Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the resumes of these three candidates. They were voted out unanimously by voice vote of the committee, and I think their confirmation is assured.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I wish to use the balance of my time to talk about the procedures on the Energy bill. I spoke yesterday about the problem created by the so-called procedure of filling the tree. It is my hope that we will return to the Energy bill and we will have an opportunity to offer amendments on the bill--the global warming bill, I should specify. Last week, I filed a series of amendments, and I hope we will return to the bill and will not have the procedure of filling the tree thwart the opportunity for Senators to offer amendments. As I spoke at some length yesterday, we have devolved in this body into a procedure where the trademark of the Senate--that is, where a Senator is able to offer virtually any amendment on any matter at any time--has been undercut. This has been a practice which has been growing but was used not at all in bygone years. Senator Mitchell then used it 9 times, Senator Lott matched him with 9, Senator Frist matched him with 9, and Senator Reid has now used it 12 times. Regrettably, when the tree is filled--an arcane practice not understood very broadly--and then cloture is not invoked, people think that Republicans are opposed to considering global warming. The fact is that some 32 Republicans voted for cloture on the motion to proceed. So it is my hope we will have an opportunity to debate this very important subject and that there will be procedural steps taken so amendments can be offered. The tradition of the Senate in the past has been to have legislation offered, to debate, and if people are opposed, to filibuster, and to have the issues considered. But we have found in modern days that bills involving very important matters, such as the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Senate bill 1843, got very short shrift indeed. So it is my hope we will change the procedures. I filed a resolution with the Rules Committee in February of 2007 to have a change in the rules, but in the interim I hope we can alter our procedures to take up these very important amendments. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on March 8, 2007, I introduced S. 814. The bill has nine cosponsors: Senators Graham, Smith, Crapo, Martinez, Landrieu, Wyden, Leahy, Salazar, and Stabenow. It was included in the energy/business tax extenders package, on which a vote on the motion to proceed failed today. S. 814, would allow attorneys to deduct reimbursable court costs and expenses--expert witness fees, copying and transcription costs, travel expenses--in the same tax period in which they are paid or incurred. For attorneys paid on a contingency fee basis, the Internal Revenue Service treats these expenditures as ``loans'' that may be repaid from any award or settlement at the end of the case. For this reason, currently most attorneys may take a deduction only in the same period he recognizes the income from the award--which may be years after the attorney has paid the expense/cost. This is a burden on, and often unfair to, solo practitioners and attorneys in small firms who may have to assume costly loans because they do not have the resources to carry these expenses for multiple years. In addition, the tax treatment of these expenses is not uniform in all jurisdictions--as some courts have disagreed with the IRS on the current treatment. This is another reason the current rule is unfair and should be changed. Finally, I note that the IRS interpretation is based on State legal ethics rules about advances to clients that have since been changed. I voted against cloture on the motion to proceed even though I obviously support S. 814, and although I also support the tax extenders that expired at the end of 2007--including the R&D tax credit, teacher expenses deduction, tuition deduction, and accelerated depreciation for leasehold and restaurant improvements. I also support some tax extenders that are set to expire at the end of 2008 --including renewable energy tax incentives. The main sticking point between Democrats and Republicans is whether temporary extensions of tax relief should be offset with permanent tax increases elsewhere. On April 23, 2008, I, along with 40 other Republicans, wrote to Finance Chairman Baucus to support ``enacting a 2008 AMT patch and extending the various expiring tax provision without offsetting tax increases.'' The vote was a demonstration by Republicans that they have numbers and that they need to be included in the process of drafting the bill. Republican leadership had no expectation that any Republican amendments would be allowed because of Leader Reid's standard operating procedure of filling the tree and filing cloture. I am told that the leadership on both sides and the chairman and ranking member of Finance will now sit down to discuss the next steps. I think this is a positive development and I will encourage the inclusion in a bipartisan bill of the proposed amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that is embodied in S. 814.