Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. No; I wish to finish. I think we ought to at least be equal. What we have is that we are close to anarchy. We have been debating the debate all week. The House has rules which we wouldn't want, where the Rules Committee goes off and comes back and limits what the House of Representatives can do. Sometimes that is despotism, and between anarchy and despotism, it is a fairly tough choice. But right now, I am finding it difficult--impossible--to answer my constituents about what the Senate is doing. I tell them the tree is filled. They think I am talking about an orchard. I tell them we are debating whether we are going to have a debate, and they can't understand what we are doing. I counted the Senators on the floor during the exchange between the majority leader and the Republican leader. We had more than 50 Senators here sitting around on the debate for a debate without reaching a resolution. I think Senator McConnell is correct. I do not say that in the partisan sense, if I can attract the attention of the distinguished Republican leader. I think he is correct. But I repeat I do not say it in a partisan sense. There ought to be an accommodation and there ought to be an agreement reached between the leaders. When you have the proposal to have a variety of resolutions, that is the way of the Senate. Senator McCain has been here for 20 years. Senator McConnell has been here for 22 years. I have been here for 26 years. Senator Byrd has been here for--I can't count that high--48 years, going onto 49. This is not the way the Senate ought to work. But it is the way the Senate has worked, with all the majority leaders in the last two decades exercising their right of recognition and filling the tree and tying up the Senate. Now the Senate is finally caught. We are finally caught where America and the world sees what we are doing. It is a little ridiculous to have this kind of gridlock and this kind of paralysis. How much time do I have left, Mr. President? I have to talk about the judges.

Mr. SPECTER. Let me yield to the Senator from West Virginia who wanted recognition--for a question.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, regular order. May I reclaim my time?

Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains, Mr. President?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on the sequence of speakers, I ask that following Senator Leahy's 1 hour, there be 5 minutes for Senator Crapo and 5 minutes for Senator Craig to talk about a judicial nomination.

Mr. SPECTER. As a final statement, it is my hope that the majority leader, Senator Reid, and Republican leader, Senator McConnell, before the day is up, will come to terms and will announce some accommodation so that there can be a fair resolution of the debate--so this body does not become irrelevant and we do not present a picture to the American people of gridlock and paralysis, but we show we are still the world's greatest deliberative body because we are about to cede that title to the House of Representatives which as we speak is deliberating, which we are not doing--and that we take up the Iraqi issue and we show the American people and the world we can reach an accommodation, we can debate in accordance with the traditions of the Senate. I ask my colleagues to seriously consider the resolution I introduced to change rule XV. I agree with Senator Byrd. We do not need more rules, but we need a little modification of rule XV. I thank my colleague from Vermont and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Less than 5 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Vermont. As noted earlier, legislation was introduced in the last Congress by Senator Leahy and myself and others to deal with the problem of the McCarran-Ferguson Act. We held hearings on this matter in the Judiciary Committee. On recent matters which have evolved from Hurricane Katrina, which will be amplified by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott, there is a more pressing need to enter into this arena. There have been various attempts over the years to limit McCarran- Ferguson, and they have not succeeded because, as amplified in a more detailed statement which I will include for the Record, there were safe harbors proposed. They became very complicated. We have provided in this legislation that the Commission decide what is to be violative of the antitrust laws, a line which has been successful on the health industry. The economy of the United States functions much better when the antitrust laws are available and enforceable. We see a great many problems at the present time with what is happening with the sports teams. The National Football League enjoys a limited antitrust exemption, and they are proposing the Sunday ticket to DIRECTV, which has a monopoly. Cable companies can't get the Sunday ticket. They now have the Thursday to Saturday ticket. It is only on the NFL channel. I had a talk with the commissioner of the NFL recently, who was living in New York City, and he couldn't get the Sunday ticket because his highrise wouldn't allow him to put a dish on top of the building. May I note for the record the distinguished junior Senator from Montana is nodding in the affirmative. He lives in an area--now he is smiling. He lives in an area where you need a satellite, and his constituents do, and some of mine in Pennsylvania do, and in my home State of Kansas. Now baseball is coming along with extra innings and exclusive to DIRECTV. The impact of the antitrust exemption on the insurance industry has been even more profound. But it is noted when we have the Federal Trade Commission authorized to issue guidelines in identifying joint practices where the antitrust concerns ought to be addressed, that is the way to approach it, as the Federal Trade Commission did in the health care industry. I think this is a significant step forward, and I am glad to see that the majority leader, Senator Reid, is behind this legislation. We can pass it out of committee, we can take it up on the Senate floor, and I think we can provide better protection for the American consumers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my statement be included in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Less than 5 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Vermont. As noted earlier, legislation was introduced in the last Congress by Senator Leahy and myself and others to deal with the problem of the McCarran-Ferguson Act. We held hearings on this matter in the Judiciary Committee. On recent matters which have evolved from Hurricane Katrina, which will be amplified by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott, there is a more pressing need to enter into this arena. There have been various attempts over the years to limit McCarran- Ferguson, and they have not succeeded because, as amplified in a more detailed statement which I will include for the Record, there were safe harbors proposed. They became very complicated. We have provided in this legislation that the Commission decide what is to be violative of the antitrust laws, a line which has been successful on the health industry. The economy of the United States functions much better when the antitrust laws are available and enforceable. We see a great many problems at the present time with what is happening with the sports teams. The National Football League enjoys a limited antitrust exemption, and they are proposing the Sunday ticket to DIRECTV, which has a monopoly. Cable companies can't get the Sunday ticket. They now have the Thursday to Saturday ticket. It is only on the NFL channel. I had a talk with the commissioner of the NFL recently, who was living in New York City, and he couldn't get the Sunday ticket because his highrise wouldn't allow him to put a dish on top of the building. May I note for the record the distinguished junior Senator from Montana is nodding in the affirmative. He lives in an area--now he is smiling. He lives in an area where you need a satellite, and his constituents do, and some of mine in Pennsylvania do, and in my home State of Kansas. Now baseball is coming along with extra innings and exclusive to DIRECTV. The impact of the antitrust exemption on the insurance industry has been even more profound. But it is noted when we have the Federal Trade Commission authorized to issue guidelines in identifying joint practices where the antitrust concerns ought to be addressed, that is the way to approach it, as the Federal Trade Commission did in the health care industry. I think this is a significant step forward, and I am glad to see that the majority leader, Senator Reid, is behind this legislation. We can pass it out of committee, we can take it up on the Senate floor, and I think we can provide better protection for the American consumers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my statement be included in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I sought recognition for a number of purposes. But first, let me congratulate my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Mississippi, for casting his 10,000th vote today. Senator Cochran came to the Senate after the 1978 election, having served previously in the House of Representatives for 6 years, and has had an illustrious career. He served on the Judiciary Committee for 2 years and demonstrated, at an early point in his Senate career, his wisdom by leaving the Judiciary Committee after only 2 years. All those hot-button issues--school prayer, abortion, flag burning, et cetera--were not for Senator Cochran. He was on the big issues of the day and specialized in appropriations. He has been the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and has an outstanding record. I challenge anybody to search the record, 10,000 votes, and find any mistakes by Senator Cochran. It has been, truly, an outstanding career. Beyond his extraordinary capability as a Senator, he is always of good cheer, always personable, always upbeat. He has made a great contribution to the Senate and to the House before that. He will have many more years of very distinguished service for the Senate.