Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. If my colleague would yield to me. When you talk about particularity, it may not mean a lot on the Senate floor, but it means a lot in litigation, and billions can be affected by that kind of a pleading change.

Mr. SPECTER. I challenge that. If I have the floor, I challenge that. In what respect does my amendment go beyond this? That simply is not true. What my amendment does is to take the second circuit language under which a plaintiff can meet the tough state of mind standard, and put that in the statute. This body agreed to that. And now it has come back from the conference report deleted. In what respect did my language go beyond the second circuit?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I make this request on behalf of Senator Dole, so all Senators may be advised as to what the schedule will be. I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the conference report occur at 4:45 p.m., with the time between now and then divided as follows: Senator Heflin, 7 minutes; Senator Graham, 7 minutes, Senator Graham of Florida; Senator Shelby, 7 minutes; Senator Biden, 7 minutes; Senator Wellstone, 7 minutes; Senator Cohen, 5 minutes; Senator Sarbanes, 5 minutes; Senator Bryan, 10 minutes; Senator Dodd or his designee, the remainder of the time which, who knows, may be zero, like this morning.

Mr. SPECTER. Will the distinguished Senator yield for a moment for a unanimous-consent request?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to honor the memory of our long-time Senate Chaplain and spiritual leader, Dr. Richard Halverson, who passed away November 28. Dr. Halverson served as Chaplain for 14 years, joining the Senate in 1981 shortly after I, too, entered the Senate. He retired this past March after distinguished service to this body and to the Nation. As Senate Chaplain, Dr. Halverson played many roles. His prayers would open each daily session of the Senate, often reminding Senators of the higher objectives of our work. When passions ran high over controversial legislation, Dr. Halverson's opening prayers would give Senators pause for reflection and helped maintain the Senate's tradition of reasoned, respectful debate. I came to know Dr. Halverson well through his attendance at our Bible study sessions, where he came to learn and share his thoughts on the Old Testament. He was a gracious, valued participant and we benefited from his spiritual insight. As many know, Dr. Halverson established himself as a Chaplain who never tired of selfless service. He was always available to spend time with someone who needed his time, either for spiritual guidance or counsel. His energies were not just directed at Senators, but at their spouses and staffs, and hundreds of Senate employees. In this role, he played a vital role in keeping the fabric of the U.S. Senate together. The Senate was a better place for having had the compassionate service of Dr. Halverson as its Chaplain for 14 years, and the Nation owes him its gratitude for the role he played in our midst. My wife, Joan, and I extend our heartfelt condolences to Dr. Halverson's wife, Doris, and his many children and grandchildren. We will all miss his faithful, caring presence.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak in support [[Page S 17787]] of the Interstate Commerce Commission Sunset Act of 1995 (S. 1396), which provides for the orderly transfer of the residual functions of the Interstate Commerce Commission to an independent Intermodal Surface Transportation Board within the Department of Transportation. Pennsylvania is a rail-dependent State, and both shippers and railroads are in agreement that there should be no regulatory gap between the Commission and its successor agency during which no agency of the Federal Government has jurisdiction to enforce the Interstate Commerce Act. The fiscal year 1996 Transportation appropriations bill, H.R. 2002 (Pub. L. No. 104-50), provides no funding for the Commission effective December 31, 1995, making passage of the sunset legislation and a prompt House-Senate conference necessary to avoid disruption in the rail industry. I am pleased to note that the managers' amendments included language that I have worked on and supported, which is designed to ensure that this legislation maintains the balance between the rights and remedies of carriers and shippers incorporated into the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, which provided new market freedoms to this industry. Several provisions in the reported bill could be interpreted as reregulating certain aspects of the railroad industry. These provisions, if left untouched, could undermine the Staggers Act reforms, which have worked well for both shippers and railroads. Therefore, I wish to thank Chairman Pressler, the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, and Senator Exon, the ranking minority member, who have worked closely with me, Senator Santorum, Senator Mack, and other Senators, in a bipartisan manner to finalize language that maintains a deregulated environment for our vital railroad industry as we streamline Government and provide for an orderly transition from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Board.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I call the Senator under rule XIX.

Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have been on the floor for a considerable period of time and on my feet, and I had called Senators to order under rule XIX, where there had been a succession of questions, which I think, fairly stated, really went beyond a question. The rules of the Senate do not permit any Senator, even a leader, to yield to another Senator on the floor for anything other than a question. The proceedings went far beyond a question. I just wanted to make that explanatory statement as to why I was on my feet seeking recognition and seeking that the rules of the Senate be complied with, so that others might have an opportunity to seek recognition. As I have listened to this debate, Mr. President, I am reminded of the statement by a very distinguished Senator from Maine, Senator Margaret Chase Smith, who made the distinction between the principle of compromise and the compromise of principle. As I listen to this debate, we are not talking about first amendment issues. We are talking about dollars and cents and some sort of an accommodation. I heard the question raised by the Senator from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, about low-income energy assistance and how it was not being provided to the poor people of America. And he made a reference to what this Senator had been trying to do. I think that characterizes the situation on the Senate floor, where we have a bill on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, the subcommittee which I chair, which has not been brought to the floor because there is a filibuster effort by the Democrats on a provision relating to striker replacement. I do not say that in the context of fixing blame on the Democrats, necessarily, because that provision is a substantive provision added on to an appropriation bill by Republicans and we really ought not to use the appropriations process for substantive provisions which are contested. I think that is what has happened now when we have had the Government shut down for 2 days, and we have had many, many Americans inconvenienced. There has been a recitation of the people who have been inconvenienced--the Social Security beneficiaries cannot apply, and the veterans, and the situation with passports, and immigration issues, and visitors. I received a call yesterday from my hometown of Philadelphia, where people cannot go to Independence Hall, and they are saying, ``What is going on down there?'' Mr. President, I believe we are witnessing a real spectacle in the Congress [[Page S 17122]] for the last 2 days. What we have been seeing over the past several years has really been a demise of democracy. When I first ran for public office, not too long ago, 70 to 75 percent of the people of Philadelphia came out to vote in a mayoral election. Last week, we had an election in Philadelphia, and less than half of the people came out because of the disillusionment, disenchantment with what is happening in Washington, DC, inside this beltway, and really around America in the political process. What is happening here--and it is no surprise and it is understandable, in a sense--is this maneuvering for political advantage. I suggest to my colleagues, both in the Congress and in the executive branch, that nobody is getting any political advantage now. This is not a win-win situation, this is a lose-lose situation for everybody. When Senators come to the floor and decry the issue of political advantage and go on and on about what the Speaker's wife did as a passenger on an airplane, that is hardly going to the issue of what we are trying to do to solve this crisis in Government and this crisis in confidence. Mr. President, what is really involved here is a question of priorities. I think it is far beyond the issue of pique. I think people do not understand really how tired everybody is in Washington and how tired everybody is around the country about what is going on in Washington. But we have late-night sessions, and many of the people just went to Israel for the sad funeral of Prime Minister Rabin--16 hours over and 16 hours back. There is a certain sense of exhaustion which is working here. We certainly do not want the American people to think that the Government is being run out of a sense of pique or out of a sense of grudge. What we are boiling down to here, Mr. President, I think, is a crystallization of the issues which have to be decided at the next election. The issue of a balanced budget is one where a lot of lip service is being given on both sides of the aisle. But I suggest that the record is reasonably clear--and it is hard to have a reasonably clear record on anything in Washington, DC--that it is pretty much a party issue, with every Republican, except one, voting for a balanced budget amendment. And on the Democrat side of the aisle, there was substantial disagreement with six Senators last year in favoring a balanced budget amendment, and now not favoring it. The President of the United States--and not in a harsh rhetoric sense--opposes a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. We may be clarifying an issue here about having the 7-year timeframe for a balanced budget amendment, as postulated on this continuing resolution. It is my hope that President Clinton will sign a continuing resolution that has two qualifications. One is a 7-year time limit, which, on occasion, he has endorsed, and a second on figures from the Congressional Budget Office, which, again, on occasion, he has endorsed. Of course, you can raise arguments as to anything on any issue at any time, anyplace, especially around here. But those are not unreasonable conditions to move ahead with a continuing resolution, to get the Government back in operation. If the President decides not to sign that continuing resolution, then I think we have to come to terms, leave the issue for the 1996 election in fairly crystal form, and get this Government running again. If we come back to basic principles, we all agree that the Congress passes legislation which has to be signed by the President, unless there are two-thirds of each body of the House and Senate that will override a Presidential veto. And if we have a gridlock, if the President is adamant, for whatever reason, and if the Congress is adamant, for whatever reason--and I think the American people see it as a lot of political posturing on both sides and are saying ``a plague on both of your houses''--why cannot the Congress of the United States come to terms? This is not freedom of religion; this is not due process of law; these are dollars and cents which, customarily, have been split. If we cannot split them, let us crystallize the issue for the 1996 election. But let us not tie up the Government of the United States in the context where we all look so foolish. Yesterday, I had my regular weekly radio news conference, and the only question asked was about the stalemate in Washington and the gridlock. I said, candidly, that it was an embarrassment. It was embarrassing to be a Senator when what is happening in Washington, DC, goes on without any resolution. So I hope, Mr. President, in the first instance, that President Clinton will accept this continuing resolution. It is not too onerous. There is no commitment as to what is going to appear in all of the rooms discussed by my colleagues within the 7 years. I have been on the floor of this body objecting to the tax cuts at a time when we are seeking to balance the budget and to tighten our belts and we are asking people to take cuts in programs. I have the chairmanship of the appropriations subcommittee covering three big departments: Education--where we have added $1.6 billion on a Republican bill which is being filibustered by the Democrats. Again, I do not question it, really, because a substantive measure was added on striker replacement. Health and Human Services--both the House and the Senate have agreed to add substantial funds to the National Institutes of Health on their important research projects. That is being held up because of the bickering. Certainly the President would agree to sign that. And we cover the Department of Labor. Our subcommittee came back in on a $70 billion discretionary budget and cut $8 billion with a scalpel instead of a meat ax in a way which satisfied the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, who has worked with me on that subcommittee. So we really ought to come to terms here. If there is a limitation of 7 years, it does not say that is going to be done to any one of the departments. There is plenty of time to object at a later stage. I hope the President will sign a continuing resolution with these two relatively modest limitations. If that does not happen, Mr. President, I hope we heed the words of Margaret Chase Smith and distinguish between what is the principle of compromise as opposed to the compromise of principle and recognize that our Constitution gives the President the veto power and a dominant role, or at least an equal partnership role, unless we have two-thirds to override--which we do not--so that we can end the charade, get the Government going, and crystallize that issue for the 1996 election. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call for the regular order.