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment about a practice that is being employed on a widespread basis, which I believe undercuts the fundamental institutional integrity of the Senate. I am referring now to a procedure known as filling the tree. That is an expression used inside the beltway--inside the Senate Chamber--for action taken by the majority leader to establish a procedural situation where no Senator can offer any other amendment. The long tradition of the Senate has been it is an institution that encourages, harbors, fosters open debate, the presentation of issues, the discussion of matters, to bring not only in this limited Chamber, or beyond on C-SPAN2, if anybody is watching, but to the entire country. That is what distinguished the Senate from the House of Representatives, for example. In the House, they have what is called a rule, and Members may offer amendments only in a very limited, circumscribed way and then in a limited period of time. But under Senate rules, any Senator may offer virtually any amendment virtually at almost any time on any subject and speak in an unlimited way, as long as he retains the floor. Last week, the Senate took up legislation of great importance on global warming. There are many complex issues involved in that subject. We started off with legislation which had been offered by Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner that had been modified by Senator Boxer, the chairperson of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and there were many other proposals in the wings waiting to be considered. One of those proposals was legislation prepared by Senator Bingaman and myself, the Bingaman-Specter bill. In the consideration of global warming, there were many complex matters. I don't intend to go through all of them now, but illustrative of that is the issue of technology. Is the technology adequate to accommodate the goals and standards of Lieberman-Warner? What would be the economic impact on the provisions of global warming in terms of encouraging foreign countries to ship to the United States on exclusions where they might not have the same limitations? For example, in the steel industry. On that particular subject, I testified before the Finance Committee last February 14 about the need for the United States to be a leader on global warming, but at the same time not to sacrifice our industry to foreign goods, and noted that the Chinese wanted a 30-year exemption. If they had gotten that, there would not be any steel industry. But there were many issues. I came to the Senate floor a week ago today to speak on the subject on June 2. And then I returned to speak again on June 3. Then, by Wednesday, June 4, I found out that we were on our way to having the tree filled. Actually, I spoke on June 2, 3, and June 5 and found when there was no opportunity to offer amendments, I filed four amendments. I bring up that matter because then there was a cloture motion on Friday. A cloture motion requires 60 votes. If we are going to do it on a Friday, it is extremely difficult to find enough Senators to have an adequate showing as to what it means. In any event, the cloture motion vote was held, and the cloture motion fell far short. The majority leader took the bill down, and now we are no longer considering the question of global warming. That is a matter which, in my judgment, warrants very considerable time by the Senate. I don't know whether it is 2 weeks or 3 weeks or how many weeks it is, but I know it is a lot more than 4 days. And now it is gone. Regrettably, it is not just global warming which is involved. Not long ago, we have had the issue of the so-called Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, S. 1843, legislation which would change the statute of limitations on enforcing employment rights for equal pay. This bill was introduced because the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 5-to-4 decision, enforced a 6-month statute of limitations on a woman who wanted to claim her Federal rights to equal pay. It seemed to me the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States was wrong. The plaintiff was being foreclosed an opportunity to go to court to get equal pay when she didn't even know she had the cause of action or the right to do that. This issue then was the subject of a cloture motion. The motion to proceed failed on cloture 56 to 42. The bill was given no process. There was no committee referral, no debate, no opportunity for amendments, just talking points for Democrats, an illustration where cloture was filed. The tradition of the Senate has always been to have legislation offered, to have it debated. If there is objection, people oppose it. If people are very determined not to allow it to come to a vote without a supermajority--that is, getting 60 votes for cloture--then they filibuster. But in the course of that process, there is an awakening of the American people about what is going on. A good illustration would be the historic civil rights debates which went on in this Chamber for very protracted periods of time. But the American people hardly have any idea about what is involved in equal pay for women when the matter is called to the Senate floor and in a virtual nanosecond is dispensed with. Had the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act received extensive debate, had there been