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I turn to the subject of submitting a resolution which I spoke about yesterday, and I do formally submit the resolution at this time. This resolution will eliminate the practice of filling the tree, which means there is a procedure to eliminate the opportunity of a Senator to offer an amendment. This is a particularly problemsome week for the Senate. We are on Thursday, and twice this week action has been taken in the Senate, on two separate matters, to foreclose Senators from offering amendments. I spoke on Monday and again yesterday on the subject of U.S. policy in Iraq, and we have a bill which has been offered by Senator Levin, and the majority leader was expected to fill the tree, if given an opportunity to do so. No denial has been made of that practice, which was anticipated by the majority leader. A motion to proceed is a debatable motion under Senate rules. When you have a matter as important as the Iraq war, there ought to be very careful consideration given by the Senate--reputed to be the world's greatest deliberative body. Immediately upon taking up the bill, the majority leader filed a cloture motion. It was kind of odd, even for people not versed in Senate procedure, to bring up a bill which is debatable and immediately to file a motion to cut off debate, but that was what was done. On the Republican side, there was an interest in having alternative resolutions, ideas considered--by Senator McCain, to support the surge with benchmarks; by Senator Warner, to express opposition to a surge of 21,500; and by Senator Gregg, to have a resolution which would deal with the prohibition against funding for the troops--which obviously nobody wants to do. The troops are in harm's way. We are not going to cut off funding. But behind the scenes what was happening was negotiations between Senator Reid and Senator McConnell--the agreement could not be reached giving the Republicans a fair opportunity to offer alternative resolutions, so almost all Republicans joined together to reject the cloture motion and keep the debate going. It is not understood in America what is happening because it is arcane, it is esoteric, it is unintelligible--they can't figure it out. But the popular view, the public perception was the Republicans were trying to protect the President, to cut off debate on the Iraq policy and not to have a vote. That, simply stated, was not true. I have been on the record for some time, expressing my skepticism about the surge position. There is no doubt that Senator Warner opposes the President's position because he is the author of the resolution to express disapproval on the surge position. He voted against cloture. No doubt, Senator Hagel was against the President's proposal. He has been the most severe critic of the President's proposal. Senator Hagel also voted against cloture, as did almost all Republicans. But the perception was the Republicans were trying to block debate in the consideration of the resolution of disapproval. After I announced my intention to introduce this rule change, I went to the third floor, to the press gallery, to sit down with the reporters to explain and to answer questions, to try to get a public discussion on what was happening. One of the reporters from the wire services commented that no story was written about it because it couldn't be explained to anybody beyond the beltway. It could not be explained. Two of the newspapers on Capitol Hill carried brief stories about it, but the matter has been dropped. Republicans have lost the public relations battle. The issue will be taken up in the House. Maybe it will be reconsidered in the Senate. But this procedure of allowing the majority leader to stop alternative considerations is inappropriate and unfair. There are some pretty good authorities for the proposition that this procedure is inappropriate. I wish to cite three very distinguished Senators: Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader; Senator Richard Durbin, the assistant majority leader; and Senator Chris Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut. As I said yesterday, this business about filling the tree has been practiced by both parties. The Congressional Research Service did a study that showed that going back to Senator Dole in the 1985-1986 Congress, every majority leader has used this procedure-- Senator Dole, Senator Byrd, Senator Mitchell, Senator Lott, Senator Daschle, Senator Frist, and now Senator Reid, twice in 1 week. In the fifth week of the new session, it is twice already being used. So that Democrats and Republicans are equally at fault. If people want to know whom to blame in Washington, it is a pretty good conclusion it is equally divided, that the bickering is the responsibility of both parties--a plague on both houses. But when we Republicans controlled the Senate and we had the PATRIOT Act, Senator Reid had this to say on February 28 of last year. He was speaking in defense of a fellow Democrat's ability to offer amendments to the PATRIOT Act reauthorization. This is what Senator Reid said: 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.'' 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. That is what Senator Reid said less than a year ago. I couldn't say it better. In fact, I couldn't say it as well. Then, a few days later on March 2, Senator Reid said this: Don't fill the tree. This is a bad way, in my opinion, to run the Senate. Then Senator Durbin spoke on May 11 of 2006 on the tax increase prevention and reconciliation act. Speaking about that conference report, this is what Senator Durbin had to say: 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 amendments. Well, that is exactly the plan for the Iraq issue, and that is what is being done now on the continuing resolution which has been filed. Senator Dole had this to say, 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. Well, Arlen Specter doesn't have to say anything more on the subject because Senator Reid, Senator Durbin, and Senator Dodd are much more eloquent than I. So I offer this resolution to correct this problem for the future. It is very hard to change a Senate rule, but nobody has proposed it in the past, to my knowledge, and today we will start on it. Beyond the procedure used by the majority leader, the leader of the Democrats, to shut off debate and consideration of alternative proposals on the Iraq policy, the majority leader has utilized the procedure again on the continuing resolution. Now the continuing resolution characteristically is a brief document, usually about a page, which says the Government will continue to operate under existing appropriations, since there has not been time to consider a new appropriations package. But what we have in H.J. Res. 20 is an omnibus bill running 137 pages. I want to have an opportunity to amend it. Other Senators want to have an opportunity to amend it. Some have spoken on the floor of the Senate here today. But we are foreclosed from doing so. When the announcement was made that we were going to go to this kind of a procedure, in my capacity as chairman last year, now ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, I wrote a letter to Senator Reid asking that we follow regular order and consider the appropriation bills sequentially. I sent identical letters to Speaker Pelosi, the Republican leader, Boehner, in the House, Senator McConnell, Senator Byrd, Representative Obey, Representative Lewis, and Senator Cochran, the leaders of both bodies and the chairmen and ranking members of both Appropriations Committees. Because if we had the will; we had the time; we had the way, to get it all done. But the leadership has chosen not to follow that path, and now we have a continuing resolution which does not allow for any amendments. That is not in the public interest. After having been in the Senate for 26 years and being on the Appropriations Committee for 26 years, I have turned into a rubberstamp. That is what the Senators are here, those who did not have a say in the preparation of this continuing resolution. We are all rubberstamps: Take it or leave it. Now we would employ the procedure used on the Iraqi issue to avoid cutting off debate, but the Treasury will run out of money at midnight on February 15--that is Thursday night--so we have the option of closing down the Government if we don't approve this rubberstamp procedure, and we are not going to do that. We had experience with the closing down of the Government back in December of 1995, and it was a very bitter experience; great political peril in closing down the Government. Here we have a very important measure. For a few minutes I want to point out what has happened to the subcommittee which funds health care, which is our No. 1 capital asset; you can't do anything if you don't have good health, and I can testify to that personally from my own experience in the last 2 years. Secondly, education. If you are not trained, you can't do anything, even with good health. The Department of Labor on job training and worker safety. The level of the budget for fiscal year 2005 was $143.4 billion. The President has proposed a budget for fiscal year 2008 of $141.5 billion. If you take a look at the cuts in the budget for Health, Education and Labor and you add in the inflationary factors, the committee is being asked to operate at a level of $14.7 billion less than the fiscal year 2005 budget. That simply is inadequate to take care of the National Institutes of Health, offering the greatest chance through medical research to find cures for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and cancer and heart disease; funding for Head Start, funding for Title I, funding for education programs, funding for job training. It simply is totally insufficient. Those are the kinds of matters we ought to address on this continuing resolution. That is what we ought to be talking about, instead of having our last vote before noon on a Thursday as part of our 5-day workweek. We have yet to see that; we have yet to take the time we need to consider these matters. Had we taken up these appropriations bills in regular order, as I asked the leadership back on January 10, we would have had adequate time to do so. It is my hope that one day, and hopefully sooner rather than later, the Senate will change its rules so the majority leader will not be able to create a procedural morass to stop Senators from introducing amendments. It is my hope Senator Reid's admonitions when the shoe was on the other foot back last year, that filling the tree is a bad practice, it runs against the basic nature of the Senate, the hallmark of the Senate is free speech and open debate, and similar comments by Senator Durbin and Senator Dodd, that we will be able to have a process so when an issue such as Iraq comes before the Senate, we can function as a deliberative body and we can have debate; we can consider alternative matters, and we can decide what U.S. policy should be. Because the President is not the sole decider. It is a shared responsibility; that when we have a budget and a resolution to fund the U.S. Government, we are not shut out from offering amendments. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the summary of the statements of Senators Reid, Durbin, and Dodd be printed in the Record at this time.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my letter of January 10 to Senator Reid, which notes identical records to the other leaders in the House and Senate, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Judge Paul Michel to me, dated December 18, about the problems caused to the Federal judiciary to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which was referenced in my letter to Senator Reid and others, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the chart showing the fiscal impact on the budgetary process from the fiscal year 2005 to the President's recommended budget of 2008 be printed in the Record, demonstrating the problems we have on adequately funding health, education, job training, and worker safety.