Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to support the amendment offered by the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott, our distinguished Republican leader, that the Senate Judiciary Committee shall hold hearings on the nominees submitted by the President on May 9, 2001, by May 9, 2002. It is my view that this resolution is preeminently reasonable. Senator Daschle, the majority leader, has submitted a resolution in the nature of a first-degree amendment saying that the hearings should be conducted expeditiously. It is my hope there will be a truce on the confirmation battles that have been raging for a very long time--during most of the 22-year tenure I have had in the Senate, all of which has been on the Judiciary Committee. We have seen that when there is a Democrat in the White House--for example, President Clinton--and Republicans controlled the Senate in 1995 through the balance of President Clinton's term--that the same controversy arose. I have said publicly, and I repeat today, that I believe my party was wrong in delaying the nominations of Judge Paez for the Ninth Circuit and Judge Berzon for the Ninth Circuit and Judge Gregory for the Fourth Circuit and the battle along party lines that arose over the nomination of Bill Lann Lee to be Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. Just as I thought Republicans were wrong in the confirmation process during much of President Clinton's tenure, I think the Democrats are wrong on what is happening now with the slowness of the confirmation process. It may be that, in the final year of a Presidential term, some motivation would exist to delay the process so that if a President of the other party is elected, there might be a different attitude on the nominations. Certainly those considerations do not apply in a first year or in a second year. The individuals who were nominated by the President on May 9 were very well qualified, I think extraordinarily well qualified, being the first batch submitted by the President. It would be my hope that we could establish a protocol. I have prepared a resolution which would go beyond what Senator Lott has called for and would call for a timetable established by the chairman of the committee, in collaboration with the ranking member, to set a sequence for when a nominee for the district court, circuit court, or Supreme Court would have a hearing. Let that be established and let it be followed regardless of who controls the White House and regardless of who controls the Senate. Then a timetable ought to be established for a markup for action by the committee in executive session, and a timetable should be established for reporting the nomination out to the floor. There ought to be latitude and flexibility for that timetable to be changed for cause where there is a need for a second hearing or where an additional investigation has to be undertaken. But there ought to be a set schedule which would apply regardless of a Democrat making appointments to a Judiciary Committee controlled by Republicans or a President who is a Republican submitting nominations to the committee controlled by the Democrats. It seems to me that just makes fundamental good sense. If we established that protocol, it would stay in effect and we would end the political division which is not good for the reputation of the Senate, it is not good for the reputations of the Senators, and most importantly, it is not good for the country. The resolution I have prepared would further provide that where a vote occurs for a district court judge or court of appeals judge along party lines, that nomination be submitted for action by the full Senate. The rationale behind that, simply stated, is if it is partisan politics, then let the full Senate decide it. We just went through a bloody battle, and I think a very unfortunate battle, on Judge Pickering. I believe the real issue of Judge Pickering was notice to President Bush about the judicial philosophy of a nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States, if and when a vacancy occurs. I do not intend to reargue the Pickering matter, and I know the distinguished Senator who is presiding, the Senator from North Carolina, has a different view of the matter, but Judge Pickering is a very different man in 2002 than he was in the early 1970s when he was a State senator from Mississippi, when segregation was the norm. Judge Pickering had a lot of support from people in his hometown of Laurel, MS, who are African Americans, who came in and urged his confirmation. Judge Pickering is behind us. We ought to learn a lesson from Judge Pickering. There are six precedents which Senator Hatch has put into the Record where nominees turned down for district court or circuit court were considered by the full Senate. That was the practice when Judge Bork was turned down by the Judiciary Committee on a 9-to-5 vote. He was then considered by the full Senate and ultimately defeated 58 to 42, but he was considered by the full Senate. Justice Thomas had a tie vote in the Senate. We have not had any nominee in my tenure--perhaps no nominee in the history of the Court-- more controversial than Justice Thomas. But when the motion was made to submit Justice Thomas for consideration by the full Senate, it was approved 13 to 1. My resolution further calls for Supreme Court nominees to be considered by the full Senate regardless