Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, while the Senator from New Hampshire is still on the floor, I thank him and commend him for his statement directly to the issues. He has articulated them very well. It is a different circumstance and what we are looking at is the issue of indefinite detention and some process where there has to be some reason given for the detention. It doesn't haven't to comply with the technical Rules of Evidence, although the Department of Defense regulation calls for evidence, and evidence is a work of art comprehending competency of items to establish a fact. But without moving into the full range of evidence for some reason to hold them-- and I agree with the Senator from New Hampshire that we are not looking for a remedy to test living conditions or to test food or test a wide variety of items that may be comprehended in other habeas corpus situations, but just detention--that is all--just detention. I am agreeable to modifying the amendment to specifying just detention. The Senator from New Hampshire raises a valid point that there may be other Senators--he estimates as many as 10--who are inclined to support an amendment which directed itself only at detention. There is the right of modification. I am going to talk to more of my colleagues to see if that would produce a significantly different result. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. I yield the floor, and in the absence of any Senator seeking recognition suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, while the Senator from Illinois is still on the Senate floor, I want to thank him for those eloquent remarks going right to the core of the issue, the importance of protecting America from terrorists and at the same time a balance in protecting Americans' constitutional rights. When he refers to Tom Sullivan, the very distinguished Chicago attorney, I might note that Mr. Sullivan testified at a Judiciary Committee hearing and brought forth a number of examples, which I put into the Record earlier today, where it is recited in some detail people who were detained at Guantanamo for very long periods of time. One specifically commented about crossed the border, was supposed to have been associated with someone from al-Qaida, no reason for keeping him was given, no evidence to that effect, but was kept for 5 years and then released. Let me express a concern I have, which I discussed earlier with the Senator from Illinois, and that is I am concerned that this amendment will not receive a vote. Last year, the Senate voted on a 51-to-48 vote, to include language in the Military Commissions Act that limited Federal court habeas jurisdiction. I have suggested that there be a cloture petition filed on this bill, if we are going to vote on cloture later this week on the underlying bill, and that would be a case where we might vote on cloture on this amendment. I would structure it in that fashion only as a way to get a vote so that people will have to take a position, and I simply wanted to make reference to that. Madam President, I yield the floor. Amendment No. 312

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Leahy, Senator Dodd, and myself, I call up amendment No. 286. This is an amendment which would repeal the provisions of the Military Commission Act, striking Federal court jurisdiction for habeas corpus except for the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia. I have previously talked to Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Jon Kyl to give them notice that we would be calling up this amendment. I discussed the issue with Senator Lieberman, the manager of the bill, as to procedures which we may follow, but I wanted to call it up and have it pending and proceed to debate it at a later time.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation to provide relief to the rising number of taxpayers impacted by the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Between a lack of indexing for inflation and higher AMT tax rates relative to the regular income tax system, we now have a tax system which has grown far beyond its intended result. Important changes must be made to address these two critical issues. Absent legislative action, the number of taxpayers subject to AMT liability will continue to rise sharply. The AMT Rate Reduction Act of 2007 would bring the AMT back ``in line'' with the regular individual income tax by reducing its rate back to 24 percent. Combined with the continued extension of the AMT exemption, this proposal would remove millions of unintended middle-class taxpayers from the AMT rolls. The AMT functions as a parallel tax system to the regular income tax so that when a taxpayer's AMT liability exceeds their regular income tax liability, that person must pay the AMT. The AMT is set up to ensure that high-income taxpayers pay their fair share by denying certain deductions and exemptions available under the regular income tax. However, the AMT is now hitting the middle class--and hitting them hard. It is important to keep in mind that the first version of the AMT was created in 1969 in response to a small number of high-income individuals who had paid little or no federal income taxes. In 2006, 3.5 million taxpayers will be subject to the AMT, and that number will continue to increase sharply in the coming decade. In Pennsylvania alone, 79,000 individuals filed their returns under the AMT in 2003, accounting for 1.37 percet of all Pennsylvania returns; 114,000 Pennsylvania returns were filed under the AMT in 2004, accounting for 1.97 percent of all Pennsylvania returns; and 137,486 Pennsylvania returns were filed under the AMT in 2005. This onerous tax is slapped on average American families largely because the AMT is not indexed for inflation, while the regular income tax is indexed, and taxpayers are ``pushed'' into the AMT through so- called ``bracket creep.'' Temporary increases in the AMT exemption amounts expired at the end of 2006. