Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President. I have sought recognition to urge support for the legislation introduced today by Senator Durbin to completely eliminate the unfair and unwarranted sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine. I am an original co-sponsor of this bill. Since the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which established the basic framework of mandatory minimum penalties currently applicable to Federal drug trafficking offenses, there exists a 100-to-1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine. That means it takes 100 times as much powder cocaine as crack to trigger the same 5-year and 10-year mandatory minimum penalties. On April 29, 2009, 6 witnesses testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs regarding the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine, including the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice, the Acting Chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, a U.S. District Court Judge representing the Judicial Conference of the U.S. Courts, and a Police Commissioner from a major urban city. All six witnesses testified in favor of an immediate reduction or elimination of this disparity. At the time Congress established the crack-powder disparity in 1986, it did so because it was believed that crack was uniquely addictive and was associated with greater levels of violence than powder cocaine. Today, more than 20 years later, research has shown that the addictive qualities of crack have more to do with its mode of administration--smoking compared to inhaling--rather than its chemical structure. Moreover, recent studies suggest that levels of violence associated with crack are stable or even declining. Last year, 80.6 percent of crack offenders were African Americans, while only 10.2 percent were white. Compare that with powder cocaine prosecutions. For that same year, 30.25 percent of powder cocaine offenders were African Americans, 52.5 percent were Hispanic, and 16.4 percent were white. The average sentence for crack offenders is 2 years longer than the average sentence for powder cocaine. Let me repeat that. African Americans, who make up approximately 12.3 percent of the population in the U.S., comprise 80.6 percent of the Federal crack offenders. It takes about $14,000 worth of powder cocaine compared to only about $150 of crack to trigger the 5-year mandatory minimum penalty. Given that crack and cocaine powder are the same drug--just in different forms--why should we impose the same 5-year sentence for the $150 drug deal as for the $14,000 drug deal? These sentencing disparities undermine the confidence in the criminal justice system. Our courts and our laws must be fundamentally fair; just as importantly, they must be perceived as fair by the public. I do not believe that the 1986 Act was intended to have a disparate impact on minorities but the reality is that it does. The White House and the Department of Justice have asked Congress to eliminate this unfair sentencing disparity. It is time to correct this injustice.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to submit a resolution encouraging the people of the U.S. to reflect on and remember the integrity and courage of the 6,135 Polish Christians who took action to save their Jewish countrymen and countrywomen from extermination by Nazi Germany. Earlier this year I cosponsored S. Res. 9, a resolution commemorating 90 years of U.S.-Polish diplomatic relations, during which Poland has proven to us be an exceptionally strong partner to the U.S. in advancing freedom around the world. Today I want to recognize a time in history when such a freedom was challenged in Poland and around the world by a despotic regime, and more importantly pay tribute to those few who fought this tyranny and helped save innocent lives. This year marks the 70th anniversary of the start of World War II, a war remembered for the cruelty of Nazi Germany, as well as for the forces that eventually overcame this cruelty. Following World War II, Yad Vashem and a Remembrance Authority was established to embark on a worldwide project to identify those individuals who helped Jews during the Holocaust. All rescuers of European Jews during World War II are honored today as the ``Righteous Among the Nations'' by Yad Vashem in the State of Israel. Poland's 6,135 ``Righteous'' rescuers constitute some 27 percent of the 22,765 ``Righteous'' throughout the world. Furthermore, while unknown in number, it is important to remember those Polish Christians who were caught and summarily executed along with their families while attempting to carry out such rescues. While their stories may never be told, it is important to mention their heroic efforts. The 6,135 ``Righteous'' Polish Christians whose acts of courage and integrity have been documented by witnesses should be appropriately honored. These Polish Christians who were willing to risk their own lives and those of their families to save Polish Jews should not be forgotten. These 6,135 Polish Christians will always stand as universal exemplars and role models of human compassion who acted above and beyond the normal expectations of courage and integrity. Thus, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution which reflects on and remembers the Polish Righteous Among the Nations.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to submit a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of a National Campus Safety Awareness Month. Educational institutions should be safe havens where we send our children to learn and grow without fear for their protection and wellbeing, but unfortunately this is not always the case. On April 5, 1986, in the early morning hours, Jeanne Clery, a 19- year-old Lehigh University student was brutally raped and murdered in her dormitory room. This heinous crime in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania opened the nation's eyes to the true extent of crime on college and university campuses. When I was District Attorney of Philadelphia, I dealt with many incidents of campus crime and I learned firsthand of its severity. However, I believe that many would be surprised by the extent of the problem. Colleges and universities have reported that from 2005 to 2007, 117 murders, 10,563 forcible-sex offenses, 16,632 aggravated assaults, and 