Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think Senator Allard accurately states it. When he has his 15 minutes, nothing will stop him from talking about the amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. And he can lay the groundwork so that when he does offer the amendment later, he will not have to speak quite as long.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I may well object, the question that comes to my mind is, When are we going to proceed to consider amendments and try to move the bill? When the distinguished ranking member says to give the chairman a chance to speak--I have spoken enough. We went on this bill on Wednesday afternoon and we spoke all day Thursday, and there weren't too many speakers around on Friday, but there was an opportunity to speak. And we were here yesterday afternoon, and not too many speakers pursued an opportunity to speak. So the question that I have--and perhaps I can better talk to Senator Leahy about it privately--when are we going to move to amendments? We need to finish this bill this week, and I would like to move to amendments.

Mr. SPECTER. Wait a minute. I don't know who has the floor, but I will yield to you.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, Senator Kyl is ready to offer an amendment. Senator Allard is ready to offer an amendment. I see Senator Kennedy with his portfolio; maybe he has an amendment. I would like to move to amendments to try to move the bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I so yield on the stipulation I not lose my right to the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I renew the unanimous consent request by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, for a vote on his pending amendment at 4:30 p.m.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I renew the unanimous consent request by the Senator from Arizona for a vote on his amendment at 5 o'clock.

Mr. SPECTER. I renew the request of the Senator from Arizona for a vote on his amendment at midnight.

Mr. SPECTER. I do, on the condition that I don't lose my right to the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. I would, again, on the condition that I don't lose my right to the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. I do. I will have a comment to make about what Senator Leahy has had to say, but first I will yield to the Senator from Arizona on the condition that I do not lose my right to the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. I do under the same condition.

Mr. SPECTER. On the same condition.

Mr. SPECTER. May we start the voting tomorrow morning at 9:30?

Mr. SPECTER. So we will start voting tomorrow morning sometime on the sequence of amendments that you have identified. And may we carry that further on other amendments which are pending? You haven't identified any other amendments----

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I begin by expressing my appreciation to the Senator from Massachusetts for the kind things he has had to say about the so-called Specter bill, the committee bill. But we can't move forward on legislating with that bill until there is an opportunity for Members of the Senate to offer amendments. We do not have a system where a Senator, even Arlen Specter, offers a bill and it becomes the will of the Senate, it is passed by the Senate without having Senators having an opportunity to offer amendments. It appears now late on Tuesday afternoon, almost 4 o'clock, that there is a calculated effort by some not to permit this bill to go forward. We started on this bill on Wednesday afternoon, but we couldn't vote on Thursday until we had sort of a bed check vote. That means one which was going to be unanimous but not a meaningful incursion into the tough issues to try to start to work the will of the Senate. We had a vote at 3 o'clock on Thursday afternoon, but all day Thursday, most of the day, was consumed by debate and not very pointed debate, fairly generalized debate which didn't advance the legislative process very much at all. Then on Friday, the Senate was in session, but nobody was around. We couldn't offer amendments because the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, wouldn't permit us to. Then yesterday we structured a couple of amendments on which there was really no objection and voted on them pretty much pro forma. We are searching for a way to bring up amendments to vote on today and couldn't do that. Then this morning, as the record will show, the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee offered a unanimous consent request for speeches. When we discussed the matter, we were told that there wouldn't be any opportunity for votes until the party caucuses were finished. So we twiddled our thumbs, bided our time until 2:30, and then the majority leader called a meeting of Senate Republican Senators to try to find a compromise among disagreements within the Republican caucus. He was waiting for a call back. Finally, we had word that the minority leader had a news conference, and this is what happened, in part, at the news conference. I have a transcript. Question: Senator Specter was very frustrated this morning at a press conference, saying that work is not really being done because the Democrats are not letting there be votes on amendments, and he can't get agreement on votes on some of the major amendments. Could you tell us why it is that your strategy suggests-- And then an interruption by Senator Reid. Maybe Arlen Specter has been so good at what he did in committee that we shouldn't be worried about a lot of amendments. It would be nice if Arlen Specter was so good, we wouldn't have to worry about a lot of amendments. But let me confess, admit to the totality of the circumstance, that I am not that good, or perhaps I am that good, but my colleagues don't think I am that good and they want to offer amendments. Other Senators want to offer amendments to my bill, so that when Senator Reid says maybe he is so good we shouldn't be worried about a lot of amendments, people want to offer amendments. Two are on the floor now, Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn. Then there was a question by one of the reporters not identified: But if the shoe was on the other foot, wouldn't you be asking for your day on the floor? Senator Reid: The shoe's not on the other foot. That is a pretty conclusive answer. A little while later in the press conference: Senator Reid, Republicans are saying that you're not allowing amendments to be voted on the floor. Is there a reason for that? Senator Reid: Well, first of all, at my caucus I indicated to those people there who are interested in understanding where the amendments are, want to offer amendments, to talk to Senator Leahy's staff, Senator Kennedy's staff, Senator Durbin's staff. They're putting together all those amendments. And we're happy to take a look at amendments that don't damage the integrity of the bill. But if it's 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. I have been around here a while, but I have a hard time understanding that last sentence. I have a hard time understanding: And we're happy to take a look at amendments that don't damage the integrity of the bill. The integrity of the bill under Senate procedures is established by votes by Members on amendments. That is how you establish the integrity of the bill. Then Senator Reid goes on: But if it's 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. I don't believe there is the power or authority in any Senator or group of Senators to validate, conclude that what other Senators want to offer by way of amendment denigrates the bill and is the basis for not having votes. We have pending 100 amendments. It is an exact number. It just happens to be 100 precisely. There are 6 amendments pending at the present time: Senator Frist on the study on border deaths; Senator Kyl on nonimmigrant work authorization; Senator Cornyn on a second-degree amendment to Senator Kyl's amendment on nonimmigrant work authorization; Senator Isakson on no guest worker program without border security; Senator Mikulski on extension of returning worker exemption; Senator Dorgan on Canada travel without passport. There had been a suggestion that we would vote on Senator Kyl's amendment side by side with an amendment by the Democrats. Although I believe such an amendment has been produced by the Democrats, they are unwilling to permit us to vote on it side by side.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will on the condition that I do not lose my right to the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed with a colloquy with the distinguished Democratic leader, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the high compliment by the Senator from Nevada to this superb bipartisan bill crafted by Senator Leahy and myself, and I wish to see the bill passed. I have worked very hard on it, including a marathon markup last Monday. May I ask the Senator from Nevada when is the right time to consider amendments?

Mr. SPECTER. One hundred.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the statement made by the Senator from Arizona is correct.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would respond in the affirmative. I would add that this isn't an amendment which, in Senator Reid's words, denigrates this bipartisan bill. I would say it enhances the bill.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona asks something that is preeminently correct, and that is the way the Senate functions. Senators have a right to offer amendments, and the so-called Kyl-Cornyn bill is the product of very extensive thinking, analysis, and preparation. A good part of it was incorporated into the chairman's mark. And certainly Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn are within their rights in asking for a vote on it.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, yes.