Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to speak on legislation I am introducing that will require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to hold at least one public hearing before issuance of a permit affecting public or private land use in a locality. Increasing demand for electricity throughout the Northeast is putting a strain on energy infrastructure in my state, necessitating new transmission lines and natural gas pipelines and the expansion of existing ones. In Southwestern and Northeast Pennsylvania transmission line expansions are planned over hundreds of miles of private property, while in the Southeast natural gas pipeline expansions are underway. There is no doubt these projects can be invasive, and rarely do they fail to be controversial. I make a point of touching all of Pennsylvania's 67 counties each year. In traveling Pennsylvania this fall I heard a lot of complaints from constituents who oppose these infrastructure projects, and who felt their concerns were being ignored by the energy companies and by FERC. I realize there will always be some opposition to large infrastructure projects. What is unacceptable, however, is for the voices of Pennsylvanians to be ignored. It may be the case that these projects are necessary to meet increased energy demand. Nonetheless, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must seriously consider and evaluate local concerns in a sensitive manner. To ensure citizens throughout the commonwealth have a voice in the development of energy infrastructure, my legislation will mandate that FERC hold an open hearing in the affected communities. State Public Utility Commissions, who have a great say in these matters, are beyond Congress' reach. But where the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is involved we can take steps to ensure that our constituents' concerns receive due consideration. Holding a hearing may not lead to all sides agreeing on the proper route forward, but at the very least my Pennsylvania constituents will come away with the satisfaction of having publicly aired their grievances.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to speak on legislation I am introducing that will require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to hold at least one public hearing before issuance of a permit affecting public or private land use in a locality. Increasing demand for electricity throughout the Northeast is putting a strain on energy infrastructure in my state, necessitating new transmission lines and natural gas pipelines and the expansion of existing ones. In Southwestern and Northeast Pennsylvania transmission line expansions are planned over hundreds of miles of private property, while in the Southeast natural gas pipeline expansions are underway. There is no doubt these projects can be invasive, and rarely do they fail to be controversial. I make a point of touching all of Pennsylvania's 67 counties each year. In traveling Pennsylvania this fall I heard a lot of complaints from constituents who oppose these infrastructure projects, and who felt their concerns were being ignored by the energy companies and by FERC. I realize there will always be some opposition to large infrastructure projects. What is unacceptable, however, is for the voices of Pennsylvanians to be ignored. It may be the case that these projects are necessary to meet increased energy demand. Nonetheless, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must seriously consider and evaluate local concerns in a sensitive manner. To ensure citizens throughout the commonwealth have a voice in the development of energy infrastructure, my legislation will mandate that FERC hold an open hearing in the affected communities. State Public Utility Commissions, who have a great say in these matters, are beyond Congress' reach. But where the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is involved we can take steps to ensure that our constituents' concerns receive due consideration. Holding a hearing may not lead to all sides agreeing on the proper route forward, but at the very least my Pennsylvania constituents will come away with the satisfaction of having publicly aired their grievances.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I further ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended beyond 4 o'clock, and that I be permitted to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition for a few purposes. First, I ask unanimous consent that my statement regarding U.S. policy toward Israel be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I further sought recognition to comment briefly about the scheduling of the hearing for Attorney General designate Eric Holder. In looking toward the hearing process, I am looking for a very constructive engagement to determine the qualifications of Mr. Holder. There is no intent on my part or on the part of any of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle to engage in partisan sniping. As I say, we intend to be constructive and not destructive. We are looking to strengthen the Department of Justice. The position of Attorney General is an extraordinarily important position. We have seen that during the administration of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, stated candidly, the Department was not well handled. That is a candid statement and also a very mild statement. During the course of Attorney General Gonzales' tenure, there were so many situations where the Attorney General molded his views to accommodate his appointer, the President of the United States. A great deal that went on in the Department of Justice was partisan and not in the interests of the work of the Department or in the interests of the American people. We have seen, since 9/11/2001, a vast extension of Executive authority. We found the terrorist surveillance program was initiated by the President without consultation under the tradition of notifying the chairman, which I was during the 109th Congress, or the ranking member. We found there was an engagement with the telephone companies to engage in electronic surveillance, again without notifying the chairman or ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and without notifying the intelligence committees of both Houses, as mandated by law. Further was the expansion of signing statements all during the tenure of the Attorney General. Without going into the issues of politicization, they were rampant during the tenure of Attorney General Gonzales. I refer to an article, coauthored by the current chairman of the committee and myself, which appeared not too long ago in Politico, on October 28, 2008, where we said in part: The Attorney General must be someone who deeply appreciates and respects the work and commitment of the thousands of men and women who work in the branches and divisions of the Justice Department, day in and day out, without regard to politics or ideology, doing their best to enforce the law and promote justice. With respect to Attorney General designate Holder, there is no doubt he comes to this nomination with an outstanding record, for the most part. Not without question but for the most part. He has an excellent educational background from Columbia: undergrad and law degree, a trial attorney in the Department of Justice, an associate judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, U.S. attorney, Deputy Attorney General, Acting Attorney General--a very distinguished resume, which I have recited. But there are questions which have to be inquired into fairly, as already noted in the commentaries of the media on the editorial pages. There has been considerable publicity about the pardon of Marc Rich. There was a case involving Mr. Rich, who was a fugitive, who had given very substantial sums of money to entities connected to the President. The regular procedures for a pardon were bypassed. The Department of Justice was not consulted. The attorneys in the Southern District of New York, which was handling the Rich case, were opposed to the pardon. From my own days as district attorney of Philadelphia, where I dealt with celebrated cases involving people who were fugitives, who had fled, that is about as serious a matter as you could find and hardly one where there would be an expectation of leniency or pardon to wipe out the charge, eliminate the matter, while the defendant was in absentia. There was an extensive report filed on this issue by the House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, the 107th Congress, second session. It is available for anyone to read. There are quite a number of very serious questions involving what happened with Mr. Holder and the people involved there. The concern that arises is why Mr. Holder lent the recommendation, which has been characterized as neutral leaning in favor, in this context. I come to no conclusions on the matter. I approach this matter, as I try to approach all matters, with an open mind. But in an extensive interview with Mr. Holder he has presented his views. I don't think it is useful to get into the specifics as to the precise concerns which I raised and his precise answers. Let that await a day where we have a hearing and where Mr. Holder is in a position to speak for himself. But by analogy to the Gonzales tenure, I think it is imperative we be sure the Attorney General of the United States does not bend his views to accommodate his appointer; that the Attorney General does not bend his views in any way which is partisan or political, to serve any interest other than the interests of justice. As noted in the article cited in Politico, where you have the professionals in the Department of Justice, they wouldn't even meet with attorneys for Mr. Rich, they thought it was such an open-and-shut case, and were opposed--at least according to information provided. This is all to be brought out at a hearing. But to run counter to the views of the professionals is a major red flag which has to be inquired into and inquired into with some depth. Then we have the situation where Attorney General Reno recused herself on the issue of appointing an independent counsel to investigate alleged--and I emphasize alleged--illegal fundraising by Vice President Albert Gore out of the White House. There was the relatively notorious incident where the Vice President was at a meeting and drank a lot of ice tea and absented himself from certain parts of the meeting where he was not able to--or had a rationale for not knowing certain things. I questioned Attorney General Reno in detail about that during Judiciary Committee hearings and she said: Well, there just wasn't sufficient evidence. She had disregarded a document, a note taken by someone present, because, as she said, it did not refresh that witness's recollection. I asked her about the doctrine of prior recollection recorded, which is a well-known exception to the hearsay rule. She denied knowing about it. I note a frown on the face of the Presiding Officer, who is a distinguished district attorney herself. Doubtless we could speak at length about prior recollection recorded. I mention that because of the curious circumstances of what happened there. There we had an assistant U.S. attorney named LaBella, who was asked to take on the job of making a recommendation. According to the information provided to me, he made a recommendation for an independent counsel and the professionals in the Department asked for an independent counsel, and it was overruled. I am not going to comment about Mr. Holder's role. Let him respond to that and let us take that up in due course. But here again is a potential situation where the interests of justice and objectivity were not followed in the highest levels of the Department of Justice when Mr. Holder was in charge, with the Attorney General, Attorney General Reno, having recused herself. There are many other matters which warrant inquiry, and I will not take the time to go into them now. They are referenced in a letter which eight Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent to Attorney General Mukasey, requesting information from the Department of Justice files. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. When hearings were held for Attorney General Ashcroft, they were held from January 16 to January 19 of 2001. At that time, there were 2 days of testimony from Attorney General Ashcroft, and the committee heard from 23 outside witnesses. May I remind everyone that John Ashcroft was a well-known person to the committee. He had been in the Senate. He had served on the Judiciary Committee. We knew him very well. But that didn't stop a very full, detailed inquiry. It was not done in a rush. With respect to Mr. Holder's situation, we have in the committee some 86 boxes of archived committee documents relating to Mr. Holder's tenure in the Department of Justice. We expect those materials to increase very substantially when we receive materials from the Department of Justice and the Clinton Library. Similar document requests were made to the Department of Justice in the Reagan Library during the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, and they yielded some 65,000 additional pages of documents. As of the present time, we have not yet received Mr. Holder's questionnaire, his nomination materials, or the FBI background investigation. I have taken the time to come to the floor to outline, very briefly, some of the issues. They are set out in more detail in the letter which is now made a part of the record to Attorney General Mukasey, asking for specific matters regarding Mr. Holder. There are other matters which are in the media which I think are better left for further investigation, even before the hearing, before there is any public comment about it. But we are looking at a very major matter. The Department of Justice has enormous responsibilities in the battle against terrorism and in the protection of civil rights. That is a balance which has to be maintained. There are real questions as to whether it has been maintained since 9/11. Those are matters for inquiry. There are very substantial matters to be inquired into on the Justice Department position on waiver of attorney-client privilege, which started with the Holder memorandum when he was Deputy Attorney General and then went forward to the Thompson memorandum and the McNulty memorandum and so forth. Also, there are major matters of legislation now pending on the subject of reporters' shield, where the Department of Justice has taken a view which I believe has to be modified by legislation if we cannot get some accommodation with the Department. That is a very brief statement as to the issues which we are looking for. As I look at this matter, it seems to me not realistic or fair to begin hearings before January 26. The week of January 19 is going to be occupied with the inauguration. And to have adequate time to prepare, it seems to me, that needs to be done. When we had hearings involving Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito, consideration was made of the minority point of view, and extensive discussions were had, and there was an accommodation and agreement reached as to when the hearing was to be held. So we are looking at a serious matter and we have to do it right. It is going to take some time. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I arrived at the same time as the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, and I ask unanimous consent that he be recognized following my brief presentation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss the issue as to what Congress should do, if anything, with respect to economic aid to General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler. This is an issue which has been very much in the news, with the prospect that one or more of these companies might not survive--probably would not survive-- in the absence of some aid from the U.S. Government. Last Tuesday, I convened a meeting in Philadelphia attended by key executives from each of the Big Three, labor leaders, the head of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, the head of the Pennsylvania United Auto Workers Community Action Program, and the head of the Philadelphia Labor Council. Also in attendance were dealers, suppliers, and economists to review the situation, to get a background, to understand it better, to provide for the consideration this week of the issue which will be before the Senate. At that meeting, the Big Three painted a very gloomy picture. Ford was in the best position of the three, having arranged credit some time ago, and they had a request pending for some $9 billion in standby aid. They were not asking for it, but only want it available in case their situation came to the point where they actively needed it in order to survive. The CEO of Ford said that if the $9 billion was requested and received, he would then serve for a dollar a year. The projections from General Motors and Chrysler were considerably gloomier than Ford, with the statements made that if they did not get aid by the end of the year, they might have to go into bankruptcy, or to Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The suppliers were very concerned about the impact on their situation. The auto dealers were similarly concerned. Labor is very worried about the loss of jobs. So it was a very gloomy meeting overall. On Thursday, I convened a meeting in the Lehigh Valley. We did not have representatives of the Big Three, but we did have labor locally, dealers, bankers, economists who evaluated that situation. I joined with Senators Levin, Stabenow, Bond, Voinovich, and Brown on November 20 in endorsing legislation to assist the Big Three, to say that it is something I would be willing to consider in light of the projected difficulties and the ripple effect it could have on the economy. My statement in the news conference which we held and a statement on the Senate floor was that my view was limited to consideration of such economic aid conditioned on the Big Three having plans to move forward which would present the realistic likelihood that they would be able to succeed. Considerable attention was given in the meetings which I held last week in Pennsylvania to the alternative of bankruptcy, and there have been many who have said bankruptcy would be the appropriate course as bankruptcy proceedings were held with the steel industry and the airlines, and that was the way to resolve the issue if the Big Three could not survive. One point which all of the Big Three agreed upon was that if one failed, they were all going to fail. The considerations with respect to bankruptcy which were considered at the two meetings I held were the contention that bankruptcy would be unacceptable to have the survival or having the Big Three come out of bankruptcy because of the difference between the automobile manufacturer situation contrasted with the steel industry or with the airlines. When buyers are looking for a car or looking for a warranty, they expect the companies to be in existence for protracted periods of time, so that the argument was made that Chapter 11 proceedings or bankruptcy generally would not be acceptable. I commented at these meetings, as I did on the Senate floor and in the news conference which the six Senators had on November 20, that the public sentiment is very much opposed to bailouts. After the $700 billion legislation was passed on October 3, I traveled the State of Pennsylvania and had town meetings. I found the temperature of my constituents was at the boiling point, 212 Fahrenheit, and, in fact, the thermometers were broken. I commented to the town meeting attendees that the vote which was taken in the Senate was a strong vote--74 to 25--which was a very strong vote, because of the potentially catastrophic consequences of what would happen to the economy. We didn't like the bailout of Bear Stearns or the bailout of AIG, and Lehman Brothers was not bailed out, and there were major regulatory problems which would be addressed by the Congress. Those who had made false representations on the balance sheets saying that the companies were worth falsified figures, knowing them to be false--that is fraud-- and there were investigations, criminal investigations underway, and that as in the Enron situation, people could go to jail for making those false representations. But I make that comment because of the public view which is opposed to the so-called bailouts; that it ought not to be the Government which picks winners and losers, but it ought to be the market which picks winners and losers. I repeat what I have said in prior floor statements which is that the Big Three have a very steep burden of proof and that the Big Three will have to come up with a plan which is reasonably and realistically calculated to succeed. We are now talking about various oversight provisions, talking about limited compensation, golden parachute plans which will make the Big Three competitive in a very difficult market, and taking a look at the drastic reduction of automobile sales. But one factor came through loudly and clearly, and that was the potential consequences if the automotive industry--the Big Three--collapse, that we would be without the major portion of the industrial base in the United States, which as we all know in time of national emergency, in time of war, is indispensable for the defense of our country. So my staff and I and my colleagues are all taking a very close look at the proposals which the Big Three have made. I had a request to meet with General Motors and we will be doing that tomorrow. We are talking to a lot of people who were totally opposed to economic aid from the Federal Government. So we have to weigh the consequences as to what happens if economic aid is not given. It is hard to calculate what the consequences will be on the economy, but some of the predictions are virtually catastrophic. We must weigh that against the likelihood of the success of the plans, and it all depends on the quality of those plans. I thank the Chair. I know Senator Dorgan is close at hand, but in the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation to temporarily suspend the requirement that persons aged 70\1/2\ and over take minimum distributions from their pensions or Individual Retirement Accounts, IRAs. I offer this legislation because of the economic situation our country is in at this moment. At a time when our financial markets are so greatly unstable, the government should not be requiring people-- especially retired citizens likely living on fixed incomes--to take money out of the markets. If seniors need this money, and want to take this money out of their pension plans, they should certainly be allowed to do so. But right now, while the markets are so unpredictable, I think it is wise for Congress to suspend the requirement that persons aged 70\1/2\ and above take mandatory distributions from their pensions, 401(k)s, and IRAs. The legislation I