Mr. SPECTER. Was that unanimous-consent agreement entered into?

Mr. SPECTER. I call the Senator on rule XIX.

Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator for clarifying the intent of the conferees. This is an issue of great importance to several hundred Pennsylvania OPM employees and I appreciate the assistance of the distinguished chairman and his commitment to ensure that their interests and those of every taxpayer are best served. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. fresno courthouse

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a brief discussion with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee to clarify a matter regarding the proposed privatization of Investigative Services by the Office of Personnel Management. It is my understanding that the House and Senate have directed the General Accounting Office to perform a detailed, long-term, cost- benefit and feasibility analysis on the OPM submissions for an Employee Stock Ownership Plan [ESOP] for the Investigative Services under OPM's jurisdiction. Is it the intent of the conferees that OPM must retain full staffing at the Federal Investigative Processing Center [FIPC] in Boyers, PA, and that OPM may not proceed with the privatization of Investigative Services before receipt of the GAO report and in no event before March 30, 1996?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I wanted to take a minute to update the Senate on the status of the Labor, HHS and Education appropriations bill, H.R. 2127 as it relates to the continuing resolution and the implications of the Senate's inaction on the bill for programs of the Departments of Labor, HHS and Education. As Senators know, the Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996 is still on the calendar. Efforts to bring it up in the Senate have been met with a filibuster due to the ``striker replacement'' provision. I opposed that provision being added to the bill in committee, because of the view that controversial legislative riders do not belong on an appropriation bill, but should be considered through the authorization process. In the case of the Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations bill, the legislative riders included by the House have stalled action on this important bill in the Senate, and indefinitely postponed funding for education, health, job training, and social service programs in this fiscal year. While the continuing resolution will ensure that some funding will be available for these programs, it is only on a short-term basis and at a minimal level. For example, a central difference between the House passed and the committee reported bills involves funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP]. LIHEAP provides funds to states to help low income households meet their fuel bills during the winter months when costs soar due to cold weather. A high percentage of the program's beneficiaries are elderly and disabled people who need help in paying their fuel bills. Mr. President, it is already getting very cold in many parts of the Nation, with a major Canadian cold front making early November feel like winter in much of the midwest and northeast. Under the terms of the continuing resolution, less than $200 million will have been made available to the States. This is far short of the $600 million requested by the States to get through the first quarter of the fiscal year. This comports with the historic average of 60 percent of the annual appropriation for LIHEAP being allocated to the States in the first quarter. Many States have begun receiving requests for assistance, and under normal circumstances would begin distributing funds to participants at this time. However, because of the present stalemate in the Senate on the Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations bill, States have no idea how to plan for this winter's program, and hundreds of thousands of low income families are left wondering how they will be able to meet their winter heating bills. Low income households, as well as Governors and local officials across the country are waiting to learn whether, and how much, funding will be appropriated for this winter's LIHEAP program. Funding for education programs also are held hostage to the stalemate on H.R. 2127. Education program funding levels recommended by the House fall almost $3.6 billion below the fiscal year 1995. The Senate bill, as reported by the Appropriations Committee on September 15, includes funding for education programs which is $1.6 billion above the House passed levels. Under the terms of the CR, however, the lower levels of the House bill become the funding levels for the upcoming period of the CR. Absent action on the Senate bill, and a conference with the House, future funding levels for these education programs likely will continue at House passed levels. Finally, Mr. President, the terms of the CR maintain funding for medical research supported by the National Institutes of Health at the 1995 level of $11.3 billion. But, there is clear consensus between the Congress and the President that medical research is a priority, deserving of increased funding in fiscal year 1996. Despite a 7-percent reduction in the subcommittee's allocation, the President's budget, the House passed bill, and the Senate reported bill, nonetheless recommended increases for NIH of no less than $300 million. Without Senate action on the Labor, HHS and Education appropriations bill, medical research funding will be frozen indefinitely, thereby stalling new discoveries for understanding the causes and cures of diseases. I will support this continuing resolution because it provides critical short-term funding for Federal activities. But I also want to make clear, it is time for the Senate to act on the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill. Let us stop the filibuster, agree to bring up the bill, debate it, and let the Senate work its will. The critical programs in this bill deserve the attention and debate of the Senate. The American people are waiting for the Congress to complete its work.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. If I may respond----