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 increased the AMT exemption amount effective for tax years between 2001 and 2004; the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 extended the previous increase in the AMT exemption amounts through 2005; and the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 increased the AMT exemption amount for 2006. If we do not again adjust the AMT exemption amount, it is estimated that the number of taxpayers subject to the AMT will jump from 3.5 million in 2006 to 23 million in 2007, with middle-income taxpayers most affected. In Pennsylvania alone, that number will jump drastically to 837,000 in 2007. According to the Congressional Research Service, taxpayers filing joint returns with no dependents will be subject to the AMT starting at income levels of $75,386. Large families will be subject to the AMT at income levels as low as $49,438. In addition to the issue of indexing the AMT exemption amount for inflation, the AMT tax rate relative to the regular income tax must also be addressed to keep additional taxpayers who were never intended to pay the AMT from being subject to its burdensome grasp. In 1993, President Clinton and a Democrat-controlled Congress imposed a significant tax hike on Americans through the regular income tax. At the same time, the AMT tax rate was also increased from 24 percent to 26 percent for taxable income under $175,000 and from 24 percent to 28 percent for taxable income that exceeds $175,000. In theory, these simultaneous changes had the effect of keeping roughly the same number of individuals paying their taxes under the AMT. However, when President Bush's tax cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003, Congress did not again adjust the AMT tax rates. Ironically, by reducing regular income tax liabilities without substantially changing the AMT, many new taxpayers were pushed into these higher AMT tax rates created in 1993. According to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on February 23, 2007, entitled ``Bill Clinton's AMT Bomb,'' the number of filers paying the AMT increased from 300,000 to nearly 2 million between 1992 and 2002. The WSJ also cites a Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) analysis from April 2006 which shows that about 11 million more Americans will have to pay the AMT next year as a result of the 1993 AMT rate increase. It concludes that ``going back to the pre-Clinton rates would leave only about 2.6 million tax filers subject to an AMT penalty next year instead of 23 million under current law.'' The most unfortunate aspect of adjusting the AMT is the associated cost. According to the April 2006 JCT analysis, the ten-year cost of my proposal, combined with extension of the AMT exemption amount, is a staggering $632.7 billion. However, it is still substantially less than the cost of full repeal. According to the Congressional Research Service, it is estimated that repealing the AMT would cost, depending on whether the recent reductions in the regular income tax are extended beyond 2010, $806 billion to over $1.4 trillion from 2007 through 2016. I am cognizant of the fact that Democrats in the 110th Congress will seek to fully offset the cost of the lost revenue resulting from any adjustment to the AMT. With the political realities being as such, I am willing to work with my colleagues to identify reasonable offsets, if they are necessary, to garner broad support for this effort. However, it is questionable whether an offset should be needed to recover ``lost'' revenue that was never intended to be collected in the first place. I look forward to working with my colleagues to both simplify our tax code and to identify the best avenue for keeping unintended taxpayers from falling prey to the AMT. I will continue to support the so-called ``hold-harmless patch.'' By both extending and increasing the AMT exemption amount to keep up with inflation, the ``patch'' ensures that no additional taxpayers on the lower end of the income spectrum become liable for the AMT. However, I urge my colleagues to support my legislation which would remove millions of additional unintended taxpayers who are currently subject the AMT. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation to provide relief to the rising number of taxpayers impacted by the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Between a lack of indexing for inflation and higher AMT tax rates relative to the regular income tax system, we now have a tax system which has grown far beyond its intended result. Important changes must be made to address these two critical issues. Absent legislative action, the number of taxpayers subject to AMT liability will continue to rise sharply. The AMT Rate Reduction Act of 2007 would bring the AMT back ``in line'' with the regular individual income tax by reducing its rate back to 24 percent. Combined with the continued extension of the AMT exemption, this proposal would remove millions of unintended middle-class taxpayers from the AMT rolls. The AMT functions as a parallel tax system to the regular income tax so that when a taxpayer's AMT liability exceeds their regular income tax liability, that person must pay the AMT. The AMT is set up to ensure that high-income taxpayers pay their fair share by denying certain deductions and exemptions available under the regular income tax. However, the AMT is now hitting the middle class--and hitting them hard. It is important to keep in mind that the first version of the AMT was created in 1969 in response to a small number of high-income individuals who had paid little or no federal income taxes. In 2006, 3.5 million taxpayers will be subject to the AMT, and that number will continue to increase sharply in the coming decade. In Pennsylvania alone, 79,000 individuals filed their returns under the AMT in 2003, accounting for 1.37 percet of all Pennsylvania returns; 114,000 Pennsylvania returns were filed under the AMT in 2004, accounting for 1.97 percent of all Pennsylvania returns; and 137,486 Pennsylvania returns were filed under the AMT in 2005. This onerous tax is slapped on average American families largely because the AMT is not indexed for inflation, while the regular income tax is indexed, and taxpayers are ``pushed'' into the AMT through so- called ``bracket creep.'' Temporary increases in the AMT exemption amounts expired at the end of 2006. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 increased the AMT exemption amount effective for tax years between 2001 and 2004; the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 extended the previous increase in the AMT exemption amounts through 2005; and the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 increased the AMT exemption amount for 2006. If we do not again adjust the AMT exemption amount, it is estimated that the number of taxpayers subject to the AMT will jump from 3.5 million in 2006 to 23 million in 2007, with middle-income taxpayers most affected. In Pennsylvania alone, that number will jump drastically to 837,000 in 2007. According to the Congressional Research Service, taxpayers filing joint returns with no dependents will be subject to the AMT starting at income levels of $75,386. Large families will be subject to the AMT at income levels as low as $49,438. In addition to the issue of indexing the AMT exemption amount for inflation, the AMT tax rate relative to the regular income tax must also be addressed to keep additional taxpayers who were never intended to pay the AMT from being subject to its burdensome grasp. In 1993, President Clinton and a Democrat-controlled Congress imposed a significant tax hike on Americans through the regular income tax. At the same time, the AMT tax rate was also increased from 24 percent to 26 percent for taxable income under $175,000 and from 24 percent to 28 percent for taxable income that exceeds $175,000. In theory, these simultaneous changes had the effect of keeping roughly the same number of individuals paying their taxes under the AMT. However, when President Bush's tax cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003, Congress did not again adjust the AMT tax rates. Ironically, by reducing regular income tax liabilities without substantially changing the AMT, many new taxpayers were pushed into these higher AMT tax rates created in 1993. According to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on February 23, 2007, entitled ``Bill Clinton's AMT Bomb,'' the number of filers paying the AMT increased from 300,000 to nearly 2 million between 1992 and 2002. The WSJ also cites a Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) analysis from April 2006 which shows that about 11 million more Americans will have to pay the AMT next year as a result of the 1993 AMT rate increase. It concludes that ``going back to the pre-Clinton rates would leave only about 2.6 million tax filers subject to an AMT penalty next year instead of 23 million under current law.'' The most unfortunate aspect of adjusting the AMT is the associated cost. According to the April 2006 JCT analysis, the ten-year cost of my proposal, combined with extension of the AMT exemption amount, is a staggering $632.7 billion. However, it is still substantially less than the cost of full repeal. According to the Congressional Research Service, it is estimated that repealing the AMT would cost, depending on whether the recent reductions in the regular income tax are extended beyond 2010, $806 billion to over $1.4 trillion from 2007 through 2016. I am cognizant of the fact that Democrats in the 110th Congress will seek to fully offset the cost of the lost revenue resulting from any adjustment to the AMT. With the political realities being as such, I am willing to work with my colleagues to identify reasonable offsets, if they are necessary, to garner broad support for this effort. However, it is questionable whether an offset should be needed to recover ``lost'' revenue that was never intended to be collected in the first place. I look forward to working with my colleagues to both simplify our tax code and to identify the best avenue for keeping unintended taxpayers from falling prey to the AMT. I will continue to support the so-called ``hold-harmless patch.'' By both extending and increasing the AMT exemption amount to keep up with inflation, the ``patch'' ensures that no additional taxpayers on the lower end of the income spectrum become liable for the AMT. However, I urge my colleagues to support my legislation which would remove millions of additional unintended taxpayers who are currently subject the AMT. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation along with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, that will honor the importance of the steel industry in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Nation by creating the ``Steel Industry National Historic Site'' to be operated by the National Park Service in southwestern Pennsylvania. The importance of the steel industry to the development of the United States cannot be overstated. A national historic site devoted to the history of the steel industry will afford all Americans the opportunity to celebrate this rich heritage, which is symbolic of the work ethic endemic to this great nation. The National Park Service has reported that Congress should make remnants of the U.S. Steel Homestead Works an affiliate of the national park system, rather than a full national park, an option which had been considered in years prior, and which I proposed in the 107th Congress. Due to the backlog of maintenance projects at national parks, the legislation offered today instead creates a national historic site that would be affiliated with the National Park Service. There is no better place for such a site than in southwestern Pennsylvania, which played a significant role in early industrial America and continues today. I have long supported efforts to preserve and enhance the historical steel-related heritage through the Rivers of Steel Heritage Area, which includes the city of Pittsburgh, and seven southwestern Pennsylvania counties: Allegheny; Armstrong, Fayette, Greene, Washington and Westmoreland. I have sought and been very pleased with congressional support for the important work within the Rivers of Steel Heritage Area expressed through appropriations levels of roughly $1 million annually since fiscal year 1998. I am hopeful that this support will continue. However, more than just resources are necessary to ensure the historical recognition needed for this important heritage. That is why I am introducing this legislation today. It is important to note why Pennsylvania should be the home of the national site that my legislation authorizes. The combination of a strong workforce, valuable natural resources, and Pennsylvania's strategic location in the heavily populated northeastern United States allowed the steel industry to thrive. Today, the remaining buildings and sites devoted to steel production are threatened with further deterioration. Many of these sites are nationally significant and perfectly suited for the study and interpretation of this crucial period in our Nation's development. Some of these sites include the Carrie Furnace Complex, the Hot Metal Bridge, and the United States Steel Homestead Works, which would all become a part of the Steel Industry National Historic Site under my legislation. As testimony of the area's historic significance, on September 20, 2006, the Carrie Furnaces were designated as a National Historic Landmark by the Secretary of the Interior. Highlights of such a national historic site would commemorate a wide range of accomplishments and topics for historical preservation and interpretation from industrial process advancements to labor-management relations. It is important to note that the site I seek to become a national site under this bill includes the location of the Battle of the Homestead, waged in 1892 between steelworkers and Pinkerton guards. The Battle of the Homestead marked a crucial period in our nation's workers' rights movement. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, individuals, and public and private entities have attempted to protect and preserve resources such as the Homestead battleground the Hot Metal Bridge. For the benefit and inspiration of present and future generations, it is time for the Federal Government to join this effort to recognize their importance with the additional protection I provide in this bill. I would like to commend my colleague, Representative Doyle, who has been a longstanding leader in this preservation effort and who has consistently sponsored identical legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. I look forward to working with southwestern Pennsylvania officials and Mr. August Carlino, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Steel Industry Heritage Corporation, in order to bring this national historic site to fruition. We came very close to passing this bill in the 108th Congress with its passage in various forms in the House and the Senate. However, Congress adjourned prior to final passage of the same bill in both chambers during the 108th and l09th Congresses. Therefore, today we reintroduce this legislation and urge its swift passage.