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the summary prepared by the Congressional Research Service as to the use of the procedure to fill the tree since the 99th Congress be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. I know my colleagues are waiting to speak.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, thank you for the recognition. I have sought recognition to discuss the procedural situation which confronts the Senate at the present time and to discuss a proposed rule change which would deal with this kind of a problem. We have pending a motion to proceed on S. 470, which proposes a disagreement with the President's plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq. Under the Senate rules, a motion to proceed is debatable, and when we deal with an issue of the magnitude of what is happening in Iraq today and the President's proposal to send additional troops, it is obviously a matter of great moment. The eyes and ears of the country are focused on the Senate. The eyes and ears of the world are focused on the Senate. So far, what is happening is largely misunderstood, but the starting point is that a motion to proceed is debatable. But before debate even began, the majority leader filed a motion for cloture, which means to cut off debate. Now, a cloture motion would be in order, but why before the debate has even started? The cloture motion is designed to cut off debate after debate has gone on too long. But what lies behind the current procedural status is an effort by the majority leader to do what is called filling the tree, which is a largely misunderstood concept, not understood at all by the public generally and even not understood fully by many Members of this body. But the Senate is unique from the House, and the Senate has been billed as the world's greatest deliberative body, because Senators have the right to offer amendments. In the House of Representatives they established what is called a rule, and they preclude Members from offering amendments unless it satisfies the Rules Committee. In the Senate, generally a Senator doesn't have to satisfy anybody except his or her own conscience in offering an amendment. But if the majority leader, who has the right of recognition--and that, of course, is not understood either--but if the majority leader is on the floor and seeks recognition, he gets it ahead of everybody else. And if the majority leader offers what is called a first-degree amendment to the bill, which is substantively identical to the bill but only a technical change, and then again seeks recognition and gets it and offers a second-degree amendment to the bill, which is substantively the same but only a technical change, then no other Senator may offer any additional amendment. That is a practice which has been engaged in consistently by both parties for decades, undercutting the basic approach of the Senate, which enables Senators to offer amendments and get votes. The Congressional Research Service has tabulated the statistics going back to the 99th Congress in 1985 and 1986 when Senator Dole used this procedure on five occasions. In the 100th Congress, Senator Byrd, then the majority leader, used this procedure on three occasions. In the 103d Congress, the next majority leader, Senator Mitchell, used this procedure on nine occasions. When Senator Dole became leader again in the 104th Congress, he used this procedure on five occasions. In the 106th Congress, Senator Lott, then the majority leader, used it nine times. In the 107th Congress, Senator Daschle, then the majority leader, used it once. He was only majority leader for about 18 months. In the 108th Congress, Senator Frist used it three times, and in the 109th Congress five times. Now, my suggestion is that the parties ought to declare a truce on this procedural war of filling the tree which undercuts the basic thrust of Senate procedure to allow Senators to offer amendments. But the majority leaders continue to use it, which they have a right to under the current rules, which is why I am suggesting a change in the rules. But it will take a little time to change the rules. We can't do it immediately for the Iraq debate. But it would be my hope that there would be a public understanding of what we are doing, because the most effective process in our governmental operations is public understanding and public pressure. We call it a political question. We call it public understanding to have transparency or an understanding of what we do, and then the public can say yea or nay with what is happening, and that is a tremendous force to lead Senators and Members of the House of Representatives to take action, to call it the right thing, or to take action consistent with sound public policy. Now, what is happening today is that charges are being leveled on all sides. There has been a lot of finger-pointing with most of the Democrats saying the Republicans are obstructing a vote--a debate and a vote on the Iraqi resolutions. And Republicans are saying: Well, we are insisting on our right to debate the motion to proceed. We don't think you should file cloture before the debate even starts, to cut off debate before you have debate, but the reason we are doing it is so this procedural device may not be used on what is called in common parlance to ``fill the tree.'' But if you ask virtually anybody what is filling the tree, they are going to think about an orchard; they are not going to think about Senate procedure. But it is called filling the tree. I have described it succinctly and briefly to outline exactly what the procedure is to stop Senators from offering amendments. There is a clue here that Senator Warner--who is the principal proponent of the Warner resolution, the Warner-Levin resolution, which picks up the substance of the bill which is currently pending, S. 470-- Senator Warner votes against cloture, and he is the principal proponent of disagreeing with the President's plan. Well, that ought to tell us something: that Senator Warner is not trying to stifle debate on a vote on his own initiative, on his own resolution. Senator Hagel also--who has been characterized as the most outspoken critic of President Bush's plan to have a surge--voted against cloture. That ought to tell us something: that Senator Hagel is not trying to defeat debate on a vote on what he seeks to accomplish. So it would be my hope there would be a truce. Let me say candidly that I think there is very little chance there is going to be a truce in the Senate on using this procedural rule. It has been used on both sides. It has been used by Democrats and Republicans when it suits the partisan advantage of one party or another, and suiting the partisan party advantage of one party or another is not consistent with sound public policy and the public interest. Right now this debate is being waged in the newspapers, it is being waged on the talk shows, it is being waged on the Sunday shows, even some of it is being waged on the floor of the Senate, but by and large not understood. I spoke on the subject on Monday, outlining the rules morass, and largely misunderstood, even by senior members of my own staff not understood. You have the Democrats--and I think we ought to rise above the partisanship, Democrats and Republicans--saying they have the high ground and they intend to keep it. Well, I think they are winning the public relations battle. Let's be candid about it. Democrats are winning the public relations battle. Most people think what is going on, because we are opposing ending debate, Republicans are opposing ending debate, is that we do not want to have the debate and we do not want to have the vote. That is not factually correct. Senator Warner, who is proposing it, and Senator Hagel, who is one of the sharpest critics of the President's plan, and other Senators who are critics of the President's plan, have voted against cutting off debate because it is a big issue which ought to be debated, and because what is going on behind the scenes, under the surface, is an effort to have agreement on how many votes there will be to have a fair airing of the subject matter, and to have an opportunity for Senators to vote on a variety of resolutions or amendments. Ordinarily, we come to agreement on those matters. Right now we are up against the continuing resolution, which is about to expire. I would suggest we have plenty of time to do it all if we start to work a little earlier. We are on morning business until 2 o'clock, which means we can express ourselves and it is not wasted time, but it is not the most productive time. We don't come to work until late on Monday. We don't work on Friday. Most Americans work a 5-day week. Some Americans work 6 and 7 days. So we have time. And we could work in the evenings, too, when we are facing a time limit, or we could have a continuing resolution which was extended, so that debate could be put off. But now it is in doubt what is going to happen. It is controlled by the majority, and by the majority leader, and that is the right of the majority and the right of the majority leader. There have been pronouncements that we are not going to come back to this debate and that it is politically advantageous for the Democrats to blame the Republicans for blocking debate on the vote, and that will be the public posture. But it is my hope there will yet be a recognition of what is going on. I would be glad to debate anybody who cares to discuss the issue as to whether my representations are accurate or inaccurate; that the majority leader has the right exercised by majority leaders of both parties for at least the last two decades to preclude amendments being offered and to preclude any consideration by what Republicans have to say on this issue. We have a Member of the opposite party on the Senate floor. I would be glad to debate that subject with him now. Before the week is up, I will offer a resolution to change the Senate rules to preclude this procedure in the future, but in the public interest, there ought to be a truce declared on it that won't be used by either side to the disadvantage of the other. The real party being disadvantaged is the party of the American people. That is where the impact is. In conclusion--the two most popular words of any presentation--I hope we can explain, as a starting point, discussions we have in the Senate and follow up with explanations in the media, which really carries the message to the American people. Some people are watching on C-SPAN. I have a family very interested in the speeches I make from time to time--two sisters and a brother-in-law. I talked to them Monday night, and they had no idea what I was saying. My staff does not understand what I am saying. The essence is, the rules being exercised by the majority, by the Democrats today, will preclude Republican amendments if they fill the tree by the procedure I have described. I do not want to stop debate. Senator Warner, who is the principal proponent of the amendment to debate and vote, Senator Hagel, an outspoken