am introducing today will suspend this requirement for 1 year. Recently, forecasters at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia estimated that the United States will enter into a recession lasting approximately 14 months. While I certainly hope that they are wrong, and our economy begins to improve as Congress looks at various ways to stimulate the financial markets, I think we must be prudent in preparing for the worst. A 1 year suspension of the required pension distribution rule would allow time for the markets to stabilize. If, a year from now, our financial situation has not vastly improved, I believe it may be prudent to visit this issue again. This legislation is a simple fix that will have a significant impact on both the financial markets and the portfolios of our senior citizens. Requiring seniors to take disbursements from their pensions or IRAs now will also likely mean that, with the markets at such a low point, seniors will be losing a significant amount of money. Current tax law not only is hurting the financial markets with this rule, it is also hurting the wallets of seniors who will see smaller distributions and dwindling pensions. If seniors don't need these distributions right now, let them keep their money in their retirement plans until the markets can rebuild and boost the amount those retirement plans are worth. Another provision in this legislation would allow retirees who have already taken distributions in 2008 to reinvest those distributions back into their pension plan without penalty. This again would put money back into the markets if the recipients don't yet need the money at this time. I hope that we will be able to weather the current financial storm we are in quickly. Through small measures like this one, in conjunction with the larger measures that Congress has already done, we can begin to bring stability to the markets. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this and other legislation to help the families in this country who are hurting because of the economic downturn.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce a resolution recognizing January 2 as National Advertising Specialty Day. An advertising specialty is any item imprinted with a logo or slogan and given out to promote a company, organization, product, service, special achievement or event. The use of advertising specialties has historical relevance as the industry dates back to George Washington's use of collectible buttons in his presidential campaign in 1789. Today, there are over 750,000 varieties of advertising specialties. The advertising specialty industry is now a major contributor to the United States economy. The industry employs over 344,000 professionals, including 9,000 in Pennsylvania. Eighty-five percent of these professionals are employed in small or medium-size businesses, some of which gross up to one million dollars per year. The advertising specialty industry has experienced substantial growth. It has grown annually at an average rate of 4 percent since 2003 making it a 19.6 billion dollar industry in 2007. Advertising specialties now account for over 14 percent of all tracked advertising spending in the United States. It is important to recognize the positive contributions the advertising specialty industry has had on the economy by creating jobs and small businesses. I urge my colleagues to support this industry by designating January 2 as National Advertising Specialty Day.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have listened to the eloquent comments of the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden. I had planned to insert a statement in the Record complementing Senator Gordon Smith on his tenure, but I would like to add my voice of laudatory comments at the conclusion of the statement of Senator Wyden. I agree with him that Senator Gordon Smith has made an enormous contribution to the Senate in his two terms, and he will be sorely missed. He is a member of a small band of moderates on this side of the aisle. I suggest that Gordon Smith's brand of Republicanism is very much in need in this body. Very frequently, Members on the Democratic side of the aisle seek cosponsors. I have been told on a number of occasions that the ``pickins are slim.'' Gordon's absence will make it more difficult. Gordon Smith has been outspoken on many of the very important causes which require bipartisanship. He was one of the few on this side of the aisle to sponsor legislation to fight hate crimes, for example. At the outset, support for Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research was limited. Gordon Smith was at the forefront of that effort, as I was. Gordon Smith made a very eloquent speech from his chair a few rows behind me on the Iraq war. He was moved one day to come over and spoke from the heart, something which happens relatively infrequently in this Chamber. Sometimes people in this Chamber speak from the head. Even that has its limited aspects, if we take a close look at the Congressional Record. But Gordon Smith was a big plus here. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Wyden. I know Gordon is a young, vigorous man. He has a bright future ahead of him. I think he will live to fight another day on the political wars. Some of us have had an election loss or two. It is a learning experience, not one I recommend, but there are ways to move forward. That can be a lesson which could stand anyone in good stead. I am sure Senator Gordon Smith has a great future ahead of him. John Sununu Madam President, I also wish to pay tribute to my friend Senator John Sununu for his service to the country and his contributions to the U.S. Senate. Senator Sununu's departure from the Senate will be a great loss to this body, as well as to the state of New Hampshire. I have known Senator Sununu since he joined the Senate in 2002. I have always found him to be an intelligent, engaged, and capable legislator who cares deeply for the well-being of his constituents and doing what is right for the Nation, regardless of the political cost. Senator Sununu followed his father and mother into public service, when he ran for public office in 1996 and won the election in New Hampshire's First Congressional District. John served three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives where he quickly established a reputation as an innovative legislator. John effectively applied his extensive background in science, engineering, and small business during his six years in the House of Representatives where he rose to become vice-chairman of the Budget Committee and took a leading role in shaping our Nation's annual budget priorities. In 2002, John joined the Senate after defeating both an incumbent Senator and an incumbent Governor to become the youngest Member of the United States Senate. I have admired John's work on his committees: the Finance Committee, the Commerce Committee, and the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. On these committees, Sununu played a major role on the lobbying reform legislation, and he got the Bush Administration to make some crucial changes in the Patriot Act before he voted to reauthorize it. Sununu has also gained a reputation as a well respected fiscal conservative. On a personal note, Senator Sununu has been a very good friend to me. When I underwent chemotherapy for Hodgkin's disease and lost my hair, Senator Sununu showed up one day on the Senate floor with a shaved head. He said that he had shaved his head in a sign of solidarity for what I was going through. I wish John, his wife Kitty, and his three lovely children the best of luck as they move forward. I have no doubt that Senator Sununu has a bright future and will continue to make important contributions to New Hampshire and the entire Nation. Elizabeth Dole Senator Elizabeth Dole is a colleague leaving the U.S. Senate not in defeat but in the wake of a career dedicated to public service and an unwavering commitment to her country. She has had an illustrious career as a two-time cabinet member, President of Red Cross, and U.S. Senator. Elizabeth is a model for all young women considering a career in government, for in times when the ceiling had but few cracks she bore through the naysayers and showed a woman belongs in the Nation's highest positions. After graduating from Harvard Law as one of just 29 woman in a class of 550, ``Liddy'' went to work in the White House Office of Consumer Affairs where she worked under both President Johnson and Nixon. Pledging her allegiance to her job and duty to the country, Senator Dole opted to switch parties in order to continue her stay in the White House. After a stint on the Federal Trade Commission, President Reagan appointed Elizabeth Secretary of Transportation in 1983. She served valiantly in that position for 4\1/2\ years, proving her skill at managing a Federal Department, and became the Secretary of Labor under President George H.W. Bush. With this position, Elizabeth became the first woman to hold two different cabinet positions under two different administrations. In 1991 Elizabeth accepted a different challenge becoming the President of the American Red Cross, dedicating her time to building an institution whose impassioned mission is to aid our Nation's citizens who are in need of emergency assistance. During her tenure with the Red Cross, Elizabeth took a brief hiatus to stand by her husband, Senator Bob Dole, as he represented our party as the nominee for President in 1996. After a hard-fought race Elizabeth began looking into the idea of running for our Nation's highest office on her own right. This came to fruition in 1999 as she again led the way for women and became the first official female candidate for President. She exhibited toughness and political tact in a race that history had not been very welcoming to women. In 2001 Elizabeth's path to the U.S. Senate took her through her birth home of Salisbury, NC. Using her full career serving our Nation as a foundation, Elizabeth won her seat to the U.S. Senate and immediately made her presence known. Spending her time on the Armed Services, Banking, Small Business and Aging committees, Elizabeth worked for North Carolinians with the same passion and dedication she possessed throughout her career. Her achievements were many, but to name a few she successfully opposed potential closings of U.S. military bases, protected delicate wetlands and woodlands in northeastern North Carolina from ruination from an ill-advised Navy landing strip proposal, and also served as the chairwoman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee for the 2004 election cycle. I wish to thank Elizabeth for her service, friendship, and for being there for my dear friend Bob throughout the years. Senator Dole, your contributions to this chamber and our Nation will forever be remembered. I yield the floor. Ted Stevens Madam President, the departure of the senior Senator from Alaska will surely deprive the Senate of an exemplary leader who has made a profound effect on this body. Being the longest serving Republican in Senate history, Senator Stevens has made countless contributions to this body. His achievements include serving as the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, former chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, and President Pro Tempore. Ted's temper is generally misunderstood except by those who know him best. He doesn't lose it, but he does use it--and effectively. However, it is true that on occasion he makes Vesuvius look mild. I recollect one all-night session during Senator Howard Baker's tenure as majority leader when Ted expressed himself in an unusually emphatic way. As I recall it, the debate arose over Senator Proxmire's comments about submitting vouchers for travel expense in Wisconsin on his contention that Washington, DC, was his home base. That prompted a reaction from Ted, who was aghast at the thought of Washington, DC, being any Senator's home when he had the majestic Alaska to claim as his home. Senator Stevens' service during WWII in the U.S. Army Air Corps has given him a special understanding of defense matters. He is a distinguished veteran of the U.S. Army Air Corps, having flown support missions for the Flying Tigers of the 14th Air Force during World War II, for which he was awarded numerous medals, including the Distinguished Flying Cross. Upon his arrival in the U.S. Senate in 1968 it became evident Ted would become a leader on military and defense issues. His hard work as the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee earned him high praise from President Bush for his management of $87 billion supplemental appropriations bill in 2003. Recently, Senator Stevens has found himself in the midst of the debate on energy policy and finding innovative approaches to our dependency on oil. He labored intensely over these matters which he believed so strongly to be best not only for the country in particular but especially for Alaska. Ted's work ethic and tenacity always made this Chamber a better place. His passion for serving his State and country will forever be remembered. Thank you, Ted, for everything you have done for the United States and Alaska.