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation along with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, that will honor the importance of the steel industry in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Nation by creating the ``Steel Industry National Historic Site'' to be operated by the National Park Service in southwestern Pennsylvania. The importance of the steel industry to the development of the United States cannot be overstated. A national historic site devoted to the history of the steel industry will afford all Americans the opportunity to celebrate this rich heritage, which is symbolic of the work ethic endemic to this great nation. The National Park Service has reported that Congress should make remnants of the U.S. Steel Homestead Works an affiliate of the national park system, rather than a full national park, an option which had been considered in years prior, and which I proposed in the 107th Congress. Due to the backlog of maintenance projects at national parks, the legislation offered today instead creates a national historic site that would be affiliated with the National Park Service. There is no better place for such a site than in southwestern Pennsylvania, which played a significant role in early industrial America and continues today. I have long supported efforts to preserve and enhance the historical steel-related heritage through the Rivers of Steel Heritage Area, which includes the city of Pittsburgh, and seven southwestern Pennsylvania counties: Allegheny; Armstrong, Fayette, Greene, Washington and Westmoreland. I have sought and been very pleased with congressional support for the important work within the Rivers of Steel Heritage Area expressed through appropriations levels of roughly $1 million annually since fiscal year 1998. I am hopeful that this support will continue. However, more than just resources are necessary to ensure the historical recognition needed for this important heritage. That is why I am introducing this legislation today. It is important to note why Pennsylvania should be the home of the national site that my legislation authorizes. The combination of a strong workforce, valuable natural resources, and Pennsylvania's strategic location in the heavily populated northeastern United States allowed the steel industry to thrive. Today, the remaining buildings and sites devoted to steel production are threatened with further deterioration. Many of these sites are nationally significant and perfectly suited for the study and interpretation of this crucial period in our Nation's development. Some of these sites include the Carrie Furnace Complex, the Hot Metal Bridge, and the United States Steel Homestead Works, which would all become a part of the Steel Industry National Historic Site under my legislation. As testimony of the area's historic significance, on September 20, 2006, the Carrie Furnaces were designated as a National Historic Landmark by the Secretary of the Interior. Highlights of such a national historic site would commemorate a wide range of accomplishments and topics for historical preservation and interpretation from industrial process advancements to labor-management relations. It is important to note that the site I seek to become a national site under this bill includes the location of the Battle of the Homestead, waged in 1892 between steelworkers and Pinkerton guards. The Battle of the Homestead marked a crucial period in our nation's workers' rights movement. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, individuals, and public and private entities have attempted to protect and preserve resources such as the Homestead battleground the Hot Metal Bridge. For the benefit and inspiration of present and future generations, it is time for the Federal Government to join this effort to recognize their importance with the additional protection I provide in this bill. I would like to commend my colleague, Representative Doyle, who has been a longstanding leader in this preservation effort and who has consistently sponsored identical legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. I look forward to working with southwestern Pennsylvania officials and Mr. August Carlino, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Steel Industry Heritage Corporation, in order to bring this national historic site to fruition. We came very close to passing this bill in the 108th Congress with its passage in various forms in the House and the Senate. However, Congress adjourned prior to final passage of the same bill in both chambers during the 108th and l09th Congresses. Therefore, today we reintroduce this legislation and urge its swift passage.