3,226 cases of arson have occurred on or around college and university campuses. Criminal experts estimate that between 20 and 25 percent of female undergraduate students become victims of rape or attempted rape. And each year 13 percent of female students enrolled in an undergraduate program at a college or university are victims of stalking. Additionally, approximately 1,825 college and university students between the ages of 18 and 24 die each year from unintentional, alcohol-related injuries, including motor vehicle accidents. Since their daughter's death, Connie Clery and her late husband Howard worked tirelessly in their daughter's memory to protect the lives of college students by warning them of these aforementioned dangers. They founded Security On Campus, Inc., a national nonprofit based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, which is dedicated to promoting safety and security on college and university campuses. Security On Campus, Inc. has found that the beginning of each new school year can be a dangerous time for students, especially for first-year students who are in a new environment and on their own for the first time. For this reason, Security On Campus, Inc. has designated September as National Campus Safety Awareness Month. Each September since 2005, Security On Campus, Inc. has partnered with colleges and universities across the United States to offer educational programming on critical campus safety issues. In 2008, Security On Campus, Inc. partnered with more than 350 institutions across the country, including 29 from Pennsylvania, to participate in National Campus Safety Awareness Month during September. Campuses offered a wide array of safety programming throughout the month covering everything from the most serious issues of sexual assault and the risks of alcohol abuse to how to protect personal property from burglary. Additionally, Security On Campus, Inc. offers educational videos on sexual assault, alcohol abuse, hazing and stalking that are often integrated into NCSAM programming. Other programming includes safety carnivals set up in high pedestrian traffic areas like student centers or cafeterias, door hangers with safety tips in residence halls, residence hall floor programs, fire safety presentations, Fatal Vision goggles for DUI's, and the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network's Get Carded Day. When the Clerys approached me shortly after their daughter's murder, I worked with them to develop the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1989, which became law in 1990. This Act was modified and included in the Higher Education Act of 1998, as the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act. Since this legislation was enacted, the issue of campus crime has become a routine part of the college selection process, and crime statistics are readily available on the internet so families can compare colleges. It is clear that this legislation has had a positive impact on college and university campus safety. In fact, the U.S. Department of Justice reported that between 1994 and 2004 there was a 9 percent drop in violent crime on campus and a 30 percent drop in property crime. However, it is important to remember that while the law has significantly changed the landscape of campus security for the better, it is evident that more work remains to be done. That is why I continue to advocate for the goals of the National Campus Safety Awareness Month. Throughout the past several years, I have worked together with the Clerys, Security On Campus, Inc., and crime prevention professionals on campus across the country to help raise much needed awareness about these dangers. Thus, I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort by supporting the goals and ideals of a National Campus Safety Awareness Month.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to note the 10th anniversary of Temple University's China Rule of Law Program. The Beasley School of Law housed at Temple University stands as an outstanding leader in promoting cross-cultural partnership between legal professionals in the United States and China. This year, the Beasley School celebrates ten years of cooperation with Tsinghua University in Beijing. Temple University's China Rule-of-Law Program has awarded nearly 400 Master of Laws degrees to Chinese legal professionals to date. The first foreign law degree program to be approved by the Chinese Ministry of Education as well as the American Bar Association, Temple's Rule of Law Program represents a landmark program and step toward increased global understanding of legal procedure by educating Chinese legal professionals in the same manners and by the same standards as those practiced at American law schools. I respectfully submit this resolution to recognize Temple University's outstanding leadership in promoting cross-cultural exchange in the field of international law. The partnership between Temple University and China's Tsinghua University predates the establishment in 1999 of the Master of Laws Degree program. Shortly after the official reestablishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and China in January of 1979, Temple University awarded Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping with an honorary law degree. Educational and cultural exchange became the centerpieces of renewed cooperation between the two powers over the course of the last three decades. Shortly after President Clinton and President Zemin's mutual call for collaboration in legal exchange in 1997, Temple formally created the China Rule-of-Law Program that merits commendation today. Cooperating to meet the demands of a global environment in which legal professionals are increasingly required to be trained in international legal standards, American faculty from Temple, Chinese faculty at Tsinghua University, and highly accomplished international practitioners teach courses entirely in English at Tsinghua's facilities in Beijing. The 30 credit curriculum concentrates on American and international law and in particular focuses on the subfields of criminal and business law. The program requires the same standards of scholarship of its Chinese students that ABA accredited American law institutions require at home and requires a full-time student to devote 15 months to complete the program. Students