER. I would hope that there could be agreement on the issue of judges, that we could find a way to deal with Peter Keisler, and that we could find a way to deal with the nominations of Judge Conrad and Mr. Matthews and others in the Fourth Circuit so that we do not have to resort to using leverage like withholding consent on other legislation, which would prevent moving ahead with cloture on a motion to proceed. I am available to discuss this with Members on the other side of the aisle. So it is my hope that we will not tie up the patent bill, but that is a possibility if we can't find some equitable way to handle this judge issue. To repeat, I am available to discuss it with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find some sensible way to deal with it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask the chairman if his willingness to begin in 5 minutes would leave me 5 or, perhaps, 3 minutes. The Senator from Georgia wants 4 minutes, and I would only have 1 minute. My question to the chairman would be, as a vocal, outspoken, voluminous proponent of fairness, if he thinks 1 minute would be sufficient to reply to the better part of an hour, which he has taken. Perhaps I can answer that myself. I don't think it would be sufficient.

Mr. SPECTER. May I inquire of the distinguished chairman if he intends to ask for the yeas and nays on the other nominees?

Mr. SPECTER. I respect the chairman's right not to answer. The Senator from Georgia has been waiting for a considerable period of time. I agree with whatever Senator Leahy has had to say. I ask that the Senator be given--how much time would the Senator like?

Mr. SPECTER. Now, when the majority leader came to the floor and talked about turning the Constitution on its head with the constitutional option, he glossed over the point pretty fast and missed most of the salient points--that there was enormous provocation that led some Republicans--and I say ``some'' Republicans--to consider raising the constitutional option. What we have seen is a practice going on now for two decades--20 years--since 1986, so it is 22 years now--starting with the last 2 years of the Reagan administration, 1987 and 1988, when the Democrats had control, nominations were slowed down to a crawl. And then the same thing occurred during the last 2 years of the first President Bush. Then Republicans retaliated with gusto in kind, exacerbating the problem. The one thing I agree with the Senator from Vermont on is that the Clinton nominees were not treated fairly. That is true. They were not treated fairly, and I said so at the time. I crossed party lines to support qualified Clinton nominees. But, what is happening in this body is just ratcheting it up again and again. And then, after President Clinton's term, we had the virtual disintegration of institutional prerogatives around here due to filibusters that were conducted by the Democrats on the Bush nominees in 2004 and 2005. The majority leader talks about the constitutional option. Well, the constitutional option was not pursued by Republicans. There were sufficient Republicans to have put the constitutional, or nuclear option, into operation. There were sufficient Republicans to do that. Under the plan, it would have taken 51, but the Republicans did not do that, notwithstanding the Democrats' provocation. The majority leader said, ``We have been fair to Republicans.'' That comment sort of approaches this issue as if it is a private boxing match between Republicans and Democrats and an issue of fairness between Republicans and Democrats. Well, that is not the issue. The issue is what is fair to the American people. We are not here to spar, to argue or to fight; we are here to do the people's business. How fair is it to the American people to have these nominations delayed where there are judicial emergencies in the courts of the United States? This is not Arlen Specter's idea. The Judicial Conference determines what is a judicial emergency. There is a judicial emergency in the Fifth Circuit, the court to which Catharina Haynes is nominated and up for a vote today. How long has she waited? It has been over 260 days. Now, I don't consider it relevant as to whether it is fair to Republicans; I consider the question whether it is fair to Americans--the people who live in the Fifth Circuit who have had to wait for decisions to be made by an understaffed court. It may be a statistic to those of us who hold lofty positions--and it is a great privilege to be a Senator. It may be a statistic to us, but if somebody has filed a lawsuit who has been injured, say, in an automobile accident. Someone who has doctor bills and loss of wages, and that person has to wait and wait for the case to come up, finally to be tried, and then to be appealed and waits and waits--that is where the issue is. Take a look at the waiting periods: Robert Conrad in the Fourth Circuit, a judicial emergency, waiting over 260 days; Raymond Kethledge in the Sixth Circuit, a judicial emergency, waiting over 650 days; Stephen Murphy also in the Sixth Circuit and a judicial emergency, waiting over 650 days. Shalom Stone in the Third Circuit, a judicial emergency, has been waiting over 250 days. Tom Farr in the District Court of North Carolina has been waiting over 490 days. James Rogan has been waiting over 450 days. The list goes on and on. Peter Keisler is a very distinguished nominee who has an extraordinary record, and I ask unanimous consent that his resume be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. That they be voice votes?

