Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SPECTER. Do I understand the Senator from Massachusetts wants 2 minutes?

Mr. SPECTER. I know the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, has another engagement, so I will speak very briefly as the lead opponent of this amendment. I do oppose the amendment. I appreciate the experience of Senator Pryor having been attorney general of the State of Arkansas. I did not hold such a lofty position. I was just a district attorney, but I appreciate the reasons he has put forward for the amendment. It is my suggestion that it is not necessary. When the Senator from Arkansas has enumerated a number of situations where attorneys general protect the interests of the citizens of their State, that can be accomplished even if this bill is adopted. In the first place, the bill provides that if two-thirds of the parties involved are citizens of the State, it stays in the State; if one-third, it goes to the Federal court; and between one-third and two-thirds, it is up to the discretion of the judge. So even within the confines of the language of the bill, the interests that the Senator from Arkansas has articulated will be protected. Next, the attorneys general have authority under parens patriae statutes enacted by the many state legislatures to represent the citizens of their State. They are the lawyer for everybody in the State. The Latin phrase of parens patriae has been adopted and that gives them sufficient standing to undertake whatever is necessary. There is a provision in the Pryor amendment which broadens it substantially by providing that any civil action brought by or on behalf of the attorney general in a State would be excluded so that there would be latitude for the attorney general to deputize private attorneys to bring their class actions and to find an exclusion, which is a pretty broad exclusion, not to use pejorative terms, but a pretty broad loophole. Those are the essential arguments. I could expand on them, but we have limited time. The Senator from Texas has been in the Chamber since we started the debate, but as I understand it, he has agreed to yield to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Texas, and I yield the floor.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, a time agreement has been worked out. I ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to the Pryor amendment occur at 12:15 today, with the time equally divided in the usual form prior to the vote, with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote. Further, the time to be divided begins from when the amendment was sent to the desk. So to amplify that, the time for the Democrats would begin when Senator Pryor started to speak.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: We are proceeding now to go to the class action bill?

Mr. SPECTER. And the next order of business is the Pryor amendment?

Mr. SPECTER. I see the Senator from Arkansas on the floor, so I will yield the floor. Amendment No. 5

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the time of 12:15 having arrived, we are set for the vote. I move to table the Pryor amendment No. 5, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri has requested some time in morning business, which is acceptable to the managers. Senator Bond will take 10 minutes in morning business. Then we will proceed to amendments. I see our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have risen, who are ready for amendments, so after Senator Bond's 10 minutes we will proceed with the laying down of an amendment.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in a few moments we are going to be moving to the class action bill. Senator Durbin is due to arrive to offer an amendment. In the intervening time, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss my decision to retain the chairmanship of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. The Appropriations Committee has been considering the formation of a new subcommittee on intelligence. Under my seniority position, I would have been in a position to take that subcommittee assignment. I have had a very keen interest in intelligence, chairing the Senate Intelligence Committee in the 104th Congress, being coauthor of the homeland security bill, and the fight against terrorism is obviously our No. 1 priority. So, I have been very strongly tempted to take on that chairmanship. It now appears that the status of that subcommittee is in doubt because the decision has been made to not make a disclosure of the total funding for the intelligence community. With the announcement of the President's budget, which is austere, we are facing major problems with the deficit and the President has come in with a very restricted budget, which impacts very heavily on the subcommittee that I have chaired now for many years. The Department of Labor, for example, has cut some $400 million; the Department of Health and Human Services has been cut by $1.8 billion; the Department of Education cut by some $500 million. So that the total impact on the subcommittee has been a reduction of $2.4 billion, which is very difficult when you are talking about education and health and capital investments. Those are not expenditures, they are capital investments--as are programs related to worker safety. The President has proposed some programs that are excellent. There is $45 million for a new gang youth initiative, which has been sponsored and spoken about by First Lady Laura Bush. There is $125 million for health care information technology, which is an increase of $25 million. This is funding the subcommittee had started some time ago to enhance technology and information. We have had an increase in community health centers of about $304 million. There is a new program for high school risk initiatives, for high school students who are at risk. At the same time, there have been major eliminations. For example, the so-called GEAR UP program, which provides for the transition from the seventh grade on through high school, has been cut by more than $306 million. The vocational and technical education programs have been cut by $1.3 billion. Educational Technology State Grants have been cut by $496 million, and correctional educational programs have been cut by $26.8 million. There have also been major decreases in training; some $333 million is cut from employment and training programs; $29 million is cut from the Job Corps; $35 million from a program for ex-offenders has been eliminated. There has been a decrease in Healthy Start. The Centers for Disease Control has been cut by $555 million, which is a little hard to understand at a time when we are calling on the CDC to undertake so many new actions. The program for low-income home energy assistance--a very vital program, especially for seniors who have to make decisions on limited compensation as to whether they will heat or eat--has been cut by some $182 million. Graduate medical education has had a decrease of $101 million. Perhaps of greatest concern--and it is hard to prioritize these cuts--has been the budget proposed by the administration for the National Institutes of Health, which has an increase of one-half of 1 percent, which will not maintain the research program of NIH. I am joined on the floor by my distinguished colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, who has been with me as chair of the subcommittee for more than a decade. Senator Harkin and I have established what might be referred to as and others have called a model for bipartisan cooperation. We have had changes in the gavel on the chairmanship and they have been seamless. Our efforts on many important items, which I will not detail at this time have, I think, been very important for the health and education and labor of Americans. We have increased NIH funding from $12 billion to $28 billion, which has provided for enormous improvements. There has been a march toward cures in Parkinson's, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and many other illnesses. In the context of what is happening with these programs, I have decided to stay and fight rather than switch. I am delighted to yield to Senator Harkin.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa for those very complimentary comments. It has been very gratifying for me to work with Senator Harkin for these many years as we have had the seamless exchange of the gavel. I would not want my statement to suggest that there are not other areas of major concern as to the Administration's budget. The zeroing out of Amtrak is something which will have to be addressed by the Congress. There have been efforts made since Senator Baker, the then- majority leader, convened a meeting in his office with OMB Director David Stockman in 1981, and we maintained Amtrak's funding. Veterans will have to be reexamined, and many other items. I know we are going to move ahead on the class action bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement in further explanation of my decision be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Bioterrorism and Public Health Preparedness be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 8, 2005, at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 8, 2005, at 10 a.m. The purpose of the hearing is to review the implementation of Titles I through III of P.L. 106-393, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 8, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct its organizational meeting for the 109th Congress.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 8, 2005, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``examining the Role of Credit Rating Agencies in the Capital Markets.''