opposition, had there been discussion, had there been some idea by the American people about what was going on, there could have been some public opinion registered on that as a very important matter. The great difficulty is this is not a machination of the current majority leader. This is a practice which has been building up for a considerable period of time and, as with the case of so many matters, it is a matter of equal blame on both sides of the aisle, both Republicans and Democrats. In a survey by CRS, going back to 1985, it was used infrequently. Senator Dole used it five times in 1985 and 1986; Senator Byrd, three times in 1987 and 1988. Senator Mitchell did not use it at all in 1989 and 1990. Then in 1991 and 1992, Senator Mitchell used it one time. Then in 1993 and 1994, Senator Mitchell used it nine times. In 1995 and 1996, Senator Dole and Senator Lott used it five times. In 1997 and 1998, Senator Lott used it three times. In 1999 and 2000, Senator Lott used it nine times. Senator Daschle then used it once in the next 2 years. The following 2 years, 2003 and 2004, Senator Frist used it three times. Then in 2005 and 2006, Senator Frist used it nine times. And in the 110th Congress, so far, Senator Reid has used it 12 times. Every time that it is used, it totally undercuts the ability of the Senate to function in its traditional way. Senator Reid had this to say about this practice when he was not the majority leader but when he was the leader of the minority, the leader of the Democrats back on February 28, 2006. He was speaking in defense of a fellow Democrat's ability to offer amendments to the PATRIOT Act reauthorization. Senator Reid of Nevada said this: Of course, even a good bill can be improved. That is why we have an amendment process in the Senate. I am disappointed that he has been denied that opportunity by a procedural maneuver known as ``filling the amendment tree.'' Senator Reid goes on: This is a very bad practice. It runs against the basic nature of the Senate. The hallmark of the Senate is free speech and open debate. Rule XXII establishes a process for cutting off debate and amendments, but rule XXII should rarely be invoked before any amendments have been offered . . . I will vote against cloture to register my objection to this flawed process. Senator Reid made similar comments a short time later on March 2, 2006, saying: Don't fill the tree . . . That is a bad way, in my opinion, to run this Senate. Senator Durbin, speaking on May 11, 2006, on the 2005 tax reconciliation conference report said: The Republican majority brings a bill to the Senate, fills the tree so no amendments can be offered, and then files cloture which stops debate. So we cannot have this conversation. We cannot offer other amendments. I cite Senator Reid and Senator Durbin with particularity because they are the two leaders of the Democrats at the present time. An eloquent statement on this subject was made by Senator Dodd on May 11, 2006. Senator Dodd had this to say when he was speaking about health care legislation: I want to point out to our colleagues why I am terribly disappointed with the procedures we have been confronted with this evening dealing with this legislation . . . This is the Senate. This Chamber historically is the place where debate occurs. To have a process here this evening . . . to basically lock out any amendments that might be offered to this proposal runs contrary to the very essence of this body . . . if you believe the Senate ought to be heard on a variety of issues relating to the subject matter--when the amendment tree has been entirely filled, then obviously we are dealing with a process that ought not to be . . . the Senate ought to be a place where we can offer amendments, have healthy debate over a reasonable time, and then come to closure on the subject matter. I could go on at considerable length with other Senators making the same point. But here we have issues of gigantic importance which are not being considered. They are not being debated. They are not being explained. They are not being subject to questioning on the Senate floor, one Senator on another. The educational process of telling America what the alternatives and prospects are for legislative change is not being explored. Not surprisingly, it is bipartisan. About the only thing that is bipartisan around this place is various mechanisms to gain political advantage. We have had furious debates over the issue of confirmation of judges, a subject on which I have spoken repeatedly and have noted that in the past 20 years, every time the Senate is controlled by a party opposite the President, there is a slowdown of the confirmation process. It happened during the last 2 years of President Reagan's administration in 1987 and 1988 when Democrats won control of the Senate in the 1986 election. It happened in the last 2 years of the administration of President George H.W. Bush, and during the administration of President Clinton where we Republicans controlled the Senate for the last 6 years, it was exacerbated. It was even worse in blocking President Clinton's nominations. As I have said on this floor on occasion, I voted with the Democrats. I thought the Republican caucus was wrong and said so. But each time it has been exacerbated and become