critic of the President-- doesn't that say something? I hope we can bring sufficient public clarity to the issue that the majority leader and the Democrats will rethink their position. As long as the Republicans are being blamed for not having debate and a vote, we are not going to have debate and a vote. If the public understands both parties are at fault, equal blame on both sides, then there may be some movement and some accommodation. It does not take long for the American people to see the morass and procedural shenanigans going on and say: We don't care whether you are a Democrat or Republican, the American people are sick and tired of the bickering that goes on in this Chamber and in the House of Representatives. They expressed themselves in the last election. If we cannot do a better job in explaining ourselves and finding a way to work through and address the substantive problems, the enormous problems facing this country--and the No. 1 today is Iraq--we may all find ourselves seeking new employment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to discuss the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2007, which I am introducing with Senator Leahy. Not long ago, personal information--Social Security numbers, birthdates, mothers' maiden names, addresses--all remained relatively private. Some information--for example, whether you had a mortgage on your home--might have been publicly available, but finding that information required a trip to the local courthouse. For the most part, the sheer difficulty of obtaining personal information kept it private. This privacy--what Justice Brandeis called the freedom to be left alone--has been a cherished value throughout American history. As everyday transactions increasingly occur electronically, personal information can be stored, transmitted and accessed much more easily. Most Americans have benefited from this change. Because personal information is available electronically, Americans enjoy the convenience of purchasing goods over the phone or on the Internet. They can obtain a home mortgage in a matter of hours. They can apply for a credit card while they wait at the store. The availability of such information also helps law enforcement agencies conduct investigations and apprehend criminals. In electronic form, personal information is both more valuable and more vulnerable. As the multitude of security breaches that have occurred over the past 2 years demonstrate, electronic information is more vulnerable because it can be accessed anonymously from afar and can be stolen in a split second. According to the Privacy Rights Clearing House, since February 2005, over 100 million records containing personal information have been subject to some sort of security breach. The first of these incidents to come to light involved commercial data broker ChoicePoint, which in February 2005 reported that identity thieves had gained access to personal information of 163,000 people. The identity thieves had obtained the information by setting up sham accounts with ChoicePoint. ChoicePoint eventually settled with the FTC for $15 million, including $5 million for consumer redress. However, consumers might never have found out about the breach. The incident only came to light because of a law California had recently adopted requiring ChoicePoint and others to provide notice of security breaches involving personal information to California residents who were affected by the breach. As a result of the California law, Americans for the first time began learning that data brokers and others were routinely collecting and selling their personal information, and in so doing, they were not always keeping the information secure. After the ChoicePoint incident came a long series of security breaches involving major American companies. In March of 2005, Designer Shoe Warehouse reported that hackers had gained access to personal information, including credit card numbers, on over 100,000 of its customers. Weeks later, Lexis Nexis reported that hackers had gained access to the personal information of over 300,000 individuals. Other blue-chip companies where unauthorized persons have gained access to personal information include Wal-Mart, General Motors, Wachovia Bank, H&R Block, Honeywell, AT&T, Lloyd's of London, ARCO, Visa, MasterCard, Bank of America, FedEx, OfficeMax, Blue Cross Blue Shield and Ralph Lauren. The largest incident came in June 2005, when Card Systems, which processes payments for the country's largest banks and credit card companies, reported that hackers had accessed 40 million records containing personal information. Most recently, TJ Maxx Stores and MoneyGram both had the personal information of their customers stolen from their computer systems. This list only includes security breaches involving wrong-doers who were trying to obtain personal information. The list would be much longer had it included inadvertent disclosure of personal information or incidents involving stolen computers or other equipment that happened to contain personal information. A large number of colleges and universities have also suffered significant breaches, including the University of Southern California, which in July of 2005 reported that hackers has accessed 270,000 records containing personal data. Other educational institutions that have been hacked include Boston College, Northwestern University, Tufts University, UCLA, Michigan State, Carnegie Mellon, Perdue, Stanford, Duke, the University of Iowa, the University of Colorado, and the University of Utah. Governments also have not been immune from attempts by identity thieves to obtain personal information. Hackers have accessed personal data at the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, the Air Force and the Department of Agriculture. Hackers obtained over half a million records containing personal data from a State agency in Georgia. The San Diego County Employees Retirement Association, the California Department of Corrections, the Nebraska Treasurers office, the city of Lubbock, TX, and a Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program in Hawaii have all been the victims of similar thefts. Electronic personal data is more valuable because identity thieves can steal a large volume of data and use it before anyone even knows their personal information has been compromised. For the last 5 years, identity theft has topped the FTC's list of consumer complaints. From 2002 to 2004, the number of complaints rose 52 percent, to 246,570. Put another way, that's one complaint every 2 minutes. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. Not all consumers report identity theft to the FTC. Not all victims report identity theft to their local police. Sixty percent of those who did file a report with the FTC did not call their local police department. It stands to reason that many did not call the FTC. A recent study by the Better Business Bureau concluded that 8.9 million Americans were victims of identity fraud in 2006, and that each victim lost approximately $6,300. Ultimately, it has been predicted that nearly 20 percent of Americans will become victims of identity theft. Worse, according to the study, it took victims an average of 40 hours on the phone with creditors and credit bureaus to clear their names. I use the term ``clear'' loosely, because in many cases the damage caused by identity theft is irreversible. Victims will have fraud alerts on their credit reports for years to come, making it more difficult for them to open new accounts or make major purchases. Some will be erroneously contacted by collection agencies. Many will not even know they have been victimized until they try to get a car loan or a mortgage on a home. Individuals who have not yet been victims also suffer. Businesses lose nearly $50 billion a year from identity thieves posing as customers. These losses translate into increased prices for every consumer. All Americans are victims of identify theft, even if their own information remains secure. In some cases, the availability of electronic personal data can lead to tragedy. In 1999, a former high school classmate of Amy Lynn Boyer obtained her former work address and Social Security number from an on- line data broker. Using this information, he called Amy's mother and posed as the former employer, convincing Amy's mom to give him Amy's new work address. He then drove to Amy's workplace and fatally shot her. In an effort to protect the privacy and security of our personal information, and prevent future tragedies, small and large, last Congress, Senator Leahy and I introduced the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act. The problem is one of large proportions and many have views on how to go about tackling it. Six committees, three on the House side and three on the Senate side, introduced legislation last Congress addressing data security. At least two other Senate committees became involved in the issue. It is my hope that the differences among committees and members can be bridged this Congress. The problem is simply too large to ignore. In an effort to start that process, Senator Leahy and I are again introducing the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act. We are reintroducing the bill in largely the same form that it was approved by the Judiciary Committee last Congress. The bill takes a comprehensive approach to the problem, an approach I believe is necessary. First, the legislation goes after identity thieves by increasing penalties for crimes involving electronic personal information. It also contains criminal penalties for those who intentionally conceal a security breach involving personal data. Those who actively conceal breaches attempt to protect themselves by gambling with the reputations and finances of innocent Americans. They deserve to be punished. The bill also empowers Americans to look after the privacy of their own information. The bill will allow individuals to gain access to their personal information when it is in the hands of commercial data brokers. For individuals who believe their information is wrong-- possibly because the activities of identity thieves--data brokers must provide assistance with correcting their information. The legislation also places some of the burden of protecting privacy on those that collect personal information. It will require the companies, government agencies, universities and others that deal with personal information to identify and remedy any weaknesses in their computer systems. Such measures will not always be enough. As I've already noted, the nature of electronic information makes it vulnerable even when reasonable steps are taken to protect it. Currently, over 30 States have adopted legislation requiring companies, agencies, universities and others to give notice when they experience a security breach that involves personal information. However, no Federal law imposes such a requirement. As a result, companies are forced to comply with over 30 different State laws, an expensive and time-consuming endeavor. The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act