GOP Colleagues Rule for Specter

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously endorsed Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania moderate, as their next chairman Thursday, after he publicly promised not to hinder President Bush’s legislative agenda.

Religious conservatives had urged Republican lawmakers to bar Specter from the influential chairmanship, arguing that because he supported abortion rights, he could not be trusted to back Bush’s judicial nominees who opposed abortion.

They denounced Specter for observing in a post-election news conference that the Senate was unlikely to confirm any judicial nominee who opposed abortion because Democrats would filibuster such nominees.

To quell the firestorm, Specter read a prepared statement at a news conference Thursday that declared: “I have not and would not use a litmus test to deny confirmation to pro-life nominees.”

Flanked by most of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, Specter noted that he had voted to confirm Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist after Rehnquist had voted against Roe vs. Wade, the landmark case that legalized abortion, and that he had voted for other antiabortion nominees to the Supreme Court. Specter said he had assured the president that he “would give his nominees quick committee hearings and early committee votes so floor action could be promptly scheduled.”

Conservatives succeeded in wringing other assurances from Specter -- long viewed as a maverick in the party -- not to hinder Bush’s ambitious second-term legislative agenda.

But in the end, the power of Senate seniority outweighed the thousands of phone calls religious conservatives made during the last two weeks to Senate offices, demanding that Specter be bypassed for the chairmanship.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said that no issue except President Clinton’s impeachment had brought in more calls to his office. Some of his supporters would be upset with him for backing Specter, Graham said Thursday.

“Time will come when the president sends over a nominee, maybe for the Supreme Court, and our committee will support our president, and we will do everything we can to make sure that nominee is fairly treated,” Graham said.

Conservatives expressed dismay that Specter had survived.

“It seems that the Senate is protecting the rules of the club more than what won the election,” said Jayd Henricks, director of congressional relations for the Family Research Council, which had campaigned against Specter’s chairmanship. “Here we have somebody being put in maybe the most important committee position, who has a history of opposing the very values that won the election.

“People are going to watch how he conducts that committee,” Henricks said. “We feel like a message was sent, and we are hopeful the message was heard.”

In a statement, Concerned Women for America said that Specter’s public statement Thursday left too many questions unanswered.

“Specter read from a prepared statement, but said nothing new or different than what he has said since Nov. 3, as he’s scrambled to ‘clarify’ the statement that got him in all the trouble,” said Jan LaRue, the group’s chief counsel.

But Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition, said Specter’s victory was not a setback for conservatives.

“The chairmanship of a committee is not something that the average American is paying attention to,” Combs said. “And the fact that Specter said he would support the president’s nominees -- what else could you ask for?”

Specter is next in seniority on the Judiciary Committee to the current chairman, Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), who has served the maximum six years allowed by Senate rules. Hatch said all of the committee’s Republicans agreed that Specter deserved the elevation when the committee formally voted on its new chairman in January.

In his prepared statement, Specter noted that he had previously “registered [his] opposition” to Democratic filibusters of nominees, and said he would use his “best efforts to stop any future filibusters.”

He said he intended to consult with his colleagues to have balanced hearings “with all viewpoints represented.”

And Specter promised that he would “not support committee action to bottle up legislation or a constitutional amendment, even one which [he] personally opposed” -- a reference to a likely push by Republicans for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

*

Times staff writer Richard Simon contributed to this report.