of the committee vote, and I believe there has been an acknowledgment on all sides--more than a consensus, a unanimous view--perhaps just a consensus, but the general view that a Supreme Court nominee ought to be submitted to the full Senate. My resolution will also provide that the matter will be taken up by the full Senate on a schedule to be established by the majority leader, in consultation with the minority leader. We ought to get on with the business of confirmations. Senator Lott's proposal of a 1-year period I think is preeminently reasonable. One might call it a statute of limitations in reverse. We lawyers believe in statutes of limitations. Beyond Senator Lott's amendment, I believe there ought to be a protocol which would establish timetables and a procedure for ending this political gridlock, taking partisanship out of the judicial selection process so that the courts can take care of the business of the country. There are many courts in a state of emergency with too few judges to handle the important litigation of America. I know that is something in which the Presiding Officer has a deep and abiding interest, having spent so much of his life in the trial courts, and I spent a fair part of mine in the trial courts as well. In a sense, the Senate is something of a trial court as well. I hope we get the right verdict here. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I don't disagree with the Senator from Delaware very often, but I disagree when he says it is above his pay grade. I compliment the Senator from Delaware for his impassioned presentation. I concur with him. I thank the Senator from Nevada for articulating the view of the leadership. It is true the Northeast has special considerations: When you pass through the tunnels in Baltimore, you pass through the Philadelphia train stations, the tunnels going into New York City. It is time we considered the matter. I hope the passion the Senator from Delaware has articulated will move some Senator who has a secret hold on the legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. If the Senator from Delaware would respond to a question, the holds which are placed anonymously on legislation preclude a Senator such as the Senator from Delaware from finding out who has taken that action, and therefore there is no opportunity to talk to that colleague, reason with that colleague, perhaps find a way to resolve the issue. The simple question: Is it time the rules of the Senate were modified to stop secret holds which preclude sensible action on a matter such as rail safety?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to comment briefly on the pending nomination of Judge Charles Pickering for the circuit court of appeals, which was heard by the Judiciary Committee yesterday, with the vote postponed until next week. I support Judge Pickering because I think Judge Pickering, in the year 2002, is an appropriate nominee for the circuit court. If Charles Pickering were still a State Senator in the 1970s, I would vote against him because his civil rights record at that time was not good. But today he is a different man. This is a different time. The opposition raised against Judge Pickering, in large measure, is about what he was as a Mississippi State Senator in the 1970s. It is my hope that at a minimum we will send Judge Pickering's nomination to the floor of the Senate for a vote by the full Senate. The Constitution provides for confirmation by the Senate--not by the Senate Judiciary Committee. There are solid indicators that if Judge Pickering reached the floor, there would be 51 or more votes for his confirmation. When you take into account an analysis of the comments within the beltway by those who oppose Judge Pickering vociferously, and those in Mississippi who know him best, they are for him. Those who talk about him in Mississippi talk in specifics about how he took a courageous stand against a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, about how he sided with an African American who was a defendant in a case where there was a white victim, something which was frequently not the case in the South. This may be a warmup for the next Supreme Court nomination. We have already seen some indicators of that with some members of the Judiciary Committee saying that a litmus test should be applied, and, if a nominee will not pledge to uphold Roe v. Wade, that nominee is not appropriate for confirmation. This is an effort, in effect, to equate Brown v. Board of Education on segregation, with Roe v. Wade. It is obvious that if someone did not support Brown v. Board of Education and desegregation, that person would not be considered fit for the Federal bench today. But to apply a litmus test more broadly is very troublesome, in my opinion. It is my hope that if Judge Pickering receives a negative vote in committee along party lines, which seems almost certain, that at a minimum he would be sent to the floor for full floor consideration. We ought to establish a truce--an armistice--on the partisan in- fighting which has been ongoing on nominations. When we had a Democrat in the White House and a Republican-controlled Senate, it was the mirror image of what we have today with Republican President Bush in the White house and a Senate Judiciary Committee in the Senate controlled by the Democrats. I said the same thing when we had President Clinton in the White House and