Specter Indicates that He Will Vote against GOP on Cloture VoteNot a good sign for the Republicans Just now on the Senate floor, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) spoke against the Senate Republican leadership’s attempt to invoke cloture on the surveillance bill, indicating that he’ll vote with the Democrats.
Among the amendments that the Republicans seek to block is one of Specter’s own amendments, one he’s sponsoring along with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). The amendment would, rather than granting the telecoms retroactive immunity for cooperating with the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, substitute the government as the defendant in the numerous lawsuits against the telecoms.
Update: We have a rough transcript of some of his floor remarks below.
“I’ve sought recognition to speak briefly in opposition to the motion to invoke cloture…. We have gone through a long session last year where the argument was weighed repeatedly and persuasively not to invoke cloture. The argument advanced on this side of the aisle in order to give members on this side of the aisle an opportunity to propose their amendments. Now we have the reverse situation sought to be applied and it is my hope that this body will reject the cloture motion.
“There has been very little time spent on this very important subject in this body and when you have a matter of the importance of retroactive immunity where you’re going to shut off the courts of the United States from hearing cases that are already pending there ought to be time for consideration of amendments like the one which Senator Whitehouse and I have offered to substitute the United States government. And the purpose of our amendment is to comport with the basic Constitutional provision of separation of powers which is the cornerstone of the constitution and we have found regrettably that it has been inadequate to have Congressional supervision, Congressional oversight because of its ineffectiveness.
For example, when the Judiciary Committee seeks to obtain records on the destruction of CIA tapes you find the administration resisting and the inevitable argument of politics. When the court issues an order, as a federal court did last week, for a report on the destruction of documents seeking to find out what happened on the destruction of the CIA documents, the court can’t be charged with politics. And we find in Rasul, and in other litigation matters, the judicial branch has been effective in maintaining the separation of powers.”
