Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have worked on trying to break the impasse, and staff for Senator Leahy and myself worked late last night and have a number of amendments where both sides think we can argue them, debate them, and vote on them. But we have still not resolved the issue as to what to do with certain pending amendments. It was my hope that the pending amendments would be included in the list, but that was not to be the case. We have debated the Kyl-Cornyn amendment. It is my thought that we ought to vote on that amendment. But that is objected to by the Democrats. In order to proceed to consideration and votes on other amendments, we have to set aside the Kyl-Cornyn amendment. Senator Kyl is understandably concerned about setting aside his amendment, that he will not have an opportunity to vote on it. So we are still working to try to resolve the issue. I have just had a short discussion with the distinguished Democratic leader. We are prepared to move ahead, not as usefully as we might but at least to use floor time on matters which we would have later. We have agreed that Senator Santorum would be recognized to lay down an amendment and speak about it and that Senator Nelson of Florida would lay down an amendment and speak about it. In the interim, we are continuing to talk to see if we can resolve our differences of opinion.

Mr. SPECTER. That is my understanding as well. So we have agreed upon something.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have not yet been able to reach agreement on voting on key amendments. We do have some peripheral amendments we will be offering and voting on. We have no agreement on laying down an amendment, but I believe there is no objection to having Senator Kyl speak to an amendment he would like to lay down at a future time.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, may I ask the distinguished Democratic leader if that applies to laying down an amendment?

Mr. SPECTER. I don't see the logic, but if we can move ahead for Senator Kyl to discuss an amendment that perhaps one day he will be able to lay down and perhaps one day he will be able to vote upon it.

Mr. SPECTER. I would. And before we can do it, we have to have consent to set aside pending amendments.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there has been an agreement to take up a number of noncontroversial amendments. We are still trying to get a vote on the Kyl-Cornyn amendment, still trying to work out a procedure so Members on both sides of the aisle may offer controversial amendments, but we have not gotten there yet. However, there has been agreement on four noncontroversial amendments. I give notice that we will take them up as soon as the authors can come over.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, without being repetitious, although repetition is only a minor vice here since nothing of consequence is likely to be said in any event. Moving this bill along, Senator Kyl has accurately articulated the situation. We are being prevented from voting on amendments which have priority in sequence, where we ought to be voting, and it is just make-work to take up other amendments. It would occupy some time and we would have fewer quorum calls, but it does not move toward the heart of the issue. Senator Kyl ought to be accorded the opportunity to vote on his amendment. The rules have brought us to an absolute impasse again. So then we have another day wasted. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are at an impasse. The rules of the Senate have been used to block meaningful consideration of the pending legislation. What we have before us is the committee bill which was voted out 12 to 6. I believe it is a good bill. It is a very good bill. But under our rules, it is subject to being amended. The Senators who wish to offer amendments are being stymied by the Democrats who are imposing technical rules--led by Senator Reid, the minority leader. That is the brutal fact of life. We worked hard to try to find some amendments where we could go forward and have votes. We came up with a list, but none were meaningful. None would advance the core considerations of this legislation. The rules of the Senate are very complex. If an amendment is not offered prior to cloture--and cloture is the expression to cut off debate--the amendment may not be voted upon, cannot be offered after cloture if it hadn't been offered before cloture. If anybody is watching on C-SPAN 2, which I doubt--it is just too dull; perhaps not by comparison with what else is available on cable or over the air--the reason is that Senators do not want to make tough votes. Today, it is the Democrats who don't want to make tough votes. But another----

Mr. SPECTER. I will as soon as I finish. Today, it is the Democrats who don't want to make tough votes, but there have been days when it was the Republicans who didn't want to make tough votes. Senator Reid said that they were experts on being cut off from offering amendments because they have tried to offer amendments and couldn't. And he mentioned the minimum wage and stem cells, among other items. But there is a significant difference on what is happening today and yesterday during the pendency of this bill, and that is that the amendments to be offered relate to the bill, are germane to the bill. Senator Kyl wants to offer amendments that deal with the text of the bill. When Senator Reid was talking about stem cells, he was talking about hypothetically, or maybe he did try to offer a stem cell amendment--I don't know--or tried to offer a minimum wage amendment, but he tried to offer it on a bill which was not germane. It makes sense to say we are not going to vote on stem cells on the highway bill, illustratively. And although Senator Reid wants to vote on stem cells, he hasn't pushed that issue as hard as I have. I have been working on the stem cell issue since it burst upon the scene in November of 1998. The subcommittee which I chair on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education has had 16 hearings on it. I am the coauthor of the Specter-Harkin bill which has passed the House as the Castle bill. I really want to bring that up, but I can see not bringing it up on an unrelated bill. We are working now on a schedule. The majority leader has committed to finding a time to vote on stem cells in the immediate future. The point is that when the Democrats tried to offer amendments, they were to bills where they were not germane. I think that is the situation. I do not have all of the amendments in my hand, but be that as it may, there is no doubt that the amendments which Senator Kyl and others want to offer relate directly to this bill. Although I would like to pass this committee bill, we are not going to get a fair shot at it because we are not going to get cloture. After cloture is voted down tomorrow, there is going to be a mass exodus for the airports and the trains. People will be going on the Easter recess, and this very important piece of legislation is going to die.

Mr. SPECTER. OK.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the thought that comes to my mind is, were they subject to being offered postcloture, had they been offered precloture? Don't they have to be offered precloture? The Parliamentarian is shaking her head in the negative. Repeat the question, and I will try to answer that.