a Republican-controlled Senate. I crossed party lines to vote for Judge Paez and Judge Berzon, Judge Gregory and Bill Lann Lee for Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. It is my hope that we will establish a protocol. I think Senator McConnell was right when he said yesterday in the Judiciary Committee hearing that we are facing an ``institutional crisis.'' The American people do not like the partisan bickering--Democrats versus Republicans--especially when it comes to the selection of Federal judges and there is a judicial emergency in many circuits. It is my hope that we will move ahead to try to end this partisanship. There is solid precedent for submitting nominees to the full Senate when there is a negative or tied vote in committee. Judge Bork was defeated 8 to 5 in committee. Yet his nomination was sent to the floor for consideration as a Supreme Court nomination. Justice Clarence Thomas had a tie vote in the committee of 7 to 7, but by a vote of 13 to 1 his nomination was sent to the floor. Six nominees for district court or circuit courts have been sent to the full Senate when they did not receive an affirmative vote in committee--since 1951. We still have time to revise the thinking on Judge Pickering. We still have time for an analysis on an appropriate way to handle Judge Pickering. But I submit that we ought to establish a principle from the Judiciary Committee that, if the vote is strictly along party lines, the matter be put before the full Senate for consideration. I thank my distinguished colleague from New Hampshire for allowing me to precede him on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to submit a resolution along with 52 of my colleagues to designate March 25, 2002, as ``Greek Independence Day: A Celebration of Greek and American Democracy.'' One hundred and eighty one years ago, the Greek people began the revolution that would free them from the Ottoman Empire and return Greece to its democratic heritage. It was, of course, the ancient Greeks who developed the concept of democracy in which the supreme power to govern was vested in the people. Our Founding Fathers drew heavily upon the political and philosophical experience of ancient Greece in forming our representative democracy. Thomas Jefferson proclaimed that, ``to the ancient Greeks . . . we are all indebted for the light which led ourselves out of Gothic darkness.'' It is fitting, then, that we should recognize the anniversary of the beginning of their efforts to return to that democratic tradition. The democratic form of government is only one of the most obvious of the many benefits we have gained from the Greek people. The ancient Greeks contributed a great deal to the modern world, particularly to the United States of America, in the areas of art, philosophy, science and law. Today, Greek-Americans continue to enrich our culture and make valuable contributions to American society, business, and government. It is my hope that strong support for this resolution in the Senate will serve as a clear goodwill gesture to the people of Greece with whom we have enjoyed such a close bond throughout history. Similar resolutions have been passed by the Senate since 1984 with overwhelming support. Accordingly, I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting this important resolution.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, at 6:15 this evening, the Senate will vote on cloture, that is to cut off debate on a pending amendment which would permit voting on a signature alone. This has been a contentious subject because there are those who contend that it ought to be that easy for somebody to vote, contrasted with others of us who believe that simply on a signature it is insufficient to avoid fraud. The underlying bill on election reform is a very important bill. There is no need to recount what happened in the Presidential election of the year 2000, with special emphasis on Florida, to emphasize the need for reform of the voting process, to bring modern technology into play, to avoid the chads and the dimples, and to find a way to have voters' intent recorded honestly and completely. The drafters of the underlying bill have worked very hard on all aspects of it, including ways to deal with this question of fraud. They came up with a compromise which said somebody could be accorded the right to vote if there was a photo identification, or if the individual had some other document which showed that person was in existence, such as a utility bill or a bank statement or a government check or a generalized provision or any kind of a document which is similar, to show that a voter, ``Mr. John Voter,'' ``Mrs. Jane Voter,'' actually was in existence. The reason for this procedure to avoid fraud is that many people have been on the rolls who were not in existence: names from decedents, names from nonexistent people, and animals that were represented to be named people. In an effort to be funny, I think the latter reference has sort of denigrated the subject, which is really very serious. But my view is, the requirement for some document to show that a person is in existence is minimal and necessary. I say that based on the experience I have had as District Attorney of Philadelphia in prosecuting vote fraud. The distinguished Presiding Officer comes from the State of Delaware, which is pretty close to Philadelphia. It is widely known