earning their degrees through Temple's Beasley-Tsinghua program participate in the same dialogue-based methods as students in American classrooms; they are also given access to the Lexis and Westlaw legal research tools during their studies. This means that Chinese students receiving the Master of Laws degree from Temple's Beasley Law School at Tsinguah become familiar with the same processes for solving legal puzzles and conducting legal research as those that mark the standard within international circles. Therefore, as a capacity building tool for Chinese professionals within the international legal environment, Temple's China Rule-of-Law program is indispensible. As a means of promoting bilateral understanding over legal norms and standards, this type of program is even more vital. Legal norms and standards, we must remember, are formed and interpreted within social, cultural, and historical contexts. The continued growth of a strong partnership between our two nations is contingent upon a full understanding of this contextual environment because it serves as the setting in which legal standards are shaped and in which they are applied. In today's international climate, this cooperation is more important than ever before, and Temple should be regarded as an exemplar for its leadership in cultivating such cooperation. The study abroad component of this program, which brings these Chinese students to Temple's Philadelphia campus during the summer after the first full year of study, is an important means of achieving this contextual understanding. However, this is just one way in which this landmark program facilitates the integration of Chinese legal professionals into the international legal realm outside of the classroom. An extensive alumni network includes, as previously noted, nearly 400 degree holders, many of whom are involved with the Temple Law Alumni Association of China, which boasts around 550 members. The Rule of Law program has educated over 900 legal professionals through less formal means, including roundtables that have explored topics ranging from the subfields of Internet and Environmental Law to NGO Advocacy and the WTO. The partnership is currently working with the State Administration of Foreign Expert Affairs of China to host a series of events targeted to broadening this exchange in Beijing in the coming months as a celebration of ten successful years, marking an emphasis on continued growth and success. As our two nations look for additional means of improving and promoting bilateral exchange, Temple University's innovative programming efforts must be celebrated and should be seen as a paradigm for future partnerships. Its increasing alumni network--both of degree holders and of other professionals that have benefitted from the Rule of Law's various programs--must be looked upon as a growing web of future leaders that understand the international legal context upon which international stability, economic development, and global cooperation rely. I urge the Senate to recognize Temple University's contribution to American and Chinese bilateral relations and in setting a high standard for improved and constructive international dialogue.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to discuss legislation I have introduced encouraging the Government of Iran to grant consular access to and promptly release three young Americans who have been detained in Iran for the past 8 weeks after they reportedly crossed into Iran while on a hike in Iraqi Kurdistan. On July 31, 2009, University of California, Berkeley graduates Joshua Fattal, 27, Shane Bauer, 27, and Sarah Shourd, 30, went ``on a hike near the border of Iraqi Kursdistan and Iran in an area known for beautiful views and a waterfall, along an unmarked section of the border that zigzags.'' The three inadvertently crossed into Iranian territory and were detained by Iranian officials. While the Government of Iran has confirmed it is holding Joshua, Shane and Sarah, it has yet to grant the Embassy of the Government of Switzerland, in its formal capacity as the representative of the interests of the United States in Iran, consular access to the three in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Nor has the Government of Iran allowed Joshua, Shane and Sarah to telephone their families in the United States to let them know they are well. Based on news accounts I have read, I have every confidence that the three entered Iranian territory accidentally, perhaps due to, as I understand it, the absence of clear border markers in the region near Ahmed Awa. On August 8, an Iraqi government official was quoted as saying the three young Americans crossed the border ``unintentionally and mistakenly.'' The legislation which I have introduced encourages the Government of Iran to: Grant consular access by the Embassy of the Government of Switzerland to the three United States citizens in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations; Allow Joshua, Shane and Sarah to communicate by telephone with their families in the U.S.; and Allow Joshua, Shane and Sarah to reunite with their families in the U.S. at the soonest possible opportunity. It is clear to me that Joshua, Shane and Sarah made a careless navigational mistake which they will not soon repeat. It is my sincere hope that the Government of Iran quickly comes to this conclusion and releases them so they can be reunited with their families in the U.S. at the earliest opportunity, as all have anguished too much already.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to comment about U.S. policy in Afghanistan. During the course of the August recess, and of course with my customary practice, I traveled to Pennsylvania's 67 counties to take the pulse of my constituents. While there are many problems, there was considerable concern about what our policy is going to be in Afghanistan. I note at this time, according to yesterday's New York Times, there have been 821 American servicemembers killed in Afghanistan, some $189 billion has been appropriated for Afghanistan, and by the end of this year there will be 68,000 American military personnel and an additional 38,000 NATO troops from other countries in Afghanistan. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an extensive floor statement be included in the text of the Congressional Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I intend now to summarize the substance of my concerns. The approach on our policy has been outlined in testimony earlier this week by ADM Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in these two statements: Our policy . . . [is] to deny sanctuary to al-Qaida and the Taliban now and to generate a stable and secure Afghanistan capable of denying al-Qaida return after withdrawal of our combat forces and while we sustain partnership and commitment to political and economic development in that nation. Admiral Mullen told the committee: A properly resourced counterinsurgency probably means more forces, without question more time and more commitment to the protection of the Afghan people and to the development of good governance. While I think it is laudable to want to protect the Afghan people and to provide good governance there, it is my view that is not of sufficient national interest for the United States to put our troops at risk or to expend substantial additional sums there. The principal question, as I see it, is whether Afghanistan is indispensable to be secured to prevent al-Qaida from launching another attack against the United States. If that is the purpose, that is the necessity, then we must undertake anything, whatever it costs, to stop al-Qaida from again attacking the United States. But I believe there is a series of questions which have to be answered before we can assess whether that is an indispensable part of U.S. policy. Toward that end, I have written to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency on a series of questions which I think requires answers before we can make an informed judgment as to whether the expenditures in Afghanistan are in our specific and key national interests. These are the questions which I have posed for these leaders: What are the prospects for military success in Afghanistan against al-Qaida and the Taliban? What will the requirements be in the next year as to additional U.S. troops and the cost of our involvement in Afghanistan? What may we reasonably expect NATO or other allies to contribute in troops and dollars to our efforts in Afghanistan? What other areas around the world are open to al-Qaida as potential bases for another attack on the United States? What will be done besides military action, such as nation building and stabilizing and developing Afghanistan, so that they will be prepared to handle their own problems so we can withdraw? What assistance can we reasonably expect from Pakistan in fighting al-Qaida and the Taliban and stopping both from seeking refuge by moving in and out of Pakistan? How does the questionable legitimacy of President Karzai's status as result of allegations of proof of election fraud impact on our ability to succeed in Afghanistan? How does the illegal drug trafficking and alleged involvement of high-ranking officials in the Karzai government in such drug trafficking impact on our efforts in Afghanistan? What does U.S. intelligence show as to any possible plans by al-Qaida to attack the United States or anyone else? What does U.S. intelligence show as to whether India poses a real threat to attack Pakistan? What does U.S. intelligence show as to whether Pakistan poses a real threat to attack India? What does U.S. intelligence show as to whether Pakistan could reasonably devote additional military force to assist us in the fight against the Taliban? What does U.S. intelligence show as to whether the Government of Pakistan or influential officials in the Pakistani Government would consider negotiating with India for reducing nuclear weapons or other confidence-building measures to diffuse the tension with India if actively encouraged to do so by the United States? What does U.S. intelligence show as to whether the Government of India or some influential officials in the Indian Government would consider negotiating with Pakistan for reducing nuclear weapons or other confidence-building measures to diffuse the tension with Pakistan if actively encouraged by the United States to do so? We have learned a bitter lesson from Iraq--that we did not have answers to important questions in formulating our policy there. Had we known that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, I think the United States would not have gone into Iraq. These questions were posed by me when we had the debate on the resolution for authorizing the use of force. On October 7, 2002, I said the following: What was the extent of Saddam Hussein's control over weapons of mass destruction? What would it cost by way of casualties to topple Saddam Hussein? What would be the consequences in Iraq? Who would govern after Saddam was toppled? What would happen in the region, the impact on the Arab world, and the impact on Israel? The President, as Commander in Chief, as we all know, has primary responsibility to conduct war but the Constitution vests in the Congress the sole authority to declare war. Regrettably, the congressional authority and responsibility has been dissipated with what we have seen in Korea and in Vietnam and in the authorizations for the use of force in the two incursions into Iraq. We do not have the authority under separation of powers to delegate that authority. And had we asked the tough questions and had we gotten correct, honest, accurate answers, it would have been a great help to President George W. Bush in formulating a policy as to Iraq. I think now it would be a great help to President Barack Obama for the Congress to exercise our persistence in finding correct answers to these kinds of tough questions. We have a situation with Pakistan today which gives great pause. The United States has advanced $15.5 billion to Pakistan since 9/11. Some $10.9 billion of that money has gone for security, and there is a real question as to whether we have gotten our monies worth. The comments from the New York Times on December 24, 2007 raised these issues: Money has been diverted to help finance weapons systems designed to counter India, not al-Qaida or the Taliban . . . the United States has paid tens of millions of dollars in inflated Pakistani reimbursement claims for fuel, ammunition and other costs. Dr. Anthony Cordesman, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote on April 10 of this year: Far too much of the military portion of the . . . past U.S. aid to Pakistan