[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9792-9795]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                            SENATOR JEFFORDS

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition this morning to 
comment on Senator Jeffords' announcement that he will vote with the 
Democrats on organization of the Senate. I have delayed in expressing 
these thoughts to further reflect upon them and perhaps avoid saying 
something that I would later regret. I have written them down, which is 
unusual for me because I believe that floor statements, as speeches 
generally, are best made from the heart rather than text.
  When I first heard last Tuesday that Senator Jeffords was considering 
this move, I told the news media: ``It shouldn't happen--it won't 
happen--it can't happen.'' Well, I was wrong.
  When Senator Jeffords confirmed that he was about to vote with the 
Democrats, I joined five other Senators who tried to dissuade him in a 
morning meeting last Wednesday. The group reconvened for an afternoon 
meeting, with some ten other Senators and Senator Jeffords. Between the 
two meetings, we conferred with the Republican

[[Page 9793]]

leadership on what suggestions we could make to Senator Jeffords to 
keep him in the fold.
  For 13 years, Jim Jeffords has been one of my closest friends in the 
Senate and he still is. We have had lunch together every Wednesday for 
years. First, with Senator John Chafee, and later with Senator Olympia 
Snowe, Senator Susan Collins, and Senator Lincoln Chafee. He had never 
given any hint to me of such a move.
  Before discussing the suggestions which would be made to Senator 
Jeffords, we first pleaded with him, saying his change would disrupt 
the Senate, it would change the balance of power in the Federal 
Government generally, it would severely weaken the Republican Party--of 
which he was a lifelong member, it would hurt his Senate friends, and 
likely cost many staffers to lose their jobs.
  Senator Jeffords replied that he was opposed to the party's policies 
on many items and believed he could do more for his principles by 
organizing with the Democrats.
  We then told Senator Jeffords that we were authorized by the 
Republican leadership to tell him that if he stayed, the term limits on 
his chairmanship would be waived, he would have a seat at the 
Republican leadership table as the moderate's representative, and IDEA, 
special education, would become an entitlement which would enrich that 
program by billions of dollars for children across America.
  At the end of our second long meeting, I felt we had a significant 
chance to keep him. On Thursday morning, I was deeply disappointed by 
his announcement that he would organize with the Democrats. My 
immediate response to the news media was that it felt as if there had 
been a death in the family. Other Senators from our close-knit group 
were, candidly, hurt and confused. For some, that has turned to anger. 
Most of the Republican Senate caucus has had little to say, trying to 
put the best face on what is really a devastating loss.
  The full impact has yet to sink in. It will undoubtedly be the topic 
of much contemporaneous columnist comment and beyond that for the 
historians.
  Well, the question now arises, Where do we go from here? The Senate 
leadership, notwithstanding Senator Jeffords' departure from our 
caucus, has created a moderate seat at the leadership table to address 
some of Senator Jeffords' concerns. More needs to be done. And I think 
more will be done.
  How should these issues be handled by the Senate for the future? I 
intend to propose a rule change which would preclude a future 
recurrence of a Senator's change in parties, in midsession, organizing 
with the opposition, to cause the upheaval which is now resulting.
  I take second place to no one on independence voting. But, it is my 
view that the organizational vote belongs to the party which supported 
the election of a particular Senator. I believe that is the 
expectation. And certainly it has been a very abrupt party change, 
although they have occurred in the past with only minor ripples, none 
have caused the major dislocation which this one has.
  When I first ran in 1980, Congressman Bud Shuster sponsored a 
fundraiser for me in Altoona where Congressman Jack Kemp was the 
principal speaker. When some questions were raised as to my political 
philosophy, Congressman Shuster said my most important vote would be 
the organizational vote. From that day to this, I have believed that 
the organizational vote belonged to the party which supported my 