that in a rough, tough political city, such as Philadelphia, there is a lot of vote fraud. It happens to be a fact of life. During my 8 years as District Attorney of Philadelphia, from the 1960s into the 1970s, I prosecuted many people for vote fraud in both political parties--Republicans and Democrats. It is a very serious problem. But if you have someone who can vote simply on a signature, then that person can register with a signature. Someone could register as ``Mr. John Voter'' with a signature, and it being on file on the voters' rolls, later they could mail in a vote, ``Mr. John Voter,'' which is the same signature and that person may not be in existence at all. I had a little discussion on Friday with the Senator from Oregon about this subject and made the point that, it is a case which cannot be successfully investigated or cannot be successfully prosecuted. You simply have to have an identity of a person whom you can locate to serve a warrant of arrest and to bring into court and to prosecute. But if there is no such person as ``Mr. John Voter,'' if it is a name which is fictitious, backed up only by the signature on registration or the signature on voting, you simply can't prove it. The Senator from Oregon brought up one illustration: Somebody who boasted about having done it. Well, if you have a confession, you can prosecute, if you establish the corpus delicti as well, but that is so highly unusual and so unrealistic in dealing with the underlying problem, as not to require extended refutation. On Friday morning, I heard on the radio the voice of the majority leader objecting to the position taken that there ought to be some document identifying the name with the voter, saying that Senator Bond, who has been the major proponent of the position I have articulated-- that Senator Bond was insisting on photo ID, which is not the case. The underlying bill does not insist on photo ID. If it did, I would have a different position. It requires and insists only on a document which shows the identity and some document showing the person is in existence. I noted the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, was quoted over the weekend saying that if his amendment, the one which is pending now on the cloture vote, is not accepted, that we go ahead and pass the underlying bill. It is my hope that the majority leader, who controls the calendar, will leave the bill up and have it passed. Democrats have had a majority on the committee. They reported this bill out in its current form, which, as I say, is a carefully crafted compromise. It is my view that the bill in that posture ought to be acted upon by the full Senate and ought to be enacted, even if the Schumer amendment is not part of the bill because cloture cannot be obtained on the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, after the sudden and untimely death of our colleague--and my friend--Senator John Heinz, in 1991, his wife, Teresa Heinz, set about devising a suitable and characteristic memorial to his memory. As she has said, such a task is especially difficult when the goal is to honor someone as complex and multi-faceted as Senator Heinz was. She realized that no static monument or self-serving exercise in sentimentality would do, and that the only tribute befitting Senator Heinz would be one that celebrated his spirit by honoring those who live and work in the same ways he did. Those of us who had the privilege of knowing Senator Heinz remember, with respect and affection, his tremendous energy and intellectual curiosity; his commitment to improving the lives of people; and his impatience with procedural roadblocks when they stood in the way of necessary progress. For Senator Heinz, excellence was not enough; excellence was taken as a given. What made the difference was the practical--and, yes, pragmatic--application of excellence to the goal of making America a better nation and the world a better place. Although John Heinz thought and worked on a grand scale, he understood that progress is more often made in small increments: one policy, one program, even one person, at a time. We also remember the contagious enthusiasm and palpable joy with which he pursued his goals and lived his life. Teresa Heinz created the Heinz Awards to celebrate and carry on these qualities and characteristics--five awards in each of five categories in which John was especially interested and active during his legislative and public career: Arts and Humanities; the Environment; the Human Condition; Public Policy; and Technology and the Economy. In each of these areas, the Heinz Awards recognize outstanding achievements. In fact, the annual Heinz Awards are among the largest individual achievement prizes in the world. The six men and women who are being honored with this year's Heinz Awards--the eighth annual Awards--have just been named. They are a distinguished and accomplished group of men and women whose lives and work have truly made a difference. This year the Arts and Humanities Heinz Award is shared by Dudley Cocke and Rick Lowe. Mr. Cocke, with his Roadside Theater company based in Whitesburg, KY, has worked in hundreds of communities in 43 States. He is a leader in the movement to cultivate locally based art all across America. Mr. Lowe is an artist and activist who founded Project Row Houses in Houston as a way to bring a world-class art project to a low-income neighborhood