[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 120 (Friday, September 11, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10231-S10232]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      HANDLING OF THE STARR REPORT

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on 
the matters now pending before the Congress as the House of 
Representatives considers what to do with the Starr report. I suggest 
that we are guided now by the genius of the Constitution, which is the 
most important, most efficacious, and most brilliant document ever 
written as to how our country should handle the issues and the problems 
which we now confront.
  The Constitution establishes the blueprint for what we are to do 
next, and that is for the House of Representatives to consider the 
Starr report, bearing in mind that it is a report which contains 
charges to which there will be a reply and, perhaps, depending upon 
what the House of Representatives decides, we will move to a stage of 
hearing evidence.
  The question of evidence is one of enormous importance because that 
is the determinant as to establishing the facts. In our judicial system 
and in our congressional system, and in the system on impeachment 
proceedings, the facts are established by witnesses who testify as to 
what they have seen or observed--or generally witnessed. It may be that 
we will hear people who will come forward who will tell us what they 
saw and what they observed as witnesses, contrasted with what appears 
in the news media, which is hearsay--sometimes reliable, sometimes 
unreliable--almost universally the source is leaks, a sustained line of 
source material, but one which is the common parlance. But when it 
comes to a proceeding as in a court proceeding or as in an impeachment 
proceeding, it is a matter of evidence, and the rules of evidence in an 
impeachment proceeding may be entirely different. There are some 
hearsay declarations which are admissible under complex rules. There 
may be broader rules of evidence established. At least we come to the 
point of evidence as opposed to reports and as opposed to charges.
  I think it is very important, as others have said on this Senate 
floor and as others have said in the public milieu, that we not rush to 
judgment but that we consider what the evidence is and make a 
considered judgment, and that the interests of fairness are paramount, 
as they have been reflected in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, and really 
improved upon in the American--the U.S. judicial system on what is due 
process and what is fair treatment. And deliberation is a critical 
part, and not rushing to judgment is a critical part.
  We will see what the House of Representatives decides to do and what 
the House Judiciary Committee decides to do. It may be, as the 
constitutional procedure specifies, that the matter will be before this 
body and each of us in the U.S. Senate will be, in effect, a juror. It 
is a complex matter which portends great problems for our Government if 
the House takes up the matter of impeachment proceedings. It will tie 
up the House. If the Senate deliberates as a jury, it will obviously 
tie up this body. And what is not generally recognized is that the 
Constitution requires the Chief Justice to preside, so it ties up the 
Supreme Court of the United States. But the Constitution, that 
brilliant document, sets forth the ground rules, and we have that as, 
really, the strength of our American institutions to guide us in these 
very, very troubled times.
  I think it is very important that the Senate, and the House, too, 
focus on very important legislative matters which have come before us 
in the course of the balance of September. Those are the appropriations 
bills which fund the Federal $1.7 trillion budget. I have the privilege 
to serve as chairman of the Senate appropriations subcommittee which 
has jurisdiction over the Department of Education, the Department of 
Health and Human Services, and the Department of Labor. Traditionally, 
this bill has been left to the end because it is so contentious. 
Senator Harkin, the ranking Democrat, and I have conferred and have 
formulated a plan to try to bring our bill to fruition early on this 
year. If we wish to get something done--something I learned a long time 
ago in the Senate is that if you want to accomplish what is in the 
public interest, we have to cross party lines to do it. Senator Harkin 
and I have worked on that line.
  Our staffs did an excellent job in pushing ahead on an expedited 
basis to prepare a subcommittee report during the month of August, and 
on the second day that we were back, September 1, a week ago Tuesday, 
the subcommittee acted, and then, under Senator Stevens' leadership, 
the full committee acted on Thursday. So the bill, appropriations for 
Labor, Health, Human Services and Education, is now ready to come to 
the floor. The distinguished majority leader has stated that our bill 
can be considered immediately after the Interior bill, so that we do 
not wait until the very end of September. But Senator Lott has 
articulated a fair admonition, that if the bill becomes cluttered with 
so-called killer amendments or becomes highly politicized, that we 
cannot keep the bill on the Senate