Mr. SPECTER. Well, Mr. President, I am not quite sure about that. I am quite sure that I waited here for 40 minutes for somebody to appear to start this debate, and I am quite sure we have heard very extensive discussion by the Democrats, but my practice is to be brief. I believe I will speak no more than 15 minutes, perhaps 20 at the outside. I hate to so understate it, but I don't think it takes a whole lot of time to refute what the chairman and the majority leader have said. So I think we are ready to start fairly soon. If we had some indication as to how many rollcall votes we will have--if we have five, which will take us several hours, I might be a little more disposed to be even briefer, if I had some indication of that.

Mr. SPECTER. Well, we have heard the magnanimity of the chairman on this one circuit nominee. So far this year, we have not confirmed any Federal judges. We have heard the magnanimous comments by the chairman about Catharina Haynes. We might not have had one. We didn't have a hearing from September 25 to February 21. I don't think an argument of being magnanimous pertains. I don't blame the chairman for departing the Chamber. He might not like to hear what I have to say in response; although, I sat through his entire speech. I will not comment on his departure beyond what I have already said. In listening to the presentation by the Senator from Vermont, I would have thought he was running for President. He had this big, flamboyant chart about the Bush Presidency. The chart had statistics on the unemployment rate going up, gas prices going up, the budget deficit going up, the trade deficit going up, and the number of uninsured people going up. For a moment, I thought I was listening to Senator Hillary Clinton. And then, I thought I might be listening to Senator Obama. Had either of those Senators been making that speech, I could understand the purpose, but it is a little hard to understand the purpose of the comments by the chairman. When the chairman talks about Republicans not showing up for committee meetings, he is in fantasyland, as are a good many of his comments. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a detailed rebuttal. It would take considerable time to answer specifically, but this can be in the Record to demonstrate proof and to establish the fantasy of the chairman's assertions that Republicans didn't show up.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, Peter Keisler has waited for 650 days, and soon, it will be the 2-year anniversary of his nomination. So the real question is not fairness to Republicans; it is a question of fairness to the American people. The American people have not been treated fairly, and they have not been treated fairly by the Democrats, and they weren't treated fairly by Republicans when President Clinton sent nominees to this floor. It is high time this stops. That is why I have introduced a resolution that would establish a protocol. The protocol would be, after a nominee is nominated, there be a hearing and then there is a committee vote. Then, the nominee comes before the full Senate and we start to follow the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution about filibusters. The Constitution talks about the President's prerogatives to nominate and the Senate's duty to consent or not to consent. The majority leader made a big to-do about its being a matter of quality, not a matter of quantity. Well, if the majority doesn't like the quality, all they have to do is vote the nominee down. All I am asking for is up-or-down votes. If they don't like the quality, say so. Say so. I think that, on an examination of the record, there would be no real issue about quality. These are quality people. But, if I am wrong, and their judgment is to the contrary, I will abide by that. Vote no. Don't consent. Follow the Constitution and don't consent. We have real problems with going forward when the chairman talks about judicial vacancies not being the most pressing problem in comparison to unemployment, the economy, and Iraq. I agree there are problems of greater immediacy. But, we have time to handle them all. We might have to work on Mondays and Fridays. A lot of Americans work on Saturdays. We could come in a little earlier, and we could use the floor time a little more efficiently. I do believe it is time we took stock in what we are doing in this body. You can cite the statistics in many different directions, but I think the real critical statistics are what has happened in the last 2 years during President Bush's Administration in comparison to President Clinton's final two years. There is a decisive discrepancy there. A Republican Senate confirmed 15 of President Clinton's circuit judges in his final two years in comparison to 6 for President Bush before the nominees are considered today. I hope it will go up to 7. President Clinton had 57 district judges and President Bush had 34, and I expect it will go up to 38 today. Over the 8-year terms of the two Presidents, President Clinton had 65 circuit judges and President Bush had 57; President Clinton had 305 district court judges, and President Bush had 237 judges. So I hope we can move through the morass we find ourselves in. If we don't, there is going to be an election this year, and there may be a Democrat in the White House. I don't know what is going to happen. It is a close matter. The American people will decide that. At some point, there will be another Democrat in the White House, if not on this election, and there will be retaliation because one insult begets another. As one side exacerbates, so does the other. The 20-year record is not a good record as to what we have here. I urge a truce. On a personal level, no two Senators in this body have a closer relationship than Senator Leahy and myself. It goes back a long time when we had important jobs--when he was a prosecuting attorney and I was the same. We have worked together very closely, but we have a disagreement on this issue. I believe the Republican caucus is right today in its position, and I am prepared to lead the caucus on the issue. That is my job in my capacity as ranking member. When the Republican caucus was wrong, I said so, and I voted with the Democrats on the Clinton nominees.