where such art is rarely seen and experienced. The Heinz Award in the Environment is conferred on Dr. Jane Lubchenco. An expert in biodiversity, conservation, and global change, Dr. Lubchenco, of Oregon State University, is one of the most influential and respected voices in environmental policy. Cushing Dolbeare receives the Heinz Award for the Human Condition. For five decades, as many members of this House well know, Ms. Dolbeare, the founder of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, has worked across party lines to make low-income housing a government priority. I am proud to say that Ms. Dolbeare is a resident of Philadelphia, PA, my home city. The Heinz Award for Public Policy is awarded to retired Air Force General Lee Butler, of Omaha, NE. General Butler's efforts to end nuclear proliferation and change America's nuclear deterrence policy, have resulted in increased global awareness of the threat of nuclear war and nuclear weapons. Dr. Anita Borg, of Palo Alto, California, receives the Heinz Award for Technology, the Economy and Employment. The creator of the ``Systers'' information-sharing Internet network for women, she has been in the forefront of promoting women's participation in the advancement and uses of technology, and particularly computing. Occasionally the Heinz Awards program bestows a special honor--the Chairman's Medal--on a truly exceptional nominee whose career has been distinguished by a pattern of singular accomplishment and character. This year a Chairman's Medal has been awarded to Dr. Ruth Patrick--who is, I am again proud to say, a resident of Philadelphia, PA--who is truly a scientific pioneer. Still actively working and contributing at the age of 93, Dr. Patrick is one of the world's leading biologists and a pioneer in predicting ecosystem risks at a time before such risks were a part of general scientific knowledge. I had the opportunity to meet with her relatively recently, and she is really a dynamo at 93. I know that every Member of this body joins me in saluting Teresa Heinz for creating such an apt and appropriate way of honoring the memory of our late colleague; and also in congratulating these distinguished Americans, recipients of the eighth annual Heinz Awards, for the way their lives and contributions have--and continue to--carry on the spirit and the work of Senator John Heinz, and have helped to make America, and the world, truly a better place for all of us. I yield the floor. In the absence of any other Senator in the Chamber, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Any suggestion that the whole bill is going to go down over this amendment--the Democrats control the Rules Committee; they have a majority. They have come out with a bill which they have controlled, and that bill ought to be enacted if this amendment cannot survive a cloture vote. I thank my colleague from Missouri, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I engaged in a colloquy with the Senator from Oregon to show we really cannot prosecute anyone successfully on this signature arrangement. You register by signature, nobody ever sees the person, and you vote by the signature. The person could be dead or never in existence. On the one case the Senator from Oregon cites of the braggart case, if somebody admits it, you can prosecute anybody if you are going to have confessions. But, that is not the way criminal law cases arise. In the 12 years I was in the district attorney's office, I never saw somebody who came in and confessed to having committed vote fraud. To prosecute those cases, you have to have evidence and there is no realistic way to obtain it. I was listening to the majority leader, Senator Daschle, on the radio this morning on a playback of a news conference he had yesterday in which he said that the position staked out by Senator Bond requiring photo identification was just too difficult, referring to people in his own State. But the fact of the matter is, the underlying bill which was worked out in the compromise does not require photo identification. Photo identification is one way. There could be a bank statement, a utility bill, a paycheck, a government check, or any other government document showing an address, showing a person is in existence. If the underlying bill required a photo identification, I would say that is too difficult. There are many other ways to establish that the person actually is in existence, but the signature simply does not accomplish that. Nobody has a better record than I on voting rights. In my 22 years in the Senate, I have pushed that consistently. Against many in my party, I have supported motor voter. I want to see the ballot as widespread as possible, but people who want to make it easy to register with motor voter are going to lose it, if there is not some realistic way to prevent fraud. Frankly, I do not like to see filibusters, but we are on a very basic proposition as to whether we can have widespread fraud without any way to identify whether the person is in existence or not. I think the Schumer-Wyden amendment simply cannot be accepted. If there are overtones that the bill is going to be pulled if this amendment is not accepted, it seems to me that very frequently--I ask for an additional 25 seconds.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask for 4 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. Any braggarts among those?