election.
  When the Democrats urged me to switch parties some time ago, I gave 
them a flat ``no.'' I have been asked in the last several days if I 
intended to switch parties. I have said absolutely not.
  Senator Phil Gramm faced this issue when he decided to switch 
parties. He resigned his seat, which he had won as a Democrat, and ran 
for reelection as a Republican. As he told me, his last vote in January 
1983 was for the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and he voted 
for Tip O'Neill with the view that he was elected as a Democrat and 
should vote that way on organizational control. Even though, he 
intended to become a Republican and would have preferred another person 
to be Speaker.
  To repeat, I intend to propose a Senate rule which would preclude a 
change in control of the Senate when a Senator decides to vote with the 
opposing party for organizational purposes.
  One other aspect does deserve comment, and that is the issue of 
personal benefit to a changing Senator. In our society, political 
arrangements avoid the consequences of similar conduct in other 
contexts.
  For example, if company A induces a competitor's employee to break 
his contract with company B and join company A, company B can collect 
damages for company A's wrongful conduct. If A gives a benefit to an 
employee of B to induce the employee to breach a duty, that conduct can 
have serious consequences in other contexts which are not applied to 
political arrangements.
  On the Lehrer news show on Thursday night, the day before yesterday, 
Senator Harry Reid and I sparred over this point. I expressed my 
concern about reliable reports that Democrats had told Senator Jeffords 
that Senator Reid would step aside so Senator Jeffords could become 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Senator Reid 
replied that there was no quid pro quo, an expression I had not used.
  Accepting Senator Jeffords' decision was based on principle for the 
reasons he gave at his news conference on Thursday morning, a question 
still remains as to whether any such inducement was offered and whether 
it played any part in Senator Jeffords' decision. Questions on such 
offers and counteroffers should be considered by Senators and by the 
Senate in an ethical context, but at this moment I do not see any way 
to effect such conduct by rulemaking or legislation.
  This week's events raise very profound questions for the governance 
of our country as well as the operation of the Senate. I intend to 
press a rule change which would preclude a recurrence of this situation 
and will be discussing with my colleagues the whole idea of inducements 
as an incentive for a party switch.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves, I was off the 
floor and am disappointed that the Senator saw me here and decided to 
speak after I left the Chamber, using my name on several occasions. 
Would the Senator from Pennsylvania tell the Senator from Nevada, is he 
saying that Senator Jeffords did something wrong in switching parties?
  Mr. SPECTER. I have been very careful in my selection of words. I 
have not said anybody did anything wrong.
  Mr. REID. OK.
  Mr. SPECTER. I am a little surprised to hear the Senator from Nevada 
expressing some concern about the statement which this Senator has just 
made. This is the floor of the U.S. Senate and these are matters of 
grave concern for the Senate. I have spoken with great modulation on a 
subject where a great deal more could have been said by me and by 
others.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate the Senator's statement. It seems to me that, 
no matter if it was a matter of importance or nonimportance, if I was 
going to speak about the Senator from Pennsylvania, I would tell the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, ``I am going to say a few words mentioning 
your name; do you want to be on the floor?'' The Senator decided not to 
do that. I appreciate that.
  It is my understanding that the Senator from Vermont, prior to his 
leaving the Republican Party, was chairman of a pretty big committee, 
the HELP Committee?
  Mr. SPECTER. That is true. And one of the concerns which Senator 
Jeffords had, as expressed to a number of us, was his term limitation.
  But if I might respond to an earlier point by Senator Reid, I saw 
Senator Reid on the floor. He is the assistant majority leader. 
Perhaps, I might have said to Senator Reid: ``I am about to mention 
your name.''
  I did so really to accommodate his statement that there was no quid 
pro