more intense. Then this body saw a very sharp debate in 2005 where there was the consideration of the so-called nuclear or constitutional option, which would have changed the filibuster rule from 60 to 51. Now we are, again, in a period of gridlock. There is no doubt that the very low public opinion ratings of us are due to the public realization, the public disgust about all the bickering that goes on here. The public sees it on many items, the partisanship and the effort at a partisan advantage. But I do believe the public does not have an understanding of these arcane rules, like filling the tree. They can hardly have an understanding since most Members of this body don't understand exactly how it works. Mr. President, this is not a matter that comes to me this afternoon or yesterday or the day before. I have been watching it for a considerable period of time, and 18 months ago, on February 15, 2007, I introduced S. Res. 83, a resolution to amend the Standing Rules of the Senate to prohibit filling the amendment tree. So far there has not been a hearing and not been any action on that, but I intend to press this issue. I intend to try to bring some understanding to the American people beyond the confines of this Chamber. I don't think I am going to have a whole lot of effect on my colleagues this afternoon because there are none of my colleagues here this afternoon, except for the--no, no, I know the distinguished Senator from Maryland is here--except for the distinguished Presiding Officer. And I compliment my colleague, Senator Ben Cardin, on his fast start in the Senate. Of course, he had a lot of advanced training having come from the House of Representatives and been a leader in the Maryland Legislature. I work with him on the Judiciary Committee, and he is a first-class Senator. That extract can be used--let's see, you ran in 2006--you can use it in 2012, 2018, 2024, and 2030, Senator Cardin, but beyond 2030, I am reserving my judgment. But Senators are busy, and I am not in any way critical of Senators not being here, but I intend to speak on the subject repetitively. I don't know that will do any good, but I intend to do that. For years, Senator Proxmire used to stand at his seat on the aisle speaking about genocide. Every day he came to the Senate floor, and he was motivated because there was no television at the time he was speaking about genocide. I think television came while he was still speaking on the subject. Senator Proxmire was a remarkable Senator in many ways. My recollection is that he had 17,000 votes, which he didn't miss. I am not sure about the exact statistic, but I am sure he spoke extensively on genocide, and he had an impact. And now we know that genocide has been picked up as a crime against humanity and has been the subject of prosecutions under the War Crimes Tribunal. So I intend to speak about this subject with some frequency, and I intend to press for a hearing on my resolution. I intend to press to see if we can get some action because if the American people knew what was going on, the American people would not like it. The American people live under the illusion that we have a United States Senate. The facts show that the Senate is realistically dysfunctional. It is on life support, perhaps even moribund. The only facet of Senate bipartisanship is the conspiracy of successive Republican and Democratic leaders to employ this procedural device known as filling the tree. It is known that way to insiders, and it is incomprehensible to outsiders. Once known as a unique legislative institution, the Senate was referred to as the world's greatest deliberative body because any Senator could introduce almost any amendment on virtually any subject and get a vote on it. That was, as noted, the distinguishing feature from the House of Representatives, which is tightly controlled by the Rules Committee to restrict the parameters on what amendments are in order. A principal reason, perhaps the main reason for the use of the procedural device of filling the tree, was to save the majority from taking tough votes. That backfired on Republicans in the last Congress, where the filling the tree rule was used in order to avoid bad votes. And, of course, we know the procedure backfired pretty hard for Republicans to lose control of the Senate. In the 2006 election we had to lose seven seats, a virtual impossibility, but we managed to do it. But more important than the partisanship, more important than the increased use by both Democratic and Republican majority leaders is the impact it has on this institution. And more important than that is the impact it has on the legislative process and the working through legislation, which ought to be considered and, where warranted, enacted for the benefit of the American people. Mr. President, in the absence of any Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, a unique event occurred in a Philadelphia Phillies baseball game last week. The Philadelphia Phillies' shortstop, named Jimmy Rollins, who was the most valuable player in the league last year, hit a looping ball into left field--which was an easy ball to catch--and instead of running it out, he ran at a very leisurely pace down the first baseline. The left fielder on the defensive team moved in and, in a very