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, this vote on cloture to cut off debate involves a conflict between two important principles: (1) obtain fairness for the Senate Republican minority on having our resolutions and amendments debated and voted upon, and (2) debating and voting on the approval or rejection of the President's plan to add 21,500 troops to the U.S. force in Iraq. At the outset, it must be emphasized that there is unanimity that no preceptive action be taken by Congress to exercise our ``power of the purse'' to cut off funds that would in any way endanger our troops. In response to the majority leader's use of the Senate rule to ``fill the tree,'' which precludes any Republican alternative resolutions, I voted against cloture to cut off debate on the Levin amendment on February 5. The procedure to ``fill the tree'' is contrary to the basic Senate practice of allowing Senators to offer amendments or alternative resolutions, unlike the House of Representatives, which customarily precludes such latitude. On February 14, I introduced an amendment to rule XXII to stop the ``filling of the tree,'' citing vociferous objections by Senators Reid, Durbin and Dodd to similar Republican action in the 109th Congress when Republicans held a majority. Although it is very important for the minority to exercise its rights to stop abusive majority practices, it is my judgment that this must yield to the dominant principle of debating and voting on the future of U.S. policy in Iraq. Let's move on. We Republicans can exercise our rights of retaliation in the immediate future on other majority action to reign in such majority abuse. In my view, it is most important that the Senate speak out on Iraq. If we continue to debate whether there should be a debate while the House of Representatives acts, the Senate will become irrelevant. To paraphrase the Roman adage: ``The Senate should not fiddle while Iraq Burns.'' The American people have a right to know the Senate's judgment on this most important issue of the day, and our constituents have a right to know and evaluate the judgment of each Senator. Accordingly, I am voting for cloture to end the debate so we can move ahead.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have two votes scheduled at 10:30. We were supposed to have 15 minutes reserved for Senator Leahy and myself, and I know Senator Hagel is in the Senate and wants a little time. With the majority leader in attendance, I wonder if we might adjust the timing so we can talk about these judges at least for a few minutes?

Mr. SPECTER. I accept that. May I use the last 4 minutes to speak? I will yield to the Senator from Nebraska for a minute.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is only a minute left before 10:30, not enough time to discuss. I ask unanimous consent I be recognized at the conclusion of the third vote for 10 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. My request--we were supposed to speak, but the time has been consumed otherwise. With only less than a minute left until 10:30, I have asked for consent to speak for 10 minutes at the conclusion of the third vote.

Mr. SPECTER. Let me amend that to ask for 10 minutes for the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SPECTER. I ask consent to that request. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro terrpore. Without objection, it is so ordered. Vote on Nomination of Norman Randy Smith

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, may I claim 1 minute as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee? I think Senator Nelson and Senator Martinez had important things to say about the nominee, but I don't think anybody heard them. So if I could have the attention of my colleagues.

Mr. SPECTER. The nominee has an outstanding record, having served as a United States magistrate. She graduated from Vanderbilt in 1987, and from the University of Florida College of Law, with honors, in 1990. She has an outstanding professional record. I urge my colleagues to support her nomination.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Regular order, Mr. President.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had requested 10 minutes to speak on the judges, but I want to use a few moments here to talk about what is on the table. We have just seen the Senate, for the better part of an hour, with a majority of the Senators on the floor, demonstrate gridlock and paralysis. I have an observation to make--and perhaps it would be an admonition or a warning--that the Senate is about to become irrelevant. We have, on the other side of the Rotunda, the House of Representatives taking up the issue of Iraq, which all Members here, with the speeches just made, agree is the most pressing issue facing the country, but the Senate can't address it. And the Senate can't address it because the majority leader has exercised his right under rule XV to fill the tree, which precludes any action by the Republicans, unless we Republicans exercise our right to withhold cloture.

Mr. SPECTER. I will be glad to yield but on additional time.

Mr. SPECTER. I will yield to the Senator from West Virginia for a question.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may regain the floor because I have a very limited time, my observations after being here for 26 years-plus are that when the majority leader then seeks recognition again, he gets it.

Mr. SPECTER. And when he makes the amendment in the first-degree and then he seeks recognition again, he gets it, an amendment in the second degree, and he does fill the tree. Last week I proposed to change the rule. This rule has been exercised by Senator Dole, Senator Mitchell, Senator Byrd, and all the majority leaders in the last two decades. I think it is time we change the rule. We are not going to change the rule now. But I do believe that the Senate is in real danger of becoming irrelevant. I don't think we ought to be dominant over the House of Representatives, but I think we ought to at least be equal.