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, earlier today, Senators Levin, Bond, Voinovich, Stabenow, Brown, and I announced a legislative proposal to deal with the crisis being faced by the automobile manufacturers. For a protracted period of time, Congress has wrestled with this issue. There have been many conflicting points of view as to what ought to be done. There has been little public sympathy for the plight of the auto manufacturers because they have been on notice for a long while of the need to reorganize and to approach the manufacture of automobiles differently in order to compete with foreign cars. There have been repeated efforts in the Congress to impose mileage standards. Finally, that was done last year. Now, with the severe economic problems facing the country, the automobile manufacturers find themselves in dire straits. The chief executive officers of General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford have been on Capitol Hill with very gloomy predictions as to the future of their companies if they do not get economic aid. It is a difficult matter to provide economic aid to all those who are in need. It is true the Federal Government has provided economic assistance to Bear Sterns and AIG, turned them down with Lehman Brothers. We are well aware of the fact that there could be very serious repercussions for the economy as a whole if the auto manufacturers fail. There has been considerable talk that they could go into a reorganization and bankruptcy and could emerge. That may well be true. But that could be risky as to what would happen. The Congress authorized some $700 billion to assist on an economic recovery. That legislation has not been warmly received by the American people. During the month of October, I traveled broadly in Pennsylvania and found very strong public sentiment in opposition. The Congress acted in the face of having our backs to the wall or a gun at our heads or any other metaphor of a critical nature that one would choose. On September 29, the House of Representatives failed to pass an economic recovery program. Senators were notified to be in the Chamber at 7:30 on Wednesday evening to vote. Regrettably, that legislative process did not follow regular order. It started off with a bill with papers from the Treasury Department. It wasn't a bill. It was a 4-page memorandum, later expanded to more than 100 pages, ultimately to more than 400 pages. But when regular order is not followed, the consequence is likely to be not so good. Regular order requires a bill that one can read and study. It requires hearings before a committee where people are proponents and opponents. There is examination and cross- examination to get at the facts. Then the committee--in this case, the Banking Committee--would sit down and have what is called a markup to go through the bill line by line. I explain this in some detail so there might be some understanding, if anybody is listening on C-SPAN this afternoon. Certainly, the Chamber is customarily barren, as is frequently the case. Senators are busy with other matters. Then after the markup, the committee files a report. Then it comes to the floor. There is debate, discussion, amendments. Then the Senate works its will. On the House side across the Rotunda, down the hall, the House of Representatives goes through a similar process. Then representatives of the two bodies meet for a conference. Then that is presented to the President. So there is a great deal of refining. That didn't happen with the $700 billion economic aid proposal. It turned out there was a lot of pork in the final draft that no one had a chance to strike, to offer amendments. It was embarrassing to have to defend that kind of a bill as I traveled my State in October to explain it. So there is great skepticism, fairly stated, among the American people as to the wisdom of the Congress in putting up $700 billion. Now, with the automakers coming in asking for economic aid, the question arises, who next? Last Friday, I wrote to our leaders urging that we not rush to judgment. I made a similar request, made an extensive floor statement earlier this week on Monday. That letter and others are in the Record, and I will not encumber the Record further because they are available for anyone who cares to look at them. Secretary of the Treasury Paulson has been unwilling to use the $700 billion to assist the automakers. He may be right about that or he may be wrong about that. But that is the position the Treasury Department has taken, saying that money is for the economy generally. Then the idea has been proposed--and has been embodied in what Senators Levin, Stabenow, Voinovich, Bond, Brown, and I announced earlier today--to use funds up to $25 billion from the 2007 appropriations which had been designated to meet the mileage requirements but not a blank check. Before any of those funds could be utilized at the direction of the Secretary of Commerce, there would have to be a plan. There would have to be a factual statement as to what the condition of the automobile manufacturers is, what would be done with the additional funds, what would be undertaken to guarantee that the moneys would not be used for increased executive pay or corporate jets or golden parachutes. There would have to be some hard, concrete facts laid out. Last Friday, as I put in the Record this week, I wrote a letter to the chief executive officers of the three companies. I got no response from General Motors. I got no response from Ford. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that when an inquiry is made in that context, there is not an effort to respond, not to reach out but to respond. But executives from Chrysler came to see me, and I raised the questions as to what their condition was, how much cash they had on hand, how much cash they needed, what they would do with an infusion of economic aid, and what were the prospects for a recovery. That matter has now been put over by the leaders until December 8. So we now have 2 weeks, next week and the week after. Presumably, on the week of December 1, there will be hearings. The automobile manufacturers are going to have a fairly heavy burden of demonstrating that there is a plan which will be viable, which would have a realistic likelihood of success. I understand the concern of the environmentalists. My record for environmental protection is very strong. But those in the environmental community have raised the concern that the $25 billion ought not to be directed away from changes on gas mileage. We are talking about a bridge loan. The concern is, if action is not taken now before a new administration, that there could be a disastrous result. As Senator Voinovich pointed out, the recession or economic problems could be even more serious. The expression he used, which I think is not inappropriate, it could go over the cliff. Nobody knows. But that is a risk, if we are going to wait until January 20. It may even be a risk in waiting until mid-December, but that is the course which we are on now. Of course, Secretary Paulson has the discretion, as he has conceded, to act with the funds which are now available. But in any event, I believe the legislation which was announced today by the six Senators,--three Democrats, three Republicans, on a bipartisan basis-- is a useful approach for the future. This is very important. This is not an extra appropriation. We are not putting up more money. It is a different use of moneys already put up. The environmental issues could be safeguarded after January 20. With the Democrats in control of both Houses and the White House, they could write their own ticket to replenish that fund, if they choose to do so. But at least we are on a course now in the reasonably near future to provide a legislative approach if--and it is a big ``if''--the auto manufacturers can come forward with a hard statement of facts as to where they are, a hard statement of facts of what they could do with these funds to show their viability. So we will await those hearings, and we will await what they do. But I would emphasize they will have to persuade the Congress to vote for the plan. But in order to persuade the Congress, they are going to have to persuade the American people over the course of the next 2 weeks with something a lot more specific than they came to town with over the course of the past several days and a lot more responsive than two of the companies not even responding to my request for a statement as to their case, as to how they propose to remain viable with the economic aid. I thank the Chair, and, in the absence of any other Senator on the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to submit a resolution congratulating the Philadelphia Phillies on winning the 2008 World Series. On October 29, 2008, the Phillies defeated the Tampa Bay Rays 4 to 3 in Game 5 to secure a World Series title for the first time since 1980 and second time in team history. This historic victory was the culmination of a hard-fought 2008 regular season and an exhilarating postseason run for the Phillies. On September 27, the Phillies beat the Washington Nationals to clinch the National League East Division for the second consecutive year. They would go on to defeat the Milwaukee Brewers and Los Angeles Dodgers in the Division Series and National League Championship Series, respectively, to advance to their first World Series since 1993. In the World Series, the Phillies faced a young and talented Tampa Bay Rays team, led by Manager, and Pennsylvania native, Joe Maddon. With strong performances from their starting pitchers, an outstanding bullpen and well-timed hitting, the Phillies beat the Rays in five games to clinch the title. On behalf of the Senate and as an ardent Phillies fan myself, I congratulate the Philadelphia Phillies on winning the 2008 World Series and bringing to my hometown of Philadelphia a major sports championship for the first time in 25 years. In particular, I offer my heartfelt congratulations to manager Charlie Manuel, who, since taking the helm as manager in 2005, has guided this young Phillies team to become the best in Major League Baseball. Further due special recognition is 24- year-old pitcher Cole Hamels, who was named the Most Valuable Player for both the National League Championship Series and World Series with a 4-0 record and 1.80 earned run average in the postseason. Also deserving of much praise are the 2008 American League Championship Rays. Though they had endured 10 consecutive losing seasons and the worst record in baseball last season, the Rays won their division and the 2008 American League Championship Series. The Rays have a bright future and I wish them continued success. Finally, and perhaps more importantly, I congratulate all Phillies fans, who could finally enjoy that parade down Broad Street they so well deserve. Philadelphia sports fans have consistently demonstrated their love for and devotion to Philadelphia teams, even after 25 years without winning a major sports championship. While we have a reputation of being somewhat rough around the edges, Philadelphia fans are enthusiastic about sports and fiercely loyal to our teams. We also have a reputation for not resting on our laurels and demanding a lot from those players and coaches privileged to wear our teams' uniforms. I therefore urge my Phillies to keep fighting and bring home another title next year.