unusual play, dropped the ball. Instead of Rollins getting to second base, he was left at first base. The Phillies' manager, Charles Manuel, then immediately benched Jimmy Rollins, the most valuable player in the league. He put him right on the bench because he did not run it out. That took a lot of guts, and manager Charles Manuel has been complimented on that, and I renew the compliment here today. But it is a great lesson, in my opinion, about the way baseball players ought to act and Senators ought to act and everybody ought to act. We all ought to so-called run it out, with that kind of intensity. I am an avid squash player, and one of the maxims I have developed over the years is that I am never too far ahead to lose and never too far behind to win. The game is always in play, if you run it out. I think it has some applicability to all facets of life in things that all people do, in terms of the intensity of their activity. And I think we need a lot more of that attitude in the Senate and a sense of urgency to deal with the people's business. This relates directly to the presentation I made a few moments ago on going back to the rules of the Senate on open debate, open amendment offering, and not filling the tree. But it is a great lesson to have that rule stamped indelibly of ``running it out.'' So I congratulate Charlie Manuel. He took out a key player, whose absence could have been decisive even in that game because of Rollins' hitting and fielding ability. But I think it is a great message and a great symbol for all of us to ``run it out.''

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I seek recognition to announce that due to my chemotherapy treatment in Philadelphia tomorrow, I will necessarily be absent from the expected cloture vote to end debate on the Boxer substitute to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, S. 3036. If I were present, it would be my intention to oppose cloture at this time. As I stated earlier today on the Senate floor, I am sorry to see that the majority leader has filled the so-called amendment tree on the global warming bill, thereby blocking all amendments. This is the 12th time he has employed this legislative tactic in the 110th Congress. It is a sad state of affairs in the U.S. Senate when we take up legislation on such a pressing matter as global climate change and 4 or 5 days later find ourselves being asked to end debate when the debate hasn't even begun in earnest. I was looking forward to really focusing my attention and that of my colleagues on the very crucial issues that are part of this extremely complex bill. As I have said repeatedly, I believe we need to take action on global warming, and I have felt this way for many years. In 2001, Senator Collins and I wrote to President Bush recommending that he re-engage in the Kyoto process because the U.S. should lead on this issue and have a seat at the international table. My commitment to fighting global warming is also evidenced in the work I have done with the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Bingaman. During the energy bill debate of 2005, we offered the Bingaman-Specter sense-of-the-Senate amendment that put the Senate on record for the first time supporting mandatory climate change legislation--a 54 to 43 vote. In the intervening years, we worked diligently to craft a bill that balanced the concerns so many of our colleagues have had on both sides of the aisle. Our Low Carbon Economy Act, S. 1766, would establish mandatory emissions caps while protecting the economy and encouraging international action. Whatever eventually passes Congress and is signed into law will have to meet these difficult tests. We have spent this week debating whether to proceed to the Lieberman- Warner bill. Many Senators filed amendments starting Wednesday afternoon, which was the first opportunity to do so. I filed four substantive amendments today. However, despite the repeated urging of Senators, including me, the majority leader decided to fill the so- called amendment tree, which has the practical effect of blocking any amendments from being officially offered, debated, and voted on the Senate floor. This has set up a scenario where Senators are being asked to vote for cloture--to end debate--on the underlying Boxer substitute without ever having the opportunity to amend it. This begs the question of whether the Boxer substitute is so perfect that nothing in its 492 pages should be scrutinized--or whether more pages should be added. This kind of process puts Senators in a difficult position. I have stated my desire to pass legislation combating global warming. I represent a State with 12 million people and a very diverse electorate and economy. There are many Pennsylvanians who would like me to vote for the Lieberman-Warner bill. There are also many who want me to oppose it. I have met with citizens, companies, faith leaders, sportsmen, conservationists, environmentalists, union officials, and others who have expressed a broad range of opinions. What I have tried to do is take all of these concerns and work with my colleagues such as Senator Bingaman to craft sound public policy that exerts U.S. leadership in tackling the very real environmental problems we are facing, but also recognizes the uncertainty with