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 8, 2005, at 2:15 p.m., to hear testimony on Revenue Proposals in the President's FY06 Budget.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it had been announced earlier that the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, would be offering an amendment on class action, so we will await his arrival. In the interim, I will yield to my distinguished colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, who has some comments and who will be managing the bill this afternoon.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the next Senator to seek recognition is Senator Dodd. I am informed Senator Lott will be coming to the floor shortly to speak, and that soon thereafter Senator Durbin will offer his amendment. It is now 11:18. That should take the time for floor action until the hour of 12:30 when we are scheduled under a previous order to recess for the party caucuses. So I now yield to Senator Dodd.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as the Presiding Officer has noted, we are continuing consideration of class action reform. Yesterday, we had opening statements, which I led off as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and the ranking member, Senator Leahy, made his opening statement. Senator Hatch spoke. We will be going to an amendment this morning by Senator Durbin on mass actions. The class action bill has as its central focus to prevent judge shopping to various States and even counties where courts and judges have a prejudicial predisposition on cases. The issue of diversity of citizenship has been created in the Federal courts to eliminate favoritism. When diversity jurisdiction was established, it was undertaken in the context of the claimant from one State, illustratively, Virginia coming to Pennsylvania, and the concern there was there might be some favoritism for the local resident in Pennsylvania. So the jurisdictional amount, when I was in the practice of law, was $3,000. It is now $75,000 which would put the case in the Federal court where there would be more objectivity. That is what they are trying to do here, to eliminate judge shopping. If the cases which stay in the State court have two-thirds of the class from that State, it would go into the Federal court. If one-third or less is not from the State--in the one-third to two-third range--it would be the discretion of the judge. As I said yesterday, there is, as far as I am concerned, a very important purpose here: to put cases in the Federal court to avoid forum shopping and judge shopping. With respect to the substantive law, it is my view that the substantive law ought not to be altered. I commented briefly on the Bingaman amendment yesterday where I think it is important that the Federal judges who have the cases would have the discretion to apply State law. But that will be taken up sometime when we debate the matter later. I want to yield now to Senator McConnell for leadership time or time as he may choose.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I shall be off the floor for a few moments while Senator Hatch speaks, but I will return shortly after he completes his remarks.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I congratulate my distinguished colleague, Senator Hatch, for the outstanding work he has done on so much legislation during his tenure as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, including the class action bill, as he has spoken of in some detail.