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, a further question I have of the Senator from Oregon is: How do you prosecute someone where there is a registration by signature and then subsequent voting by signature? By way of background, I have had considerable experience in prosecuting vote fraud cases, having been in the Philadelphia district attorney's office for 12 years, 4 as assistant and 8 as district attorney. Philadelphia is a rough town with political corruption, and I have prosecuted both Democrats and Republicans. When you talk about a signature alone, having been registered with the signature and then a signature comes in, there is no way to find that person. The difficulty is that it may be a dead person. Graveyard voting is very popular in Philadelphia--voting people who have died. It is also very popular to have people registered by signature who were never in existence. I ask my colleague from Oregon, how can you conduct a prosecution--I could never figure out how to--how can you conduct a prosecution, if you have a registration by signature and then you have a signature come in on the card? You cannot find the person. To have a prosecution, you have to have a defendant, you have to have a warrant of arrest identifying somebody, and you have to pick somebody up. How can there possibly be a prosecution for someone who sends in a signature of somebody who never existed?

Mr. SPECTER. The further question is: The amendment offered by the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from New York would put in the disjunctive one other way of establishing identity and that is, by signature alone--is that correct?

Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator yield further?

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator. My question relates to the provisions of the underlying bill, as I understand it, providing that a voter may establish identity by either photo identification, a bank statement, utility bill, paycheck, government check, or any other check, or any other government document which shows the name and address. Is that the Senator's understanding?

Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SPECTER. I increase my request to 6 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought again recognition to comment on the pending nomination of District Court Judge Charles Pickering who is up for consideration for the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. I had spoken briefly on this subject yesterday and had stated my intention to support Judge Pickering because he is a different man in 2002 than he was in the early 1970s when he was a Mississippi State senator. The world has come a long way in the intervening 30 years. Attitudes have evolved. Judge Pickering has evidenced his sensitivity to civil rights issues. He has been praised broadly by people who know him from Laurel, MS, for taking on the leader of the Ku Klux Klan in a way which was physically endangering to Judge Pickering himself. I noted yesterday, and I think it worth commenting today, the votes probably will not be there to send Judge Pickering from the Judiciary Committee with an affirmative vote. It looks to me as if it will be a party-line vote of 10 to 9. Regrettably, there is a great deal of partisan politics in the way judges are confirmed by the Senate. Regrettably, that is a practice regardless of which party is in control of the White House and which party has control of the Senate. When President Clinton, a Democrat, was in the White House, sending over nominations, I expressed my personal dissatisfaction at the way they were handled by the Republican-controlled Senate, Republican- controlled Judiciary Committee. I crossed party lines and voted for Judge Paez, Judge Berzon, Judge Gregory, and the nomination of Bill Lann Lee. Now we have the situation reversed: A Republican President, President George W. Bush, and a Judiciary Committee controlled by the Democrats. It is time for a truce. It is time for an armistice. We ought to sign a declaration if necessary to set forth a procedure to take partisan politics out of judicial confirmations. That is present very decisively with Judge Pickering. There is an element expressed by some members of the Judiciary Committee on the so-called litmus test, with some people believing that unless a judicial nominee is willing to endorse Roe v. Wade on a woman's right to choose, that individual should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court--really, an effort to place Roe v. Wade on a level with Brown v. Board of Education. But it is clear no one can be confirmed today who said Brown v. Board of Education should be reversed. When the nominees are questioned before the Judiciary Committee, they frequently will say: I won't answer that question; it is a matter which may come before the