creating the Nation's first economywide cap-and-trade program. On Monday, June 2, I presented a detailed floor statement on my past activities on climate change and on my concerns with the Lieberman- Warner bill. Some of the questions and concerns I raised included whether the Lieberman-Warner emissions caps are technologically attainable, whether the bill adequately protected the economy, whether the bill strongly adequately addressed the competitiveness of domestic manufacturers, and whether the bill fairly treats process gas emissions from steel production, to which there are no alternative methods. I filed four amendments dealing with these issues, but, again, none of my amendments nor any others will be permitted by the majority. Now, it is important to note that I am not set in stone on anything. I am open to rethinking my position on various elements of a climate change bill. I also think I deserve the opportunity to state my case and have my opinion and ideas considered. Given the current legislative situation and lack of proper consideration of this incredibly important legislation, I do not support the effort to invoke cloture on the substitute at this time. I commit to continuing to work with my colleagues to find a solution to the very serious issue of climate change. We should be acting with the speed and deliberation that this massive yet essential undertaking deserves.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleagues. I have sought recognition to comment on a couple of subjects. One is the gridlock we are facing now in this body on the issue of judicial confirmations. It is my hope that we will yet be able to find a formula to break this cycle of gridlock. I have spoken on the subject repeatedly--about the events of the last 20 years, where in the last 2 years of each administration, when the White House is controlled by one party, as was the case with President Reagan in his last 2 years, and the nominations were gridlocked, and slowed down. Similarly, with President Bush the first, the last 2 years were slowed down, and then other devices and procedures were employed during the last 2 years of President Clinton's administration, procedures employed by the Republican caucus. As I have said on a number of occasions, I think the Republican caucus was wrong. I said so, and I voted so, in support of President Clinton's nominations. And now, I think the Democratic caucus is wrong in what the Democratic caucus is doing. I am not going to get into all of the nuances of the so-called ``deal'' about the confirmation of three circuit judges before Memorial Day, but that deal could have been accomplished had the judges waiting in line the longest been processed as opposed to judges who had not had their investigations done and had not had their ABA clearances. But, all of that is prologue, as I see it. During an Judiciary executive committee meeting, before the recess, I said publicly that I hoped to sit down with this chairman to try to work through this. We had a meeting scheduled yesterday, and we are going to sit down this afternoon. So it is my hope we will find a way through this thicket. I have proposed a protocol where we would have a hearing so many days after a nomination; then so many days later, we would have executive committee action; then so many days later, floor action. I think it is time that we reexamined the blue slip situation, a concept where an individual who was personally obnoxious to a given Senator was objected to. Well, I have grave questions about that standard for excluding people. I think it ought to be a matter of whether they are publicly obnoxious, but, what we ought to do is we ought to vote; we ought to bring these people to the floor for a vote.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have consulted with the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Whitehouse, who is next in line, and he has agreed to permit me to--I expected to have 10 minutes at 10:45. Senator Whitehouse has generously permitted me to go ahead for 5 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that following my 5 minutes, Senator Whitehouse be recognized, and then, as I have already spoken to the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, he will be recognized, and then Senator Smith will be recognized in the regular sequence in morning business.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am sorry to see that the majority leader has filled the tree on the global warming bill. There is no way we are going to move ahead on this legislation, as I have stated before on the floor, if we are not permitted to offer amendments. I think there is general agreement, although there are still some dissenters, that we need to do something. We have the Warner-Lieberman bill. I think it has objectives which are not technologically obtainable, which are too difficult on the U.S. economy, and have joined with Senator Bingaman on alternative legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the statement regarding a number of amendments which I had proposed to introduce be printed in the Record, one on emissions caps/targets, a second on a cost-containment safety- valve amendment, a third on an international competitiveness amendment, and a fourth on process gas emissions.