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the departure of Senator Pete Domenici will deprive the Senate of our foremost expert on energy and budget legislation, For 36 years, I have enjoyed and learned from Pete's frequent presentations in our Republican Senators' caucus meetings. His chairmanship of the Budget Committee during the Reagan administration led to sensible economies in Federal spending which have not since been duplicated. If his comprehensive ideas on energy had been followed, the United States would long ago have shed its dependence on foreign oil. Through it all, Pete has been a most congenial colleague. Always smiling, always helping, Pete has constantly been available to offer guidance to Members not as well-versed on his areas of specialty. Enormously popular in New Mexico, it is understandable why he is called ``Saint Pete.'' Senator Domenici came to my rescue when I was called upon to make the presentation at the Senate Wednesday prayer breakfast after I had been a member for a short period of time. I chose to talk about a new edition of the New Testament which had been published by a friend, Irwin Borowsky of Philadelphia. The text omitted all references which might have been interpreted to be critical of Jewish people in connection with the crucifixion. I made the point that these references had caused young Jewish boys to be beaten up in some communities on Christian religious holidays motivated by the anti-Jewish comments in the Bible. My theme was sharply, really vehemently, opposed by some Senators at the breakfast. Pete Domenici then supported my contention reciting some of the barbs, insults and worse which had been inflicted on Italians. When Pete told me of his plan to retire because he thought he was failing, I urged him to make a full disclosure of his medical condition to his constituents but to stay on. I told him of a conversation I had with Senator Paul Tsongas in 1984 when Tsongas had announced his intent to retire because he had lymphoma, as I recall it. Since the medical evidence suggested Paul might well serve out his term, I urged him to stay on, leaving the voters to decide after making full disclosure as to his medical condition. Paul Tsongas felt otherwise and elected to leave. He not only could have served his full term through 1990 but then became a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency in 1992. After telling him about the Tsongas situation, Pete stuck by his decision. In recent days, Senator Domenici has looked stronger than ever but I totally respect his decision, saying only that we will miss him very much. John Warner Senator John Warner's retirement is a great loss to the Senate. He brought to this body in 30 years of service wit, wisdom and gallantry. An old-style Southern gentleman, Senator Warner held a unique position as the Senate squire. His experience in military matters going back to his sailor days in World War II, to Secretary of the Navy in 1972, and Chairmanship of the Armed Services Committee, made him a preeminent figure in the Department of Defense legislation. When Senator Warner made a recommendation on defense matters, his word carried great weight. Some of my fondest recollections of John Warner come from the squash court where we regularly engaged until he said his knees wouldn't take the twists or turns any longer although he continued to be an avid tennis player. In a squash match more than 20 years ago, I sustained a serious gash under my left eye requiring six stitches for closure. At that time, I had read about a Washington hockey player who sustained an eye injury but came back immediately to play with headgear and a plastic cover over the face. I secured one the same day of my injury and was back on the squash court the next day. John claims responsibility, perhaps, credit for inflicting the wound. Memories fade after a couple of decades, but my recollection is that Senator Bob Packwood was the malefactor, although I never challenged John's recitation because he seemed to enjoy it so much. Some of our longest discussions occurred in the Senate gym where we would talk while awaiting our turn on the massage table. He would always say we came at about the same time although he was precise to assert his 2 years' seniority. Senator Warner was a help to me even before I became a Senator when he and his new bride, Elizabeth Taylor, were the star attractions at a fundraiser for me in New York City. Senator George Mitchell tells an interesting story about Senator Warner. Senator Mitchell recalls a filibuster where cots were set up in the Senate Marble Room where Mitchell was feeling sorry for himself about giving up a lifetime appointment as a Federal judge then becoming a Senator and wasn't too happy about the all-night sessions. As George put it, he was stumbling his way through the cots during the 1980 filibuster all-nighter when he stumbled across newly wed John Warner snoring on one of the cots. George commented that John was giving up more than he was so it wasn't so bad after all. My speculation is that Senator Warner will be called back for more public service because he still has a lot of vim, vigor and vitality, but we will sorely miss him in the Senate. Larry Craig Larry Craig has made significant contributions to the Senate during his three terms. He has been a leader on energy, agriculture policy and veterans affairs. During the debate on immigration, he was a forceful spokesman for a guest farm workers program. When we next take up important subjects, his leadership will be missed, I worked with him closely on veterans affairs where he chaired that committee after I moved from chairman there to chair the Judiciary Committee. His leadership on a Codel to the World War II battlefields in France over Memorial Day 2006 was particularly noteworthy. Our visits to U.S. cemeteries in France and inspection of the Normandy beaches were memorable. I was glad to see Larry finish out his full third term after the incident at the Minneapolis airport. When I heard the recording of the police officer's questioning him, I immediately thought that there was insufficient evidence of wrongful conduct. I heard the reports that he planned to resign at the end of September 2006 and called him to suggest that he modify his public statement to allow for reconsideration of that decision. He did so, and as the record shows, his legal challenges well within his rights, enabled him to stay through the conclusion of the 110th Congress. Since that event, he has weathered the storm, conducted himself with dignity on his official duties and made a real contribution to the Senate. It was definitely in the interests of his Idaho constituents and the Senate for him to stay on and complete his term. Chuck Hagel Senator Chuck Hagel's intellectualism and independence will be sorely missed in the Senate. Chuck Hagel's service in Vietnam, where he earned military decorations and honors including two Purple Hearts, has given him special standing on key defense issues. With that background, he enjoys a sort of immunity from a charge of being soft on defense and his views are more closely followed. Senator Hagel will be especially missed by the few Republican moderates who were encouraged by his independence. My sense is that Chuck Hagel will stay in public life in one form or another, but I would have preferred to have seen him stay in the Senate to promote the resurgence of moderation within the Republican ranks and bipartisanship extending across the aisle for important legislation. Wayne Allard The Senate Appropriations Committee, as well as the Senate generally, will miss Senator Wayne Allard. Wayne has been a strong voice for fiscal responsibility. His background as a veterinarian has provided an interesting dimension beyond members who have legal, business, or academic backgrounds. Senator Allard has led by example, demonstrating his frugality by returning more than $4 million in unspent office funds to the U.S. Treasury since being elected to Congress. In retiring after two terms, he has stuck by his commitment on term limits. My personal preference would have been for Wayne to stay on because, building on his experience, he would have made additional significant contributions to the benefit of his State, Colorado, and the Nation. Gordon Smith

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on two issues relating to our current economic problems which are so widespread in our country. One is the proposed economic aid to the automobile manufacturers and the second is the proposed assistance to people who are threatened with foreclosure. The suggestion has been made that there should be very substantial Federal economic aid to the automobile manufacturers, focusing at the moment on General Motors. I am prepared to consider that issue providing we have a factual and evidentiary basis which would warrant such economic aid, with an analysis of the current financial situation of General Motors, with an analysis of what the proposals are to assist General Motors in a way which would be realistically calculated to keep General Motors in operation, and with an evidentiary base to show that there is not some preferable alternative with respect to letting the market take its course. It seems to me indispensable that if Congress is to undertake that kind of analysis that there is going to have to be regular order followed as to how we legislate in this body. And that was not done on the recent $700 billion proposal which was passed by the Congress last month. Our regular order requires that there be a legislative proposal, a bill written down which can be read, studied, and analyzed. After there is a bill, to have hearings with the appropriate committee and to hear proponents of the plan and to hear opponents of the plan and then to have in regular order a committee markup where the members of the committee sit down--in this case the Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction--look over the bill and then mark it up--that is goes over the bill line by line. Then a report is written. The report comes to the full membership, the Senate has debate, amendments may be offered, and then the Senate works its will on passing a bill, if the Senate chooses to do so. A similar proceeding occurs in the House of Representatives, and then there is a conference with Members of the two bodies coming together for a presentation to the President, who then has ideas maybe involved in the legislative process, and he signs or vetoes. Regrettably, that was not done during the passage of the $700 billion economic aid proposal, and it was not done, I submit, much to the disadvantage of the country. When this issue was under consideration, I wrote to the majority leader and the Republican leader by a letter dated September 21 urging that we not rush to judgment; saying that we ought to follow regular order in the way we handle this matter. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Record a copy of this letter following my remarks.