[[Page 9794]]

quo. There had been a statement that there was nothing done in exchange 
for something. So that in saying that, it was not said in any 
condemnatory, derogatory, or critical manner.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate the statement of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. I am one of the biggest fans of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. I am one of the few people here, probably, who have read 
his book from cover to cover.
  Mr. SPECTER. That number is growing, I say to the Senator.
  Mr. REID. It takes a long time to read. I am a fast reader. That is 
the reason I am ahead of most people. I say to my friend from 
Pennsylvania, I appreciate not only what he said but how he said it. I 
am sorry if I in any way mistook the Senator's statement.
  This is a time, as the Senator indicated, of some tenseness around 
here. I wanted to make sure the Senator and I understood each other, 
which we do. I thank him very much.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I seek recognition in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, first let me address the comments of the 
Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The Nation and perhaps many parts of the Western World will be 
focused on the comments of Senator Jeffords this week. They are 
particularly important not because a man who was a lifelong Republican 
has declared that he would become an Independent but because of the 
impact of that decision on this institution and on the Government in 
Washington.
  For people to change political parties is rare in this American 
political scene but not unheard of. In fact, the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, on his side of the aisle, on the Republican side of the 
aisle, has at least four colleagues who have done that:
  Senator Strom Thurmond, first elected as a Democrat, Governor of 
South Carolina, then ran as a candidate for the U.S. Senate as a 
Democrat and decided to change parties and become a Republican. That 
was his decision.
  I served with Senator Phil Gramm in the House when he was a Democrat. 
He made the decision to change parties and stood for reelection in 
Texas as a Republican to let the people make their decision as to 
whether or not they would validate his choice of the new party.
  Then there is Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, once a Democrat, now 
a Republican on Senator Specter's side of the aisle.
  Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, once a Democrat, is now a 
Republican.
  So I find it interesting that now is the moment that the Senator from 
Pennsylvania wants to suggest we have to change the rules to militate 
against this change of party sponsorship, when there is a change of 
party allegiance. The difference, I think, is obvious. In the four 
previous examples, it did not result in the change of control of the 
Senate. I think perhaps that is why more attention has been paid to 
Senator Jeffords' decision. I honor his decision. I think he is an 
honorable man. I don't believe he made this decision lightly. I think 
he reflected on it. He made the decision to be an Independent and to 
join the Democrats in organizing in the Senate. I think the statement 
he made in Burlington, VT, in front of the people he will represent was 
one of the better statements I have heard in my public career. It was 
clearly a decision of conscience.
  To suggest that there was any quid pro quo or any other reason 
demeans the integrity of one of our colleagues whom we both respect 
very much. So I hope we will put this in some historical perspective 
within this institution, where half a dozen Members have either 
contemplated or changed political party. They have a right to serve, 
and they will ultimately answer to the people of their State about 
their decision.
  Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. For a question, I am happy to yield, retaining my right 
to the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, my response is not really a question, 
although it can always be articulated in the form of a question which 
is our custom. The Senator from Illinois has the floor, and I 
appreciate his yielding to me. I just have a brief comment to make 
without any articulation of a question, if I may, reserving the 
Senator's right to the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. I do not object, but I retain my right to the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will formulate it as a unanimous 
consent request that I may reply very briefly, retaining the status of 
the Senator's right to the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in what I have had to say here, I have 
said it as carefully as I can. I have written it all down and I read 
it. I think it may be the first speech I have ever read on the Senate 
floor in the 20 years and 5 months I have been here. I wanted to be 
very precise.
  I believe Senator Jeffords is a man of the highest principle and 
integrity. I have enormous respect for all of what he has done, 
including the statement made in Vermont on Thursday morning.
  When the Senator from Illinois comments about the change in parties 
of others, what he says is true. I have said in the prepared text that 
Senator Gramm went to the unusual extent of actually resigning. Senator 
Gramm told me, as I recounted, that his last vote in early 1983 was for 
the Speaker of the House of Representatives. He voted for Congressman 
Tip O'Neill. I think Senator Gramm said he was elected as a Democrat.
  I think the examples of Senators Shelby, Campbell, Thurmond, and 
then-Congressman Phil Gramm/now Senator Gramm are really irrelevant to 
what happened here. This is really a very, extraordinary matter. As the 
Senator from Illinois knows, we have had a change in the governance of 
the Senate, and each of us can attest to how hard it is to get to the 
Senate, and then how hard it is to get party control of the Senate. 
With that historical election and a 50/50 balance, any one of the 
Senators on either side could tip the balance. Republicans had control 
by virtue of the Vice Presidency.
  When Senator Jeffords made a switch for organizational purposes, he 
affected the governance of the country. The ability to set the agenda 
here is of enormous consequence. To have the Democrat as the majority 
leader, he gets the first recognition. Then you have the President's 
agenda. Some people are glad that the President's agenda will not have 
an advocate in the Senate and the majority leader as a Republican to 
put that agenda forward. The Senate chairmanships we need not focus on 
too long.
  But there were people in the Senate family who were weeping--staffers 
who are going to lose their jobs. I said on the ``Jim Lehrer Show'' 
that what happened was ``seismic.'' Senator Dorgan agreed with me that 
it was an ``earthquake''.
  So in seeking a limitation on organizational change, I am not moving 
to the point to say that if a Senator wants to change parties, there 
ought to be any rule against that. He can find his peace with his 
electorate, where there may be a political price to pay or there may 
not be. But when so many others pay a price, it is my very firm view 
that the rule ought to be changed, and I will be submitting an 
appropriate rule shortly.
  I thank my colleague from Illinois and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois has the 
floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have the floor, but I would like to know 
if the Senator from Iowa would like to make a request.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. No.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will accept the statement of the Senator 
from Pennsylvania. I understand there is change, and with change there 
is pain. I hope we can do our best to be positive and constructive as 
the Senate leadership does change. I hope we can continue to show 
mutual respect for our colleagues, as I have great respect

[[Page 9795]]

for the Senator from Pennsylvania. I think that is an important 
hallmark of this institution, and I think we should all make an extra 
effort to preserve that.

                          ____________________