requires that both affected individuals and law enforcement receive notice. Knowledge is power. Once individuals learn that their personal information is exposed, they can take steps to protect themselves. And, the company, school or agency that experienced the breach must help. They must provide individuals whose data was lost with credit monitoring. For large breaches, the media must be notified. Media reports over the 2 years have made Americans far more aware of the problem of security breaches. Hopefully, we can raise awareness by continuing the practice of making public announcements. Notice will also give law enforcement a head start in catching those who steal personal information. Finally, this legislation will protect the privacy of all Americans by providing a check on the government's use of commercial databases. Federal law enforcement agencies use commercial databases to track criminals and criminal activity. Correctly used, these databases can be very useful tools in the fight against crime. However, there should be some check on their use. The bill makes it clear that protections similar to those provided by the Privacy Act are applied to the government's use of commercial databases. The legislation also aims at making sure the government's use of such data is secure. This bill represents a comprehensive effort to protect the privacy and security of the personal information of all Americans. The lives of most Americans have been made easier because our personal information is readily available to those who have a legitimate need for it. This legislation aims to keep such information out of the hands of those who have no legitimate need for it. I want to take a moment to thank my colleague, Senator Leahy, who has been tireless in his efforts to promote individual privacy. He has long fought these issues on the Senate floor and has been a leader in securing the privacy rights of all Americans. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to discuss the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2007, which I am introducing with Senator Leahy. Not long ago, personal information--Social Security numbers, birthdates, mothers' maiden names, addresses--all remained relatively private. Some information--for example, whether you had a mortgage on your home--might have been publicly available, but finding that information required a trip to the local courthouse. For the most part, the sheer difficulty of obtaining personal information kept it private. This privacy--what Justice Brandeis called the freedom to be left alone--has been a cherished value throughout American history. As everyday transactions increasingly occur electronically, personal information can be stored, transmitted and accessed much more easily. Most Americans have benefited from this change. Because personal information is available electronically, Americans enjoy the convenience of purchasing goods over the phone or on the Internet. They can obtain a home mortgage in a matter of hours. They can apply for a credit card while they wait at the store. The availability of such information also helps law enforcement agencies conduct investigations and apprehend criminals. In electronic form, personal information is both more valuable and more vulnerable. As the multitude of security breaches that have occurred over the past 2 years demonstrate, electronic information is more vulnerable because it can be accessed anonymously from afar and can be stolen in a split second. According to the Privacy Rights Clearing House, since February 2005, over 100 million records containing personal information have been subject to some sort of security breach. The first of these incidents to come to light involved commercial data broker ChoicePoint, which in February 2005 reported that identity thieves had gained access to personal information of 163,000 people. The identity thieves had obtained the information by setting up sham accounts with ChoicePoint. ChoicePoint eventually settled with the FTC for $15 million, including $5 million for consumer redress. However, consumers might never have found out about the breach. The incident only came to light because of a law California had recently adopted requiring ChoicePoint and others to provide notice of security breaches involving personal information to California residents who were affected by the breach. As a result of the California law, Americans for the first time began learning that data brokers and others were routinely collecting and selling their personal information, and in so doing, they were not always keeping the information secure. After the ChoicePoint incident came a long series of security breaches involving major American companies. In March of 2005, Designer Shoe Warehouse reported that hackers had gained access to personal information, including credit card numbers, on over 100,000 of its customers. Weeks later, Lexis Nexis reported that hackers had gained access to the personal information of over 300,000 individuals. Other blue-chip companies where unauthorized persons have gained access to personal information include Wal-Mart, General Motors, Wachovia Bank, H&R Block, Honeywell, AT&T, Lloyd's of London, ARCO, Visa, MasterCard, Bank of America, FedEx, OfficeMax, Blue Cross Blue Shield and Ralph Lauren. The largest incident came in June 2005, when Card Systems, which processes payments for the country's largest banks and credit card companies, reported that hackers had accessed 40 million records containing personal information. Most recently, TJ Maxx Stores and MoneyGram both had the personal information of their customers stolen from their computer systems. This list only includes security breaches involving wrong-doers who were trying to obtain personal information. The list would be much longer had it included inadvertent disclosure of personal information or incidents involving stolen computers or other equipment that happened to contain personal information. A large number of colleges and universities have also suffered significant breaches, including the University of Southern California, which in July of 2005 reported that hackers has accessed 270,000 records containing personal data. Other educational institutions that have been hacked include Boston College, Northwestern University, Tufts University, UCLA, Michigan State, Carnegie Mellon, Perdue, Stanford, Duke, the University of Iowa, the University of Colorado, and the University of Utah. Governments also have not been immune from attempts by identity thieves to obtain personal information. Hackers have accessed personal data at the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, the Air Force and the Department of Agriculture. Hackers obtained over half a million records containing personal data from a State agency in Georgia. The San Diego County Employees Retirement Association, the California Department of Corrections, the Nebraska Treasurers office, the city of Lubbock, TX, and a Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program in Hawaii have all been the victims of similar thefts. Electronic personal data is more valuable because identity thieves can steal a large volume of data and use it before anyone even knows their personal information has been compromised. For the last 5 years, identity theft has topped the FTC's list of consumer complaints. From 2002 to 2004, the number of complaints rose 52 percent, to 246,570. Put another way, that's one complaint every 2 minutes. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. Not all consumers report identity theft to the FTC. Not all victims report identity theft to their local police. Sixty percent of those who did file a report with the FTC did not call their local police department. It stands to reason that many did not call the FTC. A recent study by the Better Business Bureau concluded that 8.9 million Americans were victims of identity fraud in 2006, and that each victim lost approximately $6,300. Ultimately, it has been predicted that nearly 20 percent of Americans will become victims of identity theft. Worse, according to the study, it took victims an average of 40 hours on the phone with creditors and credit bureaus to clear their names. I use the term ``clear'' loosely, because in many cases the damage caused by identity theft is irreversible. Victims will have fraud alerts on their credit reports for years to come, making it more difficult for them to open new accounts or make major purchases. Some will be erroneously contacted by collection agencies. Many will not even know they have been victimized until they try to get a car loan or a mortgage on a home. Individuals who have not yet been victims also suffer. Businesses lose nearly $50 billion a year from identity thieves posing as customers. These losses translate into increased prices for every consumer. All Americans are victims of identify theft, even if their own information remains secure. In some cases, the availability of electronic personal data can lead to tragedy. In 1999, a former high school classmate of Amy Lynn Boyer obtained her former work address and Social Security number from an on- line data broker. Using this information, he called Amy's mother and posed as the former employer, convincing Amy's mom to give him Amy's new work address. He then drove to Amy's workplace and fatally shot her. In an effort to protect the privacy and security of our personal information, and prevent future tragedies, small and large, last Congress, Senator Leahy and I introduced the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act. The problem is one of large proportions and many have views on how to go about tackling it. Six committees, three on the House side and three on the Senate side, introduced legislation last Congress addressing data security. At least two other Senate committees became involved in the issue. It is my hope that the differences among committees and members can be bridged this Congress. The problem is simply too large to ignore. In an effort to start that process, Senator Leahy and I are again introducing the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act. We are reintroducing the bill in largely the same form that it was approved by the Judiciary Committee last Congress. The bill takes a comprehensive approach to the problem, an approach I believe is necessary. First, the legislation goes after identity thieves by increasing penalties for crimes involving electronic personal information. It also contains criminal penalties for those who intentionally conceal a security breach involving personal data. Those who actively conceal breaches attempt to protect themselves by gambling with the reputations and finances of innocent Americans. They deserve to be punished. The bill also empowers Americans to look after the privacy of their own information. The bill will allow individuals to gain access to their personal information when it is in the hands of commercial data brokers. For individuals who believe their information is wrong-- possibly because the activities of identity thieves--data brokers