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before yielding to the distinguished Senator from Maine, I want to make a few further comments. I find the comment by the Senator from Oklahoma curious, to put it mildly, that he has never been so thankful he is not a lawyer. I hope the Senator from Oklahoma never needs a lawyer. But if he does, he might like to have a lawyer, especially a good lawyer, to protect his interests and to protect his constitutional rights. Sometimes we lawyers help to get it right. This is not a matter for broad gestures and grandiose statements. We are dealing here with matters which involve the Constitution. Pardon me----

Mr. SPECTER. I would be glad to withdraw my request for recognition.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition, permit me to summarize briefly, and I yield myself 2 minutes, reserving the remainder of the time for others. What we have here is a bill which has been placed on the calendar in an unusual way. Until relatively recently, the provisions of rule XXV of the Senate require a referral to committee. That has been changed by an interpretation of rule XIV, but I question the propriety and especially the wisdom of having this matter proceed without having a hearing. In the House of Representatives, the bill was introduced on June 14 and one day later, there was a hearing, and on the same day there was a markup. Very limited testimony was presented. The House was then engaged virtually continuously on the budget matters, except for the August recess. They took the matter up on November 1, and they passed the bill. Then it came to the Senate, and now we are on November 8, just 7 days later, when action is requested on this bill without any hearing in the Judiciary Committee. [[Page S 16800]] I have made a motion for referral to committee on a very limited basis, really for 9 days, between today, November 8, and November 10 when the Senate is scheduled to go out of session, and then the extended time over the recess for 10 more days, from November 17 until November 27. There are very important considerations which we need to inquire into on humanitarian grounds. The question has been raised of anesthetic, which has to be fairly taken up, a very substantial controversy on the medical evidence, complex issues on medical procedures, as well as the humanitarian concept, and then the formulation of the law itself, since this statute can be circumvented in a number of ways on medical procedures through C section or otherwise. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished President pro tempore. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Jeffords, Snowe, Campbell, Kassebaum, Simpson, and Cohen, I move to commit H.R. 1833 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to hold not less than one hearing on this bill and report the bill with amendments, if any, back to the Senate within 19 days. The motion to commit with instructions is as follows: motion to commit with instructions Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Campbell, Ms. Kassebaum, Mr. Simpson, and Mr. Cohen) moves to commit the bill H.R. 1833 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to hold not less than one hearing on such bill and report the bill, with amendments (if any), back to the Senate within 19 days.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have selected a bare minimum amount of time, which is really only a 9-day commitment from today, November 8, until November 17 when the Senate will go out of session under a previously announced recess period by the majority leader. And then there would be an additional 10 days while the Senate is in recess, from November 17 to November 27, for a total of 19 days. But the effective period of this referral, as I say, will only be for 9 days. After considerable thought, I have abbreviated the referral period to this very short time to emphasize to everyone the importance of the issue and the need to have very prompt consideration and to allay any concern or reject any argument that this referral is being made to, in effect, defeat the bill. Mr. President, I submit that this kind of consideration and this kind of a hearing is really indispensable because of the very complex matters which are involved in this issue. I would enumerate them as humanitarian considerations, medical considerations, statutory interpretation considerations, and constitutional considerations. The humanitarian considerations have been broached to a significant extent in terms of the circumstances of the mother and the circumstances of the fetus with considerable doubt as to what actually occurs during these so-called late-term abortions. It is a very complicated picture as to what pain and suffering is sustained by the fetus, a subject which requires our very thorough consideration because of the very serious humanitarian implications on pain and suffering to the fetus during the course of this medical procedure. The matter has had a very, very brief hearing in the House of Representatives--as I understand it, for less than a full day. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my statement the full transcript of the hearing before the House of Representatives may be printed in the Record so that everyone in the Senate who will be considering this matter in the course of the next day or two, or however long it takes, will have an opportunity to see the brevity of those hearings and the impossibility of consideration of the many complicated issues which are involved in this matter. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe.) Without objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 1.)

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays, if they have not been ordered.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.