Mr. SPECTER. On September 23, I wrote to Secretary of the Treasury Paulson and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke raising quite a number of issues looking to what the merits of the proposal were. On September 27, I wrote again to Secretary Paulson, Chairman Bernanke, also again to the leaders of the House and Senate, and also to the key members of the committee raising a series of questions. I have yet to receive an answer to any of these letters. On September 29, I was informed that we would have a session after the House of Representatives defeated the proposal, which was a surprise; that there would be a session on Wednesday, October 1, at 7:30 in the evening, and the Senate was then confronted with a proposition to either take it or leave it. No amendments could be offered. By this time, the original proposal had expanded from 4 pages, which Secretary Paulson had initially submitted, and it had expanded to more than 100 pages, then to more than 400 pages. It was unknown generally that there was a good bit in the legislative proposal of what we refer to as grants or pork, which turned out to be very, very embarrassing. But faced with that kind of an emergency situation, my vote was cast in the affirmative. The vote was 474 to 25, a very heavy margin in support of the legislation, and it was a rush to judgment, without following regular order and without considering so many of the critical issues which should have been taken up in the regular course of Senate business. I traveled my State during the course of the month of October, as it is my custom to touch each of Pennsylvania's 67 counties each year, and the number one item on the agenda was the $700 billion economic aid program. And candidly, the temperature of my constituents was boiling-- 212 degrees Fahrenheit--and the thermometer was broken. I see the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, nodding in the affirmative that that was the situation in her State as well. Now we are asked to have economic aid for General Motors. There has been a figure of some $25 billion which is talked about. I am prepared to consider that, but only if there is an understanding of what are the facts, what is the evidence; is there a factual and evidentiary base for Congress to do this? I am told informally that it takes $11 to $14 billion in cash to operate General Motors. But they now have $16.2 billion. They have $50 billion in bonds that are perhaps worth in the range of $20 billion or a little more in the market that yield 9 percent in interest. On the market value, that would put their borrowing somewhere over 20 percent. The question comes to my mind: Isn't that expensive? Couldn't that be modified? But I have yet to see any semblance of a plan for General Motors to become viable. What are the prospects? General Motors and the automobile industry generally--the industry has been on notice for a long time that they were in a very difficult competitive situation; that the standards on gas mileage were about to be imposed and were imposed in legislation last year. What have they done? We have been told it is not advisable to consider chapter 11 proceedings under bankruptcy. But we know that Continental and U.S. Air have gone through that. We are told that the warranties would not be sustainable and that people would lose confidence. There may be ways to address that kind of issue with a fund set up for warranties to be funded. All of these are questions which, it seems to me, need to be answered. When we were informed through a variety of sources that we would be in a lame duck session starting today, there was a projection for a Senate vote on Wednesday. I wrote to Senator Reid and Senator McConnell, a letter very similar to the one I wrote on September 21, urging that we not rush to judgment and asking that there be consideration of a great many of these issues if we were to make some sensible determination as to financial aid to the automobile industry. I sent copies of this letter, again, to Treasury Secretary Paulson and to Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, and also to the chief executive officers of General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler. I ask unanimous consent that copies of these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to continue for 5 more minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from Maryland. Mr. President, it seems to me these are key questions which need to be answered. The automobile industry obviously is of enormous importance in our country. Not to have the automobile industry would have very severe economic consequences. But we do have to have answers to these questions in regular order. We need to take these matters up so we can cast an intelligent vote on this kind of economic aid. The question I would supplement is-- I heard it from my constituents--Who is next? Bear Stearns was given economic aid, Lehman Brothers was not, and perhaps that was a mistake-- perhaps not. AIG was given considerable economic aid. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were given considerable economic aid. If we are to make an intelligent decision, we are going to have to take a look at these important questions. Exhibit 1 United States Senate, Washington, DC, September 21, 2008. Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Senator Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Harry and Mitch: As you project the Senate's schedule, I urge that we not rush to judgment and take whatever time is necessary on any proposed legislation to deal with the nation's economic problems. The public, our constituents, have a great deal of skepticism, which I share, about legislation which will let Wall Street ``off the hook'' and pay insufficient attention to Main Street, middle class Americans. It is important to focus the legislation on the hundreds of thousands of homeowners who are at risk of losing their residences to foreclosure. In deciding what additional powers to give to the federal regulators, I believe we should give careful consideration to not extending those powers beyond the current crisis and take steps to prevent a recurrence. I have read reports that some Wall Street firms, whose conduct has created the crisis, will benefit from a congressional legislative fix. We should do our utmost to see to it that those responsible for the crisis bear the maximum financial burden on any bailout in order to minimize the taxpayers' exposure. There are reports that the bailout might be extended to foreign firms with United States affiliates. In my view, the legislation must be carefully tailored for United States' interests and if foreign firms, even if United States affiliates are to be involved, then consideration should given to appropriate contributions from those foreign governments. I realize there is considerable pressure for the Congress to adjourn by the end of next week, but I think we must take the necessary time to conduct hearings, analyze the Administration's proposed legislation, and demonstrate to the American people that any response is thoughtful, thoroughly considered and appropriate. Sincerely, Arlen Specter. (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 3686 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I am now introducing legislation captioned ``The Foreclosure Diversion and Mortgage Loan Modification Act of 2008.'' It would create an Office of Foreclosure Evaluation inside the Treasury Department, to coordinate a great many efforts. The core purpose of this legislation is to provide Federal endorsement and financial assistance for setting up programs such as those now in existence in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and similar programs which exist in New York, New Jersey, Ohio, and Connecticut, that suspend foreclosure until there has been an opportunity, under court supervision, to have the borrower and the lender sit down to try to work out a plan to avoid foreclosure. My full statement, which I will ask consent to place in the Record, goes into some great detail about the problems that exist at the present time regarding foreclosures. In addition to the legislation I am proposing, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has proposed a program aimed at preventing an estimated 1.5 million foreclosures in the next year. I have talked to the FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair, and think her proposal is a good one. The legislation I am proposing and the program Chairwoman Bair has proposed would supplement legislation which is now pending in the Congress. Last October, Senator Durbin and I separately introduced bills that would permit mortgages to be modified by the bankruptcy courts. However, Senator Durbin's legislation would permit the court to modify the principal sum. I think that goes too far and would have the undesirable consequence of making it more difficult to obtain a mortgage in the future. My legislation authorizes the bankruptcy courts to modify interest rates on variable interest rate mortgages. In many cases, there was not full disclosure to borrowers who took out these loans. Then they found that their mortgage went from $1,200 a month, for illustrative purposes, to $2,000. It is my hope that Congress would stay in session beyond just this week. It seems to me the economic problems we faced last July, before we adjourned for the month of August, required our remaining in session; I urged the leaders of the Senate to keep the body in session during August. And, I urged the President to call the Congress back into session. It seems to me the problem of delinquent mortgages and foreclosures is critical at the moment. I noticed Senator Dodd was quoted in the Washington Post last Friday as saying he plans to introduce legislation and that he thought the FDIC proposal was a good one. We are finding so many people are facing the threat of foreclosure. This is an issue which ought to be considered further. Congress ought to stay in session, ought to work these issues through, and ought to remain in session long enough to consider the details necessary to make a rational judgment on the proposal of economic aid to General Motors and the other companies. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my floor statement on the mortgage issue and the full text of the legislation be printed in the Record as if set forth in full on the Senate floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I am now introducing legislation captioned ``The Foreclosure Diversion and Mortgage Loan Modification Act of 2008.'' It would create an Office of Foreclosure Evaluation inside the Treasury Department, to coordinate a great many efforts. The core purpose of this legislation is to provide Federal endorsement and financial assistance for setting up programs such as those now in existence in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and similar programs which exist in New York, New Jersey, Ohio, and Connecticut, that suspend foreclosure until there has been an opportunity, under court supervision, to have the borrower and the lender sit down to try to work out a plan to avoid foreclosure. My full statement, which I will ask consent to place in the Record, goes into some great detail about the problems that exist at the present time regarding foreclosures. In addition to the legislation I am proposing, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has proposed a program aimed at preventing an estimated 1.5 million foreclosures in the next year. I have talked to the FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair, and think her proposal is a good one. The legislation I am proposing and the program Chairwoman Bair has proposed would supplement legislation which is now pending in the Congress. Last October, Senator Durbin and I separately introduced bills that would permit mortgages to be modified by the bankruptcy courts. However, Senator Durbin's legislation would permit the court to modify the principal sum. I think that goes too far and would have the undesirable consequence of making it more difficult to obtain a mortgage in the future. My legislation authorizes the bankruptcy courts to modify interest rates on variable interest rate mortgages. In many cases, there was not full disclosure to borrowers who took out these loans. Then they found that their mortgage went from $1,200 a month, for illustrative purposes, to $2,000. It is my hope that Congress would stay in session beyond just this week. It seems to me the economic problems we faced last July, before we adjourned for the month of August, required our remaining in session; I urged the leaders of the Senate to keep the body in session during August. And, I urged the President to call the Congress back into session. It seems to me the problem of delinquent mortgages and foreclosures is critical at the moment. I noticed Senator Dodd was quoted in the Washington Post last Friday as saying he plans to introduce legislation and that he thought the FDIC proposal was a good one. We are finding so many people are facing the threat of foreclosure. This is an issue which ought to be considered further. Congress ought to stay in session, ought to work these issues through, and ought to remain in session long enough to consider the details necessary to make a rational judgment on the proposal of economic aid to General Motors and the other companies. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my floor statement on the mortgage issue and the full text of the legislation be printed in the Record as if set forth in full on the Senate floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am supporting this Federal economic aid legislation because the failure of Congress to take some decisive, substantial, action would run the risk of dire consequences to U.S. and world markets. The 777 point plunge in the Dow plunge on Tuesday, in the wake of the House's rejection of this legislation, demonstrates the potential for even greater problems if Congress does nothing. My affirmative vote is made with substantial misgivings. It is a very unpopular vote, evidenced by constituents' calls and letters and personal contacts overwhelmingly against the plan. It is understandable that the American taxpayers are opposed to footing the bill for unwise speculation on Wall Street and federal officials who failed in the regulatory process. Congress should follow the teachings of Edmund Burke, the greatest philosopher, who said in 1774 that, in a representative democracy, elected officials should consider their constituents' views, but in the final analysis they owe their constituents their independent judgment as to what should be done. From the outset, I cautioned against Congress's rushing to judgment. When the initial proposal was made, I wrote to Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell by letter dated September 21, 2008, urging we take the time necessary to get the legislation right. By letter dated September 23, 2008, I wrote to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke asking a series of questions which have not yet been answered. Then by letter dated September 27, 2008, accompanied by a floor statement, I made a series of suggestions to the executive and legislative negotiators. Again, there has been insufficient time for a reply. The rush to judgment began in mid-September when Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke warned of an imminent meltdown in financial markets which would threaten retirement funds, jeopardize the jobs of millions of Americans, and subject homeowners to more evictions. A few days later Secretary Paulson issued a three page economic rescue plan which has since grown to a 112-page bill before additional provisions were added. Whenever we deviate from regular order which has been developed during more than 200 years of serving our country very well, we are on thin ice. On regular order, the legislative process customarily begins with a bill which members of Congress can study and analyze. Here, we were presented with a bill which Congress was asked to act upon within hours after completion. Customarily, after the legislation is in hand, there are hearings with proponents and opponents of the bill and an opportunity for members to examine, really cross examine, to get to the heart of the issues and alternatives. There have been limited hearings with executive branch officials, but not in the context of analyzing the finished bill or an opportunity for opponents or advocates of alternatives. After the hearings, regular order calls for a markup in the committee of jurisdiction going over the language line by line with an opportunity to make changes with votes on those proposed modifications. Then the committee files a report which is reviewed by members in advance of floor action where amendments can be offered and debate occurs. The action by each house is then subjected to further refinement by a conference committee which makes the presentment to the president for yet another line of review. The current process drastically shortcuts regular order. For example, there was no opportunity for members to offer amendments to substitute loans or a governmental insurance policy for the plan to authorize the Treasury Secretary to buy toxic securities which is problemsome because there is no market which establishes value. So the government, and then the taxpayers, may well be overpaying. If loans were made like the AIG model with senior secured provisions, the government might well pay less, as I suggested in my letter dated September 27. In that letter I further suggested that consideration be given to government insurance which would have eliminated the uncertain values in purchases and would have limited the government obligation to being an insurer of the specific commercial transactions which require governmental aid. In my letter of September 27 I further raised the issue of exercising care to avoid running afoul of the Supreme Court decision in INS v. Chadha. It is uncertain whether the stipulation giving Congress the authority to reject the last installment of $350 billion would satisfy the Chadha standard. In addition there has not yet been an adequate showing as to how the overall figure of $700 billion was determined. In my letter of September 27, I called for a detailed explanation for Congress as to how that figure was arrived at and the necessity for such a large sum. Similarly I sought justification for an initial expenditure of $250 billion. We have been working against a backdrop that unless immediate or very prompt action is taken, there is an enormous risk of an economic collapse. In my letters, I expressed my judgment that this would not occur as long as it was seen that the Congress was determined to do something significant and was working as promptly as practicable to come up with remedial legislation. In fact, the market rose on September 25 and 26, when the Congress appeared to be moving toward a legislative solution. The Dow then dropped on September 29 when the House rejected the proposed legislation. Had the House not taken that negative vote when the vote count was not solid, there may well have been enough time to improve the bill without causing the market's collapse. Even now, there has been a limited time for deliberation and Members have not had an opportunity to debate and vote on alternatives. It is true that the proposed legislation is enormously improved over the first Paulson proposal, but it still grants enormous authority to the Treasury Secretary. The $700 billion is not to be authorized immediately, but instead there are installments of $250 billion, $100 billion at the request of the President and $350 billion more subject to congressional objection, although the latter phase may be unconstitutional under Chadha. For protection of the taxpayers, the proposal contains a provision that if the government does not regain its money after 5 years, the President would be required to submit a plan for compensating the Treasury ``from entities benefiting from the programs.'' While that provision is a far way from a guarantee or even assurances that such recovery legislation would be enacted, it gives some important comfort to the taxpayers' position. There are also provisions for multiple layers of oversight including a Financial Stability Oversight Board comprised of the Chairman of the Fed, the Treasury Secretary, the Director of the Federal Home Finance Agency, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, that will meet monthly to oversee the program. The Secretary will be required to report to Congress on a regular basis on the actions taken, along with a detailed financial statement. These reports will include information on each of the agreements made, insurance contracts entered into, and the nature of the asset purchased and projected costs and liabilities. Additional oversight will be provided by the Comptroller General-- reports to Congress--a new inspector general--audits and quarterly reports--a congressionally appointed oversight panel--market and regulatory review, and reports to Congress on the program and the effectiveness of foreclosure mitigation efforts--and by OMB and CBO-- cost estimates. A report will be required from the Secretary of the Treasury with an analysis of the current financial regulatory framework and recommendations for improvements. There are substantial limitations on having benefits for entities which created the problem and limitations on executive pay. The executive compensation and corporate governance provisions provide that Treasury Department would have to promulgate executive compensation rules governing financial institutions that sell its troubled assets. In cases where financial institutions sell troubled assets directly to the government with no competitive bidding and where the government