must provide assistance with correcting their information. The legislation also places some of the burden of protecting privacy on those that collect personal information. It will require the companies, government agencies, universities and others that deal with personal information to identify and remedy any weaknesses in their computer systems. Such measures will not always be enough. As I've already noted, the nature of electronic information makes it vulnerable even when reasonable steps are taken to protect it. Currently, over 30 States have adopted legislation requiring companies, agencies, universities and others to give notice when they experience a security breach that involves personal information. However, no Federal law imposes such a requirement. As a result, companies are forced to comply with over 30 different State laws, an expensive and time-consuming endeavor. The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act requires that both affected individuals and law enforcement receive notice. Knowledge is power. Once individuals learn that their personal information is exposed, they can take steps to protect themselves. And, the company, school or agency that experienced the breach must help. They must provide individuals whose data was lost with credit monitoring. For large breaches, the media must be notified. Media reports over the 2 years have made Americans far more aware of the problem of security breaches. Hopefully, we can raise awareness by continuing the practice of making public announcements. Notice will also give law enforcement a head start in catching those who steal personal information. Finally, this legislation will protect the privacy of all Americans by providing a check on the government's use of commercial databases. Federal law enforcement agencies use commercial databases to track criminals and criminal activity. Correctly used, these databases can be very useful tools in the fight against crime. However, there should be some check on their use. The bill makes it clear that protections similar to those provided by the Privacy Act are applied to the government's use of commercial databases. The legislation also aims at making sure the government's use of such data is secure. This bill represents a comprehensive effort to protect the privacy and security of the personal information of all Americans. The lives of most Americans have been made easier because our personal information is readily available to those who have a legitimate need for it. This legislation aims to keep such information out of the hands of those who have no legitimate need for it. I want to take a moment to thank my colleague, Senator Leahy, who has been tireless in his efforts to promote individual privacy. He has long fought these issues on the Senate floor and has been a leader in securing the privacy rights of all Americans. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to oppose cloture on the pending motion to proceed on the issue of how to deal with the Iraqi problem. As I look at this issue, it is one of enormous magnitude, and it ought not to be subject to shortcuts in the debate of the Senate. We pride ourselves on being the world's greatest deliberative body, and now is the time to show it. But what is happening on this motion for cloture and what is happening behind the scenes on negotiations is an effort to short-circuit debate on this matter of great importance, great magnitude. It is the issue which is engulfing the work of this body, the work of the House, and, really, all of Washington, and many of the eyes of the world are focused on this issue. There is no oxygen left in this town except on what to do on Iraq. I suggest that this is not the kind of an issue where we ought to be short-circuited. There ought to be a full opportunity to debate this issue and all of its ramifications. What is happening behind the scenes is an effort to limit the number of resolutions and/or bills which may be offered as alternatives as to what the course of the United States ought to be on this very important subject. Although it is arcane and esoteric and not subject to being understood, what is happening, again, behind the scenes, is the threat by the majority to fill up the tree, and that means when a bill is on the floor, if there is a first-degree amendment and a second-degree amendment, both of which are technical in nature and both of which may be offered by the majority leader because of the rule of priority of recognition, nobody else can offer an amendment. Now, the countersuggestion has been made that there would be two amendments by the Republicans. That is down from five amendments, and it may be that even five are insufficient. As we debate this issue, other ideas may occur as to what ought to happen. But we are dealing with very complex issues. On this state of the record, I cannot support an additional allocation of 21,500 troops because it is my judgment that would not be material or helpful in what is going on at the present time. This comes against the backdrop of extensive hearings in the Armed Services Committee and Foreign Relations Committee, and in the context of the military having given many estimates with many of those in key command positions saying that no more troops are necessary. This comes with the Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki saying a variety of things but at some times saying he doesn't want any more troops. This debate ought to be taking up alternative proposals, and the one which is the most attractive to this Senator on this state of the record and has been endorsed by a number of the military is to give notice to the Iraqis that at some point in the future, with the exact time to be determined by the military experts, perhaps 6 months or perhaps some other point, that the Iraqis will be called upon to take over Baghdad, the security of Baghdad, to keep U.S. troops out of the line of fire between the Sunnis and the Shias, and that our current force would remain in Iraq to guard the infrastructure, to guard the oil wells, to give advice and to give training but not to undertake the major responsibility. The obvious answer ultimately has to be a diplomatic solution, and as long as the Iraqis know that we are going to send in additional troops, that we are going to take over the responsibilities which they should be undertaking, they are going to sit back and let us do it. It is a matter of human nature. If Uncle Sam will do it, why should the Iraqis do it? But if we put them on notice that it is going to be their responsibility at a given time, then that puts the obligation on them. In the President's State of the Union speech, he was explicit that the Iraqis had to do two things: No. 1, end the sectarian violence, and, no. 2, secure Baghdad. And on this state of the record there is no showing that the Iraqis are capable of doing either. It is my hope, as we listen to the Senators who have been engaged in these hearings, who have studied the matter in some detail, and as we explore the alternatives, explore the alternative resolution of putting benchmarks that the Iraqis have to meet, when we explore the alternative of limiting funding--which I think there is unanimity we cannot limit funding at a time when American troops will be put in harm's way--this is the time for the Senate to assert congressional responsibility, which we have. When the President says repeatedly he is the ``decider,'' I say respectfully to the President that is a shared responsibility. Under the Constitution, the Congress has the authority to decide, to maintain armies. The Constitution specifically limited appropriations to 2 years. However, if we are to assert that responsibility and that support, it seems to me we have to do it in a way which does not limit our debate. Right now, we are under a tremendous time pressure, with only an hour and a half to debate this important matter, and Senators are looking for more time. That is a very poor way for this Senate to approach this very important subject. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss the powers of Congress under the Constitution to impose conditions on the funds appropriated by Congress, conditions on the President of the United States in carrying out his responsibilities as Commander in Chief. This, of course, is a major subject confronting the United States at this time as to what our continuing policy should be in Iraq, and there is considerable controversy as to what that policy should be. The President has come forward with the proposal to add 21,500 troops in Iraq. That has been questioned in many quarters in the Congress of the United States, both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and by the American people. The election results last November were generally regarded as a repudiation of our activities in Iraq. The military personnel who have come forward to testify in recent days before the Armed Services Committee and the witnesses before the Foreign Relations Committee have a similar view that major mistakes have been made in Iraq. But there is also a generalized consensus that once there, even though we found no weapons of mass destruction--had we known Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, it is doubtful Congress would have authorized the use of force--we cannot pull out and leave Iraq destabilized. The question is, how to do it. The day before yesterday, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the power of Congress to stop war. The title of the hearing was ``Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War.'' At that time I raised the question, respectfully, with the President, who has stated that he is the decider--he stated that quite a number of times-- I raised the contention that he is not the sole decider, that the Congress of the United States has considerable authority on what will be done in the conduct of the war. There is no doubt that Congress cannot micromanage the war. But it is worth noting historically the many occasions where Congress has appropriated funds or taken action conditioned on the President following the instructions, following the will of the Congress. There was not sufficient time at the hearing the day before yesterday to go into detail on these subjects. That is why I have decided to come to the floor at the present time and amplify the views which I expressed at that time, to review the long line of precedents where the Congress has imposed conditions on how the President spends appropriated funds for military purposes under his Commander in Chief responsibilities and the many situations where the Congress has cut off funding. When the Congress acceded to the request of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in 1940, for a peacetime draft, it was on the condition that no draftees be stationed outside of the Western Hemisphere. When the Congress appropriated funds for reconstruction following the Civil War, the Congress limited the Presidential authority saying that the orders of the President and the Secretary of War to the army should be given only