Mr. SPECTER. But there is no way to get 60 votes to impose cloture unless we find a way to allow Senators to offer their amendments. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of a floor statement of mine on the New England Patriots videotaping of NFL football games be printed in the Congressional Record as if read in full on the Senate floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do intend to object, I have already said I would be willing to yield 2 minutes to Senator Boxer and 2 minutes to Senator Warner, where Senator Boxer then added some amorphous language about an exchange between the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Massachusetts. I don't understand what that is and how long. If I may finish, Mr. President. If I may finish.

Mr. SPECTER. I have been waiting a while. I would like to have my time which has been locked in and for which I have been waiting. Beyond the yielding to Senator Boxer for 2 minutes and Senator Warner for 2 minutes, I will object to anything further.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, will you restate the unanimous consent request?

Mr. SPECTER. I will be glad to add to the 4 minutes 3\1/2\ additional minutes which Senator Corker asked for on the condition that be the extent of it.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, what is the pending unanimous consent request?

Mr. SPECTER. That is this morning, now.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am agreeable to defer my 15 minutes, which is scheduled to start at 12:15, for 2 minutes for Senators Boxer and Warner. I don't understand what followed that. So I wish to proceed at that time with that.

Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object, I don't know what the request is.

Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

Mr. SPECTER. It is my understanding that I have 15 minutes at 12:15, which I have been waiting for all morning.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. It has been a little tough getting these 15 minutes, but I am glad to have them.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I sought recognition to discuss a number of amendments which I will be proposing to offer. I intend to offer an amendment on emission caps because of my concern that the emission caps which are set in the Lieberman-Warner bill cannot be obtained. I believe the problem of global warming is a major problem and we ought to deal with it, but I think we have to deal with it within the realistic bounds as to what the technology would permit, and it is going to be very difficult to get 60 votes to oppose cloture, and if a legislative proposal is on the floor which is unattainable, we are going to end up getting nothing. So it is my intention to take the emission caps from the Bingaman-Specter bill and offer them as an amendment to the Lieberman-Warner bill. I intend to offer a second amendment--a cost-containment safety-valve amendment. This amendment will include the so-called technology accelerator mechanism which has been included in the Bingaman-Specter bill, and will provide a very important safeguard on the legislation. I intend to offer a third amendment on international competitiveness. It is vital that we not structure legislation which will put United States industry at a substantial disadvantage. On February 14, I testified before the Senate Finance Committee on this subject, noting that China wishes to have 30 years, and by that time there will be no steel industry. So there have to be restrictions on steel illustratively coming in the United States, and this amendment on international competitiveness will deal with that subject. I intend further to offer an amendment captioned ``Process Gas Emissions,'' because there is no technological alternative to a company's annual requirement to submit emissions allowances. Finally, there is a potential fifth amendment, which I am not yet certain about, and that would involve the pathway to the future for coal amendment. The statement was made earlier in the past half hour about Senators not understanding this bill. I think that is a real problem. This is an extraordinarily complex bill. We have had the Warner-Lieberman bill, then we have had the Boxer bill, a second bill, and now I understand there is going to be a third substitute. So as we are working through the amendments which I have articulated, it is a difficult matter, with the topography changing and with the underlying bill changing, and it is my hope this bill will remain on the floor with procedures to give Senators sufficient time to take up the very important matters which are at hand. The first and most fundamental one is to have enough debate so that there is an understanding of the bill. I agree with my distinguished colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, who a few moments ago asked for time