court. That is customarily accepted. If someone were to say that about Brown v. Board of Education, not affirming that conclusion--that the decision ending segregation is a vital part of America--I think that person could not be confirmed. To establish that standard for Roe v. Wade I think is very contentious, but that awaits another day. The issue of taking partisan politics out of judicial selection is one with us right now. Earlier this week, Judge D. Brooks Smith, who is a chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, a person recommended for that position by Senator Heinz and myself back in 1988, was confirmed and is now up for the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Although not as heavily overlaid as Judge Pickering's confirmation was, there is an element of partisanship as to Judge Smith. I believe he has answered the questions adequately, and I am cautiously confident he will be confirmed. It is my hope that if I am right--hopefully, I am not right and Judge Pickering will be confirmed by a majority here--if it turns out to be a vote along party lines, I am hopeful the Judiciary Committee will send Judge Pickering for action by the full Senate. There is precedence for that. Judge Thomas was not recommended by the committee and received a tie, 7-to-7, vote. That meant it failed. But by a 13-to-1 vote, the Judiciary Committee sent Judge Thomas, who was then a circuit judge, to the Senate, where they voted 13-to-1 that the full Senate should consider him. The full Senate confirmed him 52 to 48. Judge Bork received a negative vote of 5 in favor and 9 against, and then on a motion to send to the floor, Judge Bork got 9 votes that the full Senate should consider him, with 5 members of the Judiciary Committee dissenting. In the old days, we used to have the Judiciary Committee bottleneck civil rights litigation, stopping it from coming to the floor. I believe on the judicial nominations with the overtones of partisanship, this is a matter which ought to be decided by the full Senate. I urge my colleagues to give consideration that in the event there is not an affirmative vote in committee, at least Judge Pickering ought to have standing to have the full Senate consider his nomination. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on a meeting which has been held with President Bush and Members of Congress from steel States concerning the plight of the steel industry and the decision which the President is scheduled to make on or before March 6, 2002. The President has initiated proceedings under Section 201, which activated an inquiry by the International Trade Commission. The International Trade Commission has made a recommendation that there be remedies to stop subsidized and dumped steel from coming into the United States in violation of U.S. law and international trade law. The President granted our request for a meeting so that we could state to him our views on this important subject. The Senate Steel Caucus has 34 members from 24 States. The House Steel Caucus has 133 members. I was Chairman of the Senate Steel Caucus until Senator Jeffords made his famous declaration. Now I am Vice Chairman with Senator Jay Rockefeller serving as Chairman. Senator Rockefeller and I were at the meeting with the President, as were Senator Santorum, Senator Durbin, Senator Sessions, and Congressman English, Chairman of the House Steel Caucus. We presented the case to the President that this is really the critical stage, that it is not inaccurate to say at this time that it is a do-or-die situation. There have been tens of thousands--really hundreds of thousands--of jobs lost in the steel industry. There have been bankruptcies literally too numerous to count from the steel companies, and there has been an onslaught of steel coming into the United States which is subsidized and dumped. When the term ``dumping'' is used, it means that steel is sold in the United States at a price lower than it is sold, for example, in Brazil where it is manufactured. So it is a calculated effort to sell at a cost so low that it undercuts the legitimate costs of American steel, and the costs are customarily calculated at the cost of production, plus a reasonable profit. The steel which comes into the United States, in addition to being dumped, is subsidized very heavily by foreign governments, so an American steel company is compelled to compete against a foreign government. That is something you cannot compete with, leading to the characterization of the playing field, which is not level. We presented to the President the consideration that it really require what Commissioners on the International Trade Commission have recommended. The President said: Where did you come up with the idea of a 40 percent tariff for 4 years? The response was: Well, that is what the Republican members of the International