through General Grant and that General Grant should not be relieved, removed, or transferred from Washington without the previous approval of the Senate. That is going fairly far in the management of a military operation and might even be characterized as micromanagement, but that is what was done. During the administration of Theodore Roosevelt, Congress conditioned appropriations on a minimum of 8 percent of the detachments aboard naval vessels, being Marines. There, again, a fairly extensive incursion into what you would call command responsibilities. Again, it might be characterized as micromanagement. The United States fought what has been characterized as a Quasi-War with France in the latter part of the 18th century. In that war, Congress limited both the kind of force the President could use--only the Navy, nothing more--and the areas in which he could use it, our coastal waters first and then on the high seas. The Congress authorized the seizure of French vessels traveling to French ports, and then the military seized French vessels coming out of French ports. And that case went to the Supreme Court of the United States. And in an 1804 decision in the case captioned Little v. Barreme, the Supreme Court found that Congress had authorized only seizure of vessels traveling to French courts, not from French ports. As I review that 200 years later, it seems like a very curious limitation, that the power would be to seize vessels going to France but not coming from France, but that was the specificity of the authorization of the Congress, which was upheld in the legal challenge by the Supreme Court of the United States. There is unanimity that Congress would not cut off funds which could in any way threaten the security or safety of U.S. troops. No doubt about that. And there has been very careful articulation that where there has been disagreement with administration policy, there has always been unanimous support for our troops. But it is worth noting the many historical precedents where Congress has cut off funding for military operations. In Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos in 1973, at the close of the Vietnam war, Congress, with a veto-proof supermajority, cut off all funds, including preexisting appropriations, for combat activities in Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam, and South Vietnam after August 15 of 1973. Then in 1974, Congress set a personnel ceiling of 4,000 Americans in Vietnam, 6 months after enactment, and 3,000 Americans within 1 year, which is a precedent for congressional conditions on a reduction in force so that there is advance notice to the administration what the congressional direction is, so many troops out by such-and-such a date, so many by another date, so there is no doubt that the troops which remain will be adequately taken care of in terms of the necessities for carrying out their function in a safe way. In 1976, Congress, with respect to Angola, provided that there would be no assistance of any kind provided to conduct military or paramilitary actions in Angola unless expressly authorized by Congress. In Nicaragua in 1984, Congress provided that there would be no funds available to support military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua. In Somalia in 1993, Congress provided that no funds appropriated may be used for the continued presence in Somalia of United States military personnel after September 30, 1994. And in Rwanda in 1994, Congress provided that no funds are available for U.S. military participation in or around Rwanda after October 7, 1994 except to protect the lives of U.S. citizens. In 2000, with respect to Colombia, Congress capped at 500 the number of troops in Colombia. During the Barbary wars, Congress enacted legislation authorizing only limited military action against the Barbary powers. In the slave trade in 1819, Congress legislated that even there, there were specific descriptions as to location and mission. In 1878, Congress passed, as part of an appropriations bill, the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricted the President's ability to use the military for police action of the United States, and they went so far as to impose criminal penalties on the troops themselves. There are substantial limitations present in congressional action with Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. The war powers imposed limitations on the President. It should be noted that the President has never agreed to the limitations, but the reporting requirements under the War Powers Act have been complied with. And both in the first Iraq war in 1991 and the so-called second Iraq war of 2002, and in the authorization as to Afghanistan in 2001, there are restrictions. It continues to be my hope that there will be an accommodation between the President and the plans he proposes to undertake and the Congress. It has been very healthy to have the kind of analysis and debate which has taken place in committee and on the floor of the Senate and beyond, in the cloakrooms and in the hallways. That is the topic of the day. As we have taken a look at other issues which we are facing, there is very little oxygen in Washington for anything but what we are going to be doing in Iraq. And those who say it is unhealthy or it weakens the United States in the world view or it undercuts the morale of the troops in Iraq, I believe the conventional wisdom is, the consensus is that notwithstanding those kind of concerns, that that is the democratic process. That is the price we pay in a democracy. At the hearing the day before yesterday in the Judiciary Committee, I cited polls where the military themselves, those participating in Iraq, have substantial questions about the wisdom of what is going on, I think it was 42 percent, disagree with the conduct of the war in Iraq. So it is a healthy sign that it is a part of the price of democracy. I was interested to note the testimony of former Secretary of State Kissinger yesterday before the Foreign Relations Committee, saying he believed a consensus would emerge. And certainly, the United States is stronger when we do have unity between the Congress, under Article I, and the President, under Article II. I have been pleased to see the President consult with the Congress. I attended one meeting a few weeks ago, presided over by the President, which was bipartisan, about a dozen Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, and a second meeting with the National Security Council, Stephen Hadley, 10 Senators, all of whom on that occasion were Republicans. And the President has scheduled a meeting with Republican Senators tomorrow afternoon, where obviously Iraq will be the topic of the day. I have said publicly that the proposal that makes a lot of sense to me is the one that has been discussed by quite a number of military experts, which would set a time schedule, give notice to the Iraqis that at some point the U.S. forces would retreat to the perimeters of Baghdad, and that the Iraqis would be called upon to meet the two conditions as specified very forcefully by the President in the State of the Union speech: that the Iraqis would be responsible for ending sectarian violence and responsible for securing Baghdad, and that American troops would remain. My view is that those are the two conditions the President set down. Then the plan which has been considered very broadly would leave the American troops in Iraq to guard the infrastructure, protect the oilfields, and give training and support to the Iraqis. But even the parade of military witnesses who testified before Congress has said that the Iraqis are much more likely to take action to protect themselves when they don't rely upon the United States to do so. It is a matter of human nature. If we are going to undertake the burdens for the Iraqis, why should they undertake those burdens? In considering the deployment of 21,500 additional personnel, I have been very skeptical and have said on the record that I could not support that because the Iraqis do not appear, from all indications, to have either the capacity or the will to carry out their commitments if those additional forces are to be committed. But I have said, also, that I am going to await the debate on the floor of the Senate. I am not sure we deserve the title of the ``world's greatest deliberative body,'' but that is the standard we strive to meet. Before I am prepared to decide which way to vote, yea or nay, on any of the resolutions, I want to be part of that deliberative process, join in the discussion, and raise questions. It is my hope that before that time comes, there will be further discussions, such as the one tomorrow afternoon with the President with Republican Senators. There are discussions going on all the time. I would like to see us meet the standard that former Secretary Kissinger talked about yesterday and come to a consensus. But in the meantime, I believe the analysis that is being undertaken is very healthy. If there is a price to pay, it is a small price to pay for a democracy. I believe in this discussion taking place in the United States we show the world the strength of our institutions, not the weakness in the United States by whatever disagreements there may be between the President and the Congress of the United States. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a memorandum of law be printed in the Record which details the actions taken in the past by the Congress to limit funding and the actions taken by the Congress to condition funding and limit executive action.