so there could be debate and an exchange. Too often speeches are made on this floor without an opportunity for debate and questioning and cross-questioning to get to the very important matters. There has been some speculation that the procedure that will be employed by the majority leader--so-called filling the tree--would preclude further amendments. I hope that will not be done here. Regrettably, it has become a commonplace practice, going back with Republican majority leaders and Democratic majority leaders, so that the filling of the tree has made a very fundamental change in Senate procedure, which traditionally has been that a Senator could offer an amendment on any subject at any time and get a vote. When the tree is filled, obviously matters cannot be debated and efforts for cloture cannot move forward. This is a matter which has awaited a fair amount of time. It is complex. And if Senators are not able to offer amendments, such as the amendments which I am proposing to offer, there is no way to find out what the merits of the bill are and what the merits of the amendments are. On the subject of filling the tree, I have had for months now an amendment on a rules change filed with the rules committee which would alter the authority of the majority leader to employ the so-called procedure of filling the tree. Another concern which is related has been the shift in the practice of the Senate on the filibusters. There had been a tradition in the Senate that when somebody offered a bill, and there was opposition and the opposition intended to conduct a filibuster--that is to deny a vote unless 60 votes were obtained to cut off debate--that there would be that kind of debate. Most recently, we have seen the practice employed that if someone says there is an intent to have a filibuster, there is a motion to proceed for cloture on a filibuster, there is a 20-minute vote, and when cloture is not invoked, the matter is eliminated. Recently, we had a very serious piece of legislation coming to the floor which sought to change a ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States on the rights of women to obtain relief, where the Supreme Court had imposed a 6-month statute of limitations in a situation where the woman who sought relief didn't even know she had a cause of action within the 6 months. Well, that matter came and went so fast on the Senate floor that nobody knew what it was about. Had the proponents of that legislation debated it, brought it to public attention, and had the opponents of the legislation, who wanted to filibuster it, engaged in extended debate, the public would have understood what was going on. So the matter of having adequate time to debate this very complex legislation is very important. And if there is to be any possibility of finding 60 Senators to coalesce around a cloture petition, 60 Senators to agree on legislation, Senators are going to have to have an opportunity to offer their amendments. There is great therapy in being able to offer an amendment, even if it is not accepted. But we can hardly engage in a practice of filling the tree, where Senators are not permitted to offer amendments, and expect to have this bill move forward, people understand it, and find 60 Senators who are willing to come together on the very important piece of legislation which is at hand. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be included in the Record at this time a summary of the sheet of the five potential amendments I intend to offer, and an explanation of the amendment on the cost-containment safety valve, an explanation on the amendment on international competition, an explanation on the amendment on process gas emissions, and the single sheet which explains the proposal on a possible pathway to the future for the expanded use of coal amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to recognize an outstanding Pennsylvania citizen, L. Robert Kimball. In 1953, L. Robert Kimball opened the doors of a surveying and civil engineering consulting company in Ebensburg, PA. Under Mr. Kimball's leadership over the past 55 years, L. Robert Kimball & Associates has grown from a 2-person outfit to a 600-person firm which now oversees nearly 1,200 projects a year in 14 offices across the United States. L. Robert Kimball's leadership has not gone unnoticed. Among his many commendations are the Outstanding Engineering Alumnus Award and the Distinguished Alumnus Award from the Pennsylvania State University, the Western Pennsylvania Family Business of the Year Award from the University of Pittsburgh's Katz Graduate School of Business, and the Small Business Person of the Year Award from the Small Business Association. I will conclude by commending the four guiding principles that Mr. Kimball instills in each his staff: have a goal, be persistent, know when to change direction, and enjoy your work.