Mr. SPECTER. Surely. Vote on the Nomination of Catharina Haynes to be United States Circuit Judge

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I don't understand the import of that question.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, Senator Leahy and I have something on which to agree. I agree.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that two law clerks from Senator Cornyn's staff, Alana Hake and Ashley Huff, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of this week--which may not be too long, hopefully.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Republican time be allocated to the following Senators for 5 minutes each: myself, Senator Hatch, Senator Cornyn, Senator Kyl, Senator Brownback, and Senator Coburn.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment about an amendment which I have to the housing bill. It is amendment No. 4392. It was discussed last week. The essence of the amendment would provide authority to the bankruptcy court to deal with variable interest rate mortgages, where we find people have been surprised by the acceleration of obligation. It is illustrated by a mortgage where the monthly payments were $1,079 and then raised to $1,444--an increase which was not expected by the borrower. Another illustration of a variable interest rate mortgage is where the monthly payments were $1,400, which were raised to $1,900 a month. This would give the bankruptcy courts authority to deal with these changes. Under these circumstances, the borrowers did not know how much the payment would be increased. Frequently, there is misrepresentation, and on some occasions there is even fraud. This amendment was distinguished from the amendment offered by Senator Durbin, which would have provided for bankruptcy courts to have authority to modify the principal. That was defeated largely because it would have created a problem for lending in the future when prospective lenders would not have confidence their contracts would be fulfilled. I was looking for an opportunity to vote on this matter on Thursday afternoon but was called away in my capacity as ranking member on Judiciary because of the absence of any other Republican to preside at that time. I have talked earlier today with the distinguished chairman of the committee with a request I have an opportunity to vote on this before cloture is imposed, before the cloture vote is taken. I note there are a number of Senators who have amendments which they wish to offer, and it would be my hope and projection that these amendments would not be foreclosed. Frequently, on this side of the aisle, the point is raised that we will not agree to have cloture to cut off further amendments when our Members have not had an opportunity to present their amendments. This is a very important bill. The bill is lopsided in favor of Wall Street over Main Street. We have seen the situation with the bailout of Bear Stearns. This bill contains provisions which will help the big guy, so to speak, with the credit for purchases of homes, with the tax credit for those who buy homes in foreclosure, and with the provisions carrying losses forward. This bill, as noted by Senator Dodd, does not adequately take care of the so-called little guy. The amendment which I wish to have voted upon would be a significant move in that direction. So I hope we will have an opportunity to vote on my amendment and to give other Senators an opportunity to present amendments to give better balance to this bill. I yield the floor.