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss the powers of Congress under the Constitution to impose conditions on the funds appropriated by Congress, conditions on the President of the United States in carrying out his responsibilities as Commander in Chief. This, of course, is a major subject confronting the United States at this time as to what our continuing policy should be in Iraq, and there is considerable controversy as to what that policy should be. The President has come forward with the proposal to add 21,500 troops in Iraq. That has been questioned in many quarters in the Congress of the United States, both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and by the American people. The election results last November were generally regarded as a repudiation of our activities in Iraq. The military personnel who have come forward to testify in recent days before the Armed Services Committee and the witnesses before the Foreign Relations Committee have a similar view that major mistakes have been made in Iraq. But there is also a generalized consensus that once there, even though we found no weapons of mass destruction--had we known Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, it is doubtful Congress would have authorized the use of force--we cannot pull out and leave Iraq destabilized. The question is, how to do it. The day before yesterday, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the power of Congress to stop war. The title of the hearing was ``Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War.'' At that time I raised the question, respectfully, with the President, who has stated that he is the decider--he stated that quite a number of times-- I raised the contention that he is not the sole decider, that the Congress of the United States has considerable authority on what will be done in the conduct of the war. There is no doubt that Congress cannot micromanage the war. But it is worth noting historically the many occasions where Congress has appropriated funds or taken action conditioned on the President following the instructions, following the will of the Congress. There was not sufficient time at the hearing the day before yesterday to go into detail on these subjects. That is why I have decided to come to the floor at the present time and amplify the views which I expressed at that time, to review the long line of precedents where the Congress has imposed conditions on how the President spends appropriated funds for military purposes under his Commander in Chief responsibilities and the many situations where the Congress has cut off funding. When the Congress acceded to the request of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in 1940, for a peacetime draft, it was on the condition that no draftees be stationed outside of the Western Hemisphere. When the Congress appropriated funds for reconstruction following the Civil War, the Congress limited the Presidential authority saying that the orders of the President and the Secretary of War to the army should be given only through General Grant and that General Grant should not be relieved, removed, or transferred from Washington without the previous approval of the Senate. That is going fairly far in the management of a military operation and might even be characterized as micromanagement, but that is what was done. During the administration of Theodore Roosevelt, Congress conditioned appropriations on a minimum of 8 percent of the detachments aboard naval vessels, being Marines. There, again, a fairly extensive incursion into what you would call command responsibilities. Again, it might be characterized as micromanagement. The United States fought what has been characterized as a Quasi-War with France in the latter part of the 18th century. In that war, Congress limited both the kind of force the President could use--only the Navy, nothing more--and the areas in which he could use it, our coastal waters first and then on the high seas. The Congress authorized the seizure of French vessels traveling to French ports, and then the military seized French vessels coming out of French ports. And that case went to the Supreme Court of the United States. And in an 1804 decision in the case captioned Little v. Barreme, the Supreme Court found that Congress had authorized only seizure of vessels traveling to French courts, not from French ports. As I review that 200 years later, it seems like a very curious limitation, that the power would be to seize vessels going to France but not coming from France, but that was the specificity of the authorization of the Congress, which was upheld in the legal challenge by the Supreme Court of the United States. There is unanimity that Congress would not cut off funds which could in any way threaten the security or safety of U.S. troops. No doubt about that. And there has been very careful articulation that where there has been disagreement with administration policy, there has always been unanimous support for our troops. But it is worth noting the many historical precedents where Congress has cut off funding for military operations. In Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos in 1973, at the close of the Vietnam war, Congress, with a veto-proof supermajority, cut off all funds, including preexisting appropriations, for combat activities in Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam, and South Vietnam after August 15 of 1973. Then in 1974, Congress set a personnel ceiling of 4,000 Americans in Vietnam, 6 months after enactment, and 3,000 Americans within 1 year, which is a precedent for congressional conditions on a reduction in force so that there is advance notice to the administration what the congressional direction is, so many troops out by such-and-such a date, so many by another date, so there is no doubt that the troops which remain will be adequately taken care of in terms of the necessities for carrying out their function in a safe way. In 1976, Congress, with respect to Angola, provided that there would be no assistance of any kind provided to conduct military or paramilitary actions in Angola unless expressly authorized by Congress. In Nicaragua in 1984, Congress provided that there would be no funds available to support military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua. In Somalia in 1993, Congress provided that no funds appropriated may be used for the continued presence in Somalia of United States military personnel after September 30, 1994. And in Rwanda in 1994, Congress provided that no funds are available for U.S. military participation in or around Rwanda after October 7, 1994 except to protect the lives of U.S. citizens. In 2000, with respect to Colombia, Congress capped at 500 the number of troops in Colombia. During the Barbary wars, Congress enacted legislation authorizing only limited military action against the Barbary powers. In the slave trade in 1819, Congress legislated that even there, there were specific descriptions as to location and mission. In 1878, Congress passed, as part of an appropriations bill, the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricted the President's ability to use the military for police action of the United States, and they went so far as to impose criminal penalties on the troops themselves. There are substantial limitations present in congressional action with Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. The war powers imposed limitations on the President. It should be noted that the President has never agreed to the limitations, but the reporting requirements under the War Powers Act have been complied with. And both in the first Iraq war in 1991 and the so-called second Iraq war of 2002, and in the authorization as to Afghanistan in 2001, there are restrictions. It continues to be my hope that there will be an accommodation between the President and the plans he proposes to undertake and the Congress. It has been very healthy to have the kind of analysis and debate which has taken place in committee and on the floor of the Senate and beyond, in the cloakrooms and in the hallways. That is the topic of the day. As we have taken a look at other issues which we are facing, there is very little oxygen in Washington for anything but what we are going to be doing in Iraq. And those who say it is unhealthy or it weakens the United States in the world view or it undercuts the morale of the troops in Iraq, I believe the conventional wisdom is, the consensus is that notwithstanding those kind of concerns, that that is the democratic process. That is the price we pay in a democracy. At the hearing the day before yesterday in the Judiciary Committee, I cited polls where the military themselves, those participating in Iraq, have substantial questions about the wisdom of what is going on, I think it was 42 percent, disagree with the conduct of the war in Iraq. So it is a healthy sign that it is a part of the price of democracy. I was interested to note the testimony of former Secretary of State Kissinger yesterday before the Foreign Relations Committee, saying he believed a consensus would emerge. And certainly, the United States is stronger when we do have unity between the Congress, under Article I, and the President, under Article II. I have been pleased to see the President consult with the Congress. I attended one meeting a few weeks ago, presided over by the President, which was bipartisan, about a dozen Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, and a second meeting with the National Security Council, Stephen Hadley, 10 Senators, all of whom on that occasion were Republicans. And the President has scheduled a meeting with Republican Senators tomorrow afternoon, where obviously Iraq will be the topic of the day. I have said publicly that the proposal that makes a lot of sense to me is the one that has been discussed by quite a number of military experts, which would set a time schedule, give notice to the Iraqis that at some point the U.S. forces would retreat to the perimeters of Baghdad, and that the Iraqis would be called upon to meet the two conditions as specified very forcefully by the President in the State of the Union speech: that the Iraqis would be responsible for ending sectarian violence and responsible for securing Baghdad, and that American troops would remain. My view is that those are the two conditions the President set down. Then the plan which has been considered very broadly would leave the American troops in Iraq to guard the infrastructure, protect the oilfields, and give training and support to the Iraqis. But even the parade of military witnesses who testified before Congress has said that the Iraqis are much more likely to take action to protect themselves when they don't rely upon the United States to do so. It is a matter of human nature. If we are going to undertake the burdens for the Iraqis, why should they undertake those burdens? In considering the deployment of 21,500 additional personnel, I have been very skeptical and have said on the record that I could not support that because the Iraqis do not appear, from all indications, to have either the capacity or the will to carry out their commitments if those additional forces are to be committed. But I have said, also, that I am going to await the debate on the floor of the Senate. I am not sure we deserve the title of the ``world's greatest deliberative body,'' but that is the standard we strive to meet. Before I am prepared to decide which way to vote, yea or nay, on any of the resolutions, I want to be part of that deliberative process, join in the discussion, and raise questions. It is my hope that before that time comes, there will be further discussions, such as the one tomorrow afternoon with the President with Republican Senators. There are discussions going on all the time. I would like to see us meet the standard that former Secretary Kissinger talked about yesterday and come to a consensus. But in the meantime, I believe the analysis that is being undertaken is very healthy. If there is a price to pay, it is a small price to pay for a democracy. I believe in this discussion taking place in the United States we show the world the strength of our institutions, not the weakness in the United States by whatever disagreements there may be between the President and the Congress of the United States. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a memorandum of law be printed in the Record which details the actions taken in the past by the Congress to limit funding and the actions taken by the Congress to condition funding and limit executive action.