[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 82 (Wednesday, June 19, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5721-S5722]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              PROPOSED RULE FOR THE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss, 
briefly, a proposed rule for the Republican conference on the issue of 
seniority for members, chairmanships, and also for ranking members.
  Effective January 1, 1997, the Republican caucus adopted a rule which 
provided that there would be a 6-year limit on committee chairmanships 
and ranking members; chairmanships, of course, if in the majority, 
ranking members if in the minority.
  There has since arisen a controversy as to whether that meant 6 years 
as chairman and an additional 6 years as ranking member or whether that 
meant 6 years total for chairman and ranking member.
  Having participated in the conference which produced the rule, I 
think it is fair to say that the intent was to have a total 6-year 
limitation,

[[Page S5722]]

chairman and ranking member combined.
  Certainly, there is no doubt that in establishing a 6-year limit for 
every leadership position in the Republican caucus, except for the 
position of Republican leader--majority leader or minority leader, 
depending on control of the Senate--aside from Senator Lott's position, 
it is plain that all the other leadership positions were limited to a 
total of 6 years, without distinction as to whether it was a majority 
or minority position.
  The chairman of the conference, Senator Santorum, came out with an 
interpretation that the rule did mean total years whether it was 
chairman or ranking member; not 6 and 6, but a total of 6 years.
  Yesterday, I circulated a proposed rule which would make it 
conclusive that a Republican Senator shall be limited to 6 years in the 
aggregate for service as chairman and ranking member of a committee. 
For example, if the Senator served 4\1/2\ years as chairman and 1\1/2\ 
years as ranking, that would constitute the requisite 6-year limit.
  There has been some consideration as to whether being ranking is 
really a position of significance. I would submit from my experience in 
this body that it conclusively is not as good as being chairman, but it 
is the lead Republican on the committee.
  For example, on Intelligence, the chairman and the ranking member, or 
vice chairman, have access to the confidential briefings. On the 
Judiciary Committee, the chairman and the ranking member have access to 
the confidential briefings by the Attorney General when something 
arises where notification is important, or by the FBI Director or by 
the INS Director or any one of the Federal agencies subject to 
oversight by the Judiciary Committee.
  At the committee hearings, it is the chairman and the ranking member 
who are accorded the right, the privilege, of making opening 
statements. There is a considerable difference on staff, and the 
ranking member does have a say, to a significant extent, on the 
organization and direction of the committee. So I think, as a practical 
matter, being ranking is very significant.
  Some of my colleagues have raised the concern that if they served as 
ranking for a year, for example, they would then not be able to serve 
as chairman for 6 years--if we Republicans retook the majority--but for 
only 5 years.
  So my rule has a subsection which provides that if a person who has 
seniority to be ranking member elects not to be ranking member, that 
person may do so; and then that would not count against the 6 years as 
chairman if and when the Republicans again control of the Senate.
  So for those who think the position of ranking member is not of 
significance, or choose not to undertake that position, or prefer not 
to have that position, which would then be a limitation on their 
service as chairman, that member can opt not to serve as ranking 
member.
  When this rule was proposed, I had grave doubts about it, frankly, 
having been here for a considerable period of time, and approaching the 
situation where I would have the seniority. But as the rule was put 
into effect, obviously, I have observed it.
  As a part of the rule, I could no longer serve as chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee. But it seems to me the Republican caucus ought to 
go back to where we--Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an 
additional 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. An additional 1 minute is 
granted.
  Mr. SPECTER. In conclusion--the two most popular words of any 
speech--I think it is a fair assessment that what was intended was 6 
years in total. That was the interpretation, to repeat, which the 
chairman of the Republican Conference, Senator Santorum, had made by an 
official interpretation.
  The rule I am proposing, which will be voted on next Tuesday--I had 
each member of the Republican caucus served with notice, both having it 
delivered to their offices yesterday and having a copy served on each 
one of the desks here so there is a double service of notice--would 
provide for a 6-year maximum limitation, having provided the leeway for 
a Member not to serve as ranking, if he chose to follow that course, so 
as to have the full 6 years as chairman, if and when the Republicans 
are the majority party.
  I, again, thank my colleagues. I thank the Senator from New Jersey 
for his patience, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

                          ____________________