receives a meaningful equity position, the legislation states that, until that equity stake is sold, executives would not get incentives ``to take unnecessary and excessive risks'' and would have to give up or repay bonuses or other incentives based on financial statements that ``are later proven to be materially inaccurate.'' The bill also would prohibit ``any golden parachute payment to senior executives.'' The legislation is less stringent in provisions for financial institutions that sell their assets to the government through an auction. Such provisions would apply only to companies that sell more than $300 million in assets and would subject companies and employees to extra taxes. Corporations would not be able to deduct any salary or deferred compensation of more than $500,000, and top executives would face a 20 percent excise tax on golden parachute payments if they left for any reason other than retirement. In evaluating limitations on executive salaries, it is relevant to note that the Institute for Public Studies found that chief executives of large U.S. companies made an average of $10.5 million last year. That is more than 300 times the pay of the average worker. The final proposal does provide for debt insurance, but leaves it to the Secretary of the Treasury to utilize that approach so it seems unlikely that it will be implemented in light of the fact that Secretary Paulson has bluntly stated his disagreement with it. Had there been floor amendments, Congress could have structured standards for utilization of debt insurance. Had we followed regular order with an opportunity to propose amendments, consideration could have been given to my proposal, S. 2133, which would have authorized the bankruptcy courts to restructure interest and scheduling of payments. The so-called variable rate mortgages have confronted many homeowners with the surprise that original payments, illustratively, of $1,200 a month were soon raised to $2,000 which resulted in defaults. Individualized examination by the bankruptcy courts might show misrepresentation or even fraud to justify revising the interest payments and rearranging the payment schedule. Or consideration could have been given to Senator Durbin's proposed legislation, S. 2136, which would have authorized the bankruptcy courts to reset the principal balance depending on the value of the home. I opposed that bill because I thought it would discourage future lending and in the long run raise the cost to homebuyers. But at least, following regular order, there would have been an opportunity to consider Senator Durbin's proposal as well as my suggested legislation. The legislation contains authority for the Treasury Secretary to compensate foreign central banks under some conditions. It provides that troubled assets held by foreign financial authorities and banks are eligible for the TARP program if the banks hold such assets as a result of having extended financing to financial institutions that have failed or defaulted. Had there been an opportunity for floor debate, that provision might have been sufficiently unpopular to be rejected or at least sharply circumscribed with conditions. As a step to help keep borrowers in their homes, I proposed language found in Section 119(b) of the bill to address the concern that some loan servicers have been reluctant to modify home mortgage loan terms because they fear litigation from investors who hold securities or other vehicles backed by the mortgage in question. The loan servicers have a legal duty to the investors to maximize the return on their investments. In testimony on December 6, 2007, before the House Committee on Financial Services, Mark Pearce, speaking on behalf of the conference of State Bank supervisors, discussed a meeting with the top 20 subprime servicers. He explained that ``many of them brought up fear of investor lawsuits'' as a hurdle to voluntary loan modification efforts. Because the rescue legislation encourages the government to seek voluntary loan modifications, it is important to remove any impediments to such modifications. To that end, the language provides a legal safe harbor for mortgage servicers making loan modifications, if the loan modifiers take reasonable mitigation steps, including accepting partial payments from homeowners. On reforms to prevent a recurrence of this crisis, we need to question whether the rating agencies adequately analyzed mortgage- backed securities before issuing investment-grade ratings. They appear to have failed, in July of 2007, when it became apparent that ratings issued by the big three rating agencies--Moody's, S&P and Fitch--could not be relied upon, I urged the relevant committees to look into the ratings that those agencies issued in recent years regarding mortgage- backed securities. Financial institutions that issue asset-backed securities obtain ratings for such securities. The failure to issue reliable ratings misrepresented the facts and fed the ability of financial institutions to tout the value of securities even though their value was declining. Congress and the regulators need to take up the rating agencies issue, and consider whether ratings agencies that have utterly failed to detect and reflect the risks associated with the securities they were rating should be accorded any reliance or role in our financial system. Some have suggested they should be regulated and we may need to consider that. In addition, Congress and the regulators should review ``off-balance sheet'' transactions and leveraging. There should be a close examination on whether banks are sufficiently transparent and providing accurate accounting that truly reflects risk and leverage. Similarly there should be a review on credit default swaps, CDS, which are privately traded derivatives contracts that have ballooned to make up what is a $2 trillion market according to the Bank of International Settlements. They are a fast-growing major type of financial derivative. Many experts assert that they have played a critical role in this financial crisis as various financial players believed that they were safe because they thought CDS fully insured or protected them, but the CDS market is unregulated and no one really knows what exposure everyone else has from the CDS contracts. Consideration should be given to subjecting all over-the-counter derivatives onto a regulated exchange similar to that used by listed options in the equity markets. Excessive overleveraging has been a contributing factor in the turmoil that now threatens our financial institutions. We have seen a massive expansion of the practice of leveraged financial institutions-- banks, investment banks, and hedge funds--making investments with borrowed money. In turn, they borrow more money by using the assets they just purchased as collateral. This sequence is continued again and again. The financial system, in its efforts to deleverage, is contracting credit. They must guard against future losses by holding more capital. Deleveraging is leading to difficulty on Main Street for individuals seeking to get a mortgage or buy a car. If a financial institution is able to unload its toxic assets onto the government, it will again be able to resume its lending activities that are crucial for economic growth in the United States. Unfortunately, much of the financial crisis has arisen from miscalculations of the risks involved with purchasing large amounts of securities backed by subprime mortgages and other toxic assets. We now see a situation where we are not just talking about a handful of firms. This is a widespread problem that should be addressed by this package and in future reforms of our financial regulatory structure. In addition, the package crafted by Senate leaders includes two notable changes from the version that was rejected by the House on Monday. It will include a tax package that was previously passed in the Senate by a vote of 93-2 on September 23, 2008, but has since been rejected by the House in a dispute over revenue offsets. It includes tax incentives for wind, solar, biomass, and other alternative energy technologies. It also includes critically important relief from the alternative minimum tax, which threatens to raise the tax liability of over 22 million unintended filers in 2008 if no action is taken. Finally, the package includes a host of provisions that either expired in 2007 or are set to expire in 2008, including the research and development tax credit, rail line improvement incentives, and quicker restaurant and retail depreciation schedules. I supported the Senate- passed tax extenders bill because it struck a responsible balance on the issue of revenue raising offsets. The package also includes a provision to temporarily increase the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, insurance limit to $250,000. Currently, the FDIC provides deposit insurance which guarantees the safety of checking and savings deposits in member banks, up to $100,000 per depositor per bank. Member banks pay a fee to participate. The current $100,000 limit has been unchanged since 1980 despite inflation. This approach is supported by both Senator McCain and Senator Obama, by House Republicans, and by the FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, who sent a request for this change to Congress on Tuesday. Raising the cap could stem a potential run on deposits by bank customers, particularly businesses, who fear losing their money. Such fears contributed to the collapse of Washington Mutual and Wachovia Bank in the past week. However, some economists warn that raising this limit creates a ``moral hazard'' where banks have less incentive to protect assets when there is a government backstop. The coverage amount reverts back to $100,000 after December 31, 2009. Congress is now called upon to make the best of a very bad situation. We must pledge to our constituent taxpayers that we will learn from the mistakes which led to the brink and take corrective, vigilant, action to prevent a recurrence.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this legislation is vital for the infrastructure of America. Amtrak provides an indispensable service. Contrary to assertions, there is much in this bill which provides for reform: a greater role for the private sector by allowing private companies to bid and operate underperforming Amtrak routes; requires Amtrak to establish and improve financial accounting; requires Amtrak to consult with the Surface Transportation Board, freight railroads, and the FRA. Most of all, when the Senator from South Carolina comments about this is an earmark, this is thoughtfully considered legislation by both Houses of the Congress. It has been held up by the technical refusal of some Senators to allow conferees to be reported. But this sort of gives lie to the whole challenge of earmarks as a generalization. Of course, if it is a bridge to nowhere or some provision slipped into a bill by a single Member which does not have any merit, but where you have the Congress of the United States authorized by the Constitution to appropriate, this is thoughtful authorization of funds. If this is an earmark, then those who condemn earmarks in their totality are absolutely dead wrong and nothing proves it as conclusively as saying that the Amtrak legislation is an earmark, when it has been carefully considered by both Houses of Congress, which is our constitutional responsibility and our constitutional authority. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.