Mr. SPECTER. Well, as we have seen in so many situations, and where I have been willing to concede error on both sides of the aisle, I am not going to seek to defend preventing votes on relevant, germane amendments, whether they are offered by Senator Feingold or Senator Kyl, or anybody else. That is just not the way the Senate ought to be run. I am glad to note that the Senator from Illinois didn't hear my answer. He was talking, which he has a right to do.

Mr. SPECTER. It is not worth repeating. It is my hope that sanity may yet return to this Chamber. If it existed, it has certainly departed. We have, in all seriousness, a bill before us that is enormously important. Senator Durbin spoke at some length a few moments ago, and I agree with most of what he said. We have a tremendous problem in this country with undocumented aliens. We need to get a handle on what is going on. We need to not have a fugitive class in America that is being exploited by employers. We need to control our borders. We have a serious problem with terrorism. We have a serious question whether the people coming into this country are taking American jobs or depressing American wages. We are simply not dealing with it. To have the Senate floor empty, and we are going to have a quorum call most of the time unless people come over and talk about ideas, which are fine but are not advancing the progress of this bill. I think it is important that our constituents know we are at an impasse because of technical reasons advanced by the Democrats. I do not say that in a partisan sense. I have voted for many Democratic proposals and for many of President Clinton's judges and across the line on many occasions when I thought the ideas merited it, not as a matter of party loyalty. The Democrats are stonewalling this bill and no one is even on the floor to defend them, so I will not attack them anymore. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, my questions to the majority leader are whether the conduct of the Democrats is consistent with the usual practice of the Senate, which allows Senators to offer, at a minimum, germane amendments to pending legislation, and whether the position taken by the distinguished Democratic leader is consistent with the practices and protocol of the Senate? His approach was summarized in a news conference yesterday that I spoke about on the Senate floor--I had a minor confrontation with the Democratic leader yesterday--where a question was posed by a reporter. Quote: Senator Reid, the Republicans are saying that you are not allowing amendments to be voted on on the floor. Is there a reason for that? And Senator Reid responded, and I quote: We are happy to take a look at amendments that don't damage the integrity of the bill, but if it is going to be, in the estimation of the unified Democrats, an effort to denigrate this bipartisan bill, then they won't have votes on those amendments. My question is, is it up to a Senator or a caucus or a party or the Members on one side of the aisle to take a look at the amendments and decide whether they damage the integrity of the bill and to set a standard that if an amendment is going to be, in the estimation of the unified Democrats, an effort to denigrate this bipartisan bill, then they won't have a vote on that amendment? Or is it the practice and protocol of the Senate to allow Senators to vote for amendments as individual Senators see the situation in their own right?

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished majority leader for a very poignant, accurate, conclusive response.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I appreciate the contribution the distinguished Senator from Illinois has made to the Judiciary Committee. When he says we have had a rocky time, he is a master of understatement. Again, he didn't hear my comment, like earlier today in responding to one of his questions. He was conversing. So I will repeat this one. When the distinguished Senator from Illinois says we have had a rocky time on the amendments, he is a master of understatement. I share his hope, although not much expectation, that we will be able to complete action on this bill before we adjourn for the recess. The Senate is a phenomenal institution, smarter than any of its Members or the composite of all of its Members--not that that would necessarily take a whole lot. But the Senate has functioned for a long time as an institution where there seems to be a way to work through these issues ultimately. If we cannot find that answer before we adjourn for the recess, it is my hope we will find it shortly thereafter. This is an issue and a problem which has to be addressed and has to be solved. (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 426 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it appears conclusively at this point that we are not going to make any--I was about to say any more progress. I can't say that because that suggests there has been some progress. We can't make any progress on the immigration reform bill, so that my colleagues will be aware that nothing further will happen on that bill for the remainder of the evening. Hopefully, we can make some progress overnight and in the morning on the proposed compromises so we can have a fruitful day tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today is the 20th anniversary of the murder of a 19-year-old on a Pennsylvania college campus, Lehigh University in Bethlehem, PA. Twenty years ago, a student who was on drugs and alcohol entered her room through three doors which should have been locked and committed a brutal rape and murder. When I was district attorney of Philadelphia, I dealt with numerous incidents of campus crime and knew firsthand of the severity. However, I believe that many people would be surprised by the extent of the problem. According to U.S. Department of Education statistics, from 2001 to 2003, there were a total of 84 homicides, 7,941 sex offenses, 9,296 aggravated assaults, and 3,367 arsons on college campuses during that period of time. The parents of Jeanne Clery, Connie and Howard Clery, have undertaken a crusade to try to prevent the recurrence of the brutal crime against their daughter and have had a national campaign. Part of that was their efforts, which I joined them on, to introduce the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1989, which became law in 1990. Regrettably, there is only about one-third compliance with the schools on that act. The beginning of the school year is the time they call the Red Zone, when there are more offenses likely to be committed. For this reason, Security on Campus has designated September 2006 as National Campus Safety Awareness Month to provide an opportunity for colleges and universities to inform students about existing campus crime trends. At a very minimum, the colleges and universities ought to comply with the law on disclosure so that students may know what the risks are. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my prepared statement be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the answer is decisively, obviously, yes.

Mr. SPECTER. I do, on the same condition.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would respond by saying the blame would lie with those who have lodged objections to very reasonable unanimous consent requests, several of which we have heard here this afternoon.

Mr. SPECTER. I do, on the same condition.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are only going to move ahead if we come to an understanding; I recognize that. If the Senator from Vermont wants to have a speaking sequence, I will not object, and we can retreat from here into his cloakroom to try to figure out when we are going to move the bill. We are giving up almost 2 hours; perhaps we can work this evening to make up that time.