Trade Commission said. That is necessary in order to give the American steel industry an opportunity to restructure itself. There have been very extensive conversations with Mr. Leo Gerard, President of the United Steelworkers of America, and Mr. Tom Usher, President of USX, regarding the steel tariffs. In discussing the remedy, one of the critical parts about imposing a tariff is that it will call upon the foreign steel companies to restructure their steel. There is excess capacity in the world at the present time, and it comes to the United States where it is dumped because we are a great market. We have an open market. We believe in free trade, and I believe in free trade. An essential ingredient of free trade is to not allow subsidies or dumping, which is illegal. Free trade also has the critical component of fair trade, which is a part of free trade. These considerations were presented. The issue arose as to what the impact would be upon the American consumer. It has been carefully calculated. A tariff of 40 percent would lead to a price increase on steel to around 8.4 percent, a negligible cost on the purchase of an automobile or a refrigerator. It is not going to change the American economy, but it is shortsighted for consumers to seek that kind of cheaper steel because we know for sure that if, as, or when the American steel industry is unable to meet domestic demands, we are at the mercy of foreign steel prices, which are going to go up. It is a boomerang consideration. It is not in the consumers' interest in the long run to have that kind of illegal competition come in and drive the American steel industry out of business. All of these arguments were presented to the President, a meeting which lasted for the better part of an hour. The President was noncommittal, subjective as to how he was regarding the arguments. He made a number of comments. I think it is fair to say that he was sympathetic to the arguments. He made the point that he was prepared to make the tough decision without regard to political costs or whether Europe was going to be mad over what the decision would be. President Bush has shown a remarkable tendency to be willing to make his own judgment, to go his own way. He has shown that in the War on Terrorism. He has sometimes been criticized for unilateralism by the United States, but he is a person who studies a situation very carefully, a very good listener who makes up his mind and then is prepared to make a judgment, in accordance with what his conscience says is in the national interest. Overall, I thought it was a very good meeting, and I am optimistic. It is hard to say much more than that without creating false hope or false impressions. Earlier in the day there was a rally on the Ellipse, which was calculated to be within earshot of the President. The speaker's stand was set up. The Chair was there, as were many of our colleagues in the Senate. We heard quite a number of speeches, and an enormous number of steelworkers, men and women, were there. The crowd was estimated to be at 25,000. I think that was a conservative estimate. Mr. Leo Gerard, President of the United Steelworkers of America, said they gave out 18,000 tokens. They had to bus people into RFK Stadium--there was no place to park the buses--and have them take the subway. Even when the rally had run for almost an hour, there were still people streaming in. As I was on the speaker's podium and looked over at the South Portico, I could not tell if the President was there listening or not. However, I think he was within earshot. One of the great things about America is our right to assemble, even within earshot of the White House, as well as the right to freedom of speech and the right to petition the Government. This whole issue has had a very thorough hearing. It is a matter of great importance. It is a matter of importance to America to have a steel industry. Without a steel industry, what do you do for national defense in time of a national emergency? Without a steel industry, what do you do if you are at the mercy of foreign suppliers? We have laws to stop dumping in subsidy. They are not enforced. Years ago, I introduced legislation for a private right of action. It has been very difficult to get enforcement proceedings. Through the International Trade Commission, they are laborious. They can be upset easily. By the time they take effect, the critical period has passed. They have not been adequate. Now, that the President has introduced, to his credit, the Section 201 proceedings, there is a chance for real action. Under the law, the decision has to be made by March 6, 2002, which is next Wednesday. To repeat, I am optimistic there will be a good result. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak up to 15 minutes in morning business.

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.