[[Page S10232]]

floor but it will be taken down. I think that is a fair consideration. 
So we have our own institutional prerogatives. It goes without saying 
sometimes politics dominates what happens on the Senate floor, but it 
is our hope that we will be able to avoid killer amendments and will be 
able to proceed to consider the merits of the bill.
  Senator Harkin and I have discussed this with the distinguished 
minority leader, Senator Daschle, who is sympathetic to our point of 
view and, without making commitments, has stated he would like to see 
that proceed. We discussed the issue of time limits, and I have already 
started to talk to Senators who have amendments where we can consider a 
time agreement, an hour equally divided or perhaps an hour and a half 
equally divided, so that we take up issues which have to be debated and 
have a resolution of them, hopefully omitting the highly politicized 
matters where there is going to be deadlock and which might require 
that the bill be taken down.
  Our subcommittee has had a good working relationship with the House. 
We worked through with Congressman Porter, the subcommittee chairman on 
the House side, my counterpart, and with Congressman Livingston, the 
chairman of the full committee. It is our realistic hope, realistic 
expectation, that we can work through the process there.
  I had a chance to discuss the matter previously with the President--
yesterday. It was an event in the White House, where Pennsylvania was a 
recipient. As is the custom, I received an invitation to attend, and 
did so, and had a chance to talk for a few moments with the President 
about this bill, Labor-HHS-Education. The President stated that he 
thought our Senate bill was a significant improvement over what has 
come out from the House Appropriations Committee. I pointed out that, 
while it did not have everything the President had asked for, it was 
important to focus on the fact that the bill was $1.9 billion short of 
what the President had projected on income because we do not have the 
receipts from the tobacco bill, which was never acted upon, and we did 
not have the user fees, which had not been authorized.
  Senator Harkin and I, then, earlier this week, took a rather unusual 
step of convening a meeting of governmental affairs people, also known 
as lobbyists, who have an interest in this bill, especially those who 
have increases, as we have significant increases on the National 
Institutes of Health, Head Start, and the National Labor Relations 
Board, in order to secure their assistance. Because, if we go to a 
continuing resolution, then those matters will be funded at last year's 
level and they will not have the advantages of the additions. So there 
is some very keen potential interest on their part seeing this bill 
move. Our request to them was to exercise their best efforts--they have 
a lot of contacts in the Senate, the House and the White House--to help 
us move the bill.
  So I speak about this subject at some length, although I think not at 
excessive length here today, to urge my colleagues to focus on the 
appropriations process and not to be distracted by what is happening 
with the Starr report and the collateral problems which our country 
faces at this moment.
  One of our colleagues said last week that when the Starr report hit, 
those issues were au courant in Washington, that it would suck all the 
oxygen out of every room in Washington, DC, which is a dramatic 
characterization, but one which I think is realistic; sucking all the 
oxygen out of every room in Washington, so that that is the sole focus 
of attention. From the conversations in the Cloakroom and on the floor, 
that is a realistic problem.
  I do believe we have to maintain a focus on these appropriations 
bills which are so important, as we look to what is going to happen 
with the National Institutes of Health in cancer research, Alzheimer's, 
Parkinson's, et cetera, what happens with education on increases for 
Head Start, guaranteed student loans, what happens on worker safety. We 
are going to push very hard to bring forward our bill, hopefully next 
week, and debate the issues under time agreements to let this body work 
its will and try to work the matter through the House and then through 
the White House and then take up the other appropriations bills, so 
that while we have this grave national problem which we have to 
consider at the same time, we do not lose focus that September is the 
critical month for appropriations bills.
  I ask all of my colleagues who anticipate amendments for this bill to 
let us know at an early date so that we can make a decision on what 
might be accepted, what might be compromised, or what might be 
subjected to time limits so that notwithstanding the problems which the 
President faces and which, in turn, the country faces, that we can 
focus on the appropriations process and complete the people's business 
during the month of September.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the motion to proceed 
to the Child Custody Act, which is S. 1645.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business 
for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________