never was used to help fight the Taliban and al-Qaida or can't be accounted for. Future aid should clearly be tied to clearly defined goals for Pakistani action and full accounting for the money. The New York Times, on August 30 of this year, pointed out: The United States has accused Pakistan of illegally modifying American-made missiles to expand its capability to strike land targets, a potential threat to India. The questions which have been posed in the series of letters which I have outlined go to the issue as to whether India poses a threat to Pakistan. It is hard for me to contemplate that is a serious problem, but we ought to be informed and we ought to be putting our efforts to seeing if we cannot broker a peace treaty between India and Pakistan, which would enable us to get substantial help from Pakistan in our fight against the Taliban. In 1995, when I was chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Hank Brown of Colorado and I visited India and Pakistan. When we were in India, we met with Prime Minister Rao, who brought up the subject of a potential nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan and said he would like to see the subcontinent nuclear free. He knew we were en route to Pakistan to see Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and he asked us to take up the subject with her, which we did. As a result, I wrote the following letter to President Clinton the day after we left India, and I think it is worth reading in full: August 28, 1995. Dear Mr. President: I think it important to call to your personal attention the substance of meetings which Senator Hank Brown and I have had in the last 2 days with Indian Prime Minister Rao and Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Prime Minister Rao stated that he would be very interested in negotiations which would lead to the elimination of any nuclear weapons on the subcontinent within 10 or 15 years, including renouncing first use of such weapons. His interest in such negotiations with Pakistan would cover bilateral talks, a regional conference which would include the United States, China, and Russia, in addition to India and Pakistan. When we asked Prime Minister Bhutto when she had last talked to Prime Minister Rao, she said she had had no conversations with him during her tenure as prime minister. Prime Minister Bhutto did say that she had initiated a contact through an intermediary but that was terminated when a new controversy arose between Pakistan and India. From our conversations with Prime Minister Rao and Prime Minister Bhutto, it is my sense that both would be very receptive to discussions initiated and brokered by the United States as to nuclear weapons and also delivery missile systems. I am dictating this letter to you by telephone from Damascus so that you will have it at the earliest moment. I am also telefaxing a copy of this letter to Secretary of State Warren Christopher. In my letter to Secretary of State Clinton, which I sent her last week, I asked her what efforts have been made to broker such a peace treaty between India and Pakistan. I sent on to her a copy of a letter which I had written to President Clinton; if we could ease the tension between those two countries, if we could persuade Pakistan that India does not pose a threat so Pakistan would not have to marshal their forces along the Indian border but instead could aid the United States in our fight against the Taliban, it would be a very different proposition. The suggestion has been made now to extend $7.5 billion in additional funding to Pakistan. It seems to me that is not a good use of our money if it is to follow the same trail as the $15.5 billion which we have expended in the immediate past. If we can get the assistance of Pakistan in fighting the Taliban, it would be one thing. If we could be assured that the money was being used for the intended purpose and not diverted for other purposes, as it appears the other $15.5 billion was, it would be a very different picture. In sum, it seems to me that before we ought to commit additional troops to Afghanistan, it ought to be a matter of paramount importance, indispensable as a matter of stopping another attack by al-Qaida. But if al-Qaida can organize in some other spot, the issues raised by my questions, it would bear heavily on what our policy in Afghanistan should be. In addition to the full text of my statement being printed in the Record, I ask unanimous consent that copies of my letters to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, CIA Director and the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, all be printed in the Record, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to pay respect to the life and character of our dear friend Ted Kennedy. A man as much a part of this institution as the very walls of the Capitol, Ted has earned his place in the world's history books and will never be forgotten. I consider myself privileged to have worked with Ted on several important issues, ranging from hate crimes legislation, to our time together on the Judiciary Committee. Ted was responsible for the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, an important piece of legislation providing protection for vulnerable Americans that I was proud to cosponsor. He was instrumental in the passage of SCHIP, a program that now insures the health of millions of children across the country. The impact Ted Kennedy had on civil rights legislation throughout his career is simply immeasurable. Countless programs now serving the American people could not exist today if not for the hard work and determination of Ted Kennedy. One of my most vivid memories working with Senator Kennedy was during the now well known confirmation hearings of Robert Bork for the Supreme Court. Ted spoke eloquently and with conviction against Judge Bork's nomination, fearing the erosion of civil rights that would occur were he confirmed. Ted refused to let this erosion of rights take place, and I am proud to have joined him in his fight against the nomination of Robert Bork. Ted proved through his actions, both on and off the Senate floor, that he was, above all, a man of compassion. The single unifying theme of Ted's distinguished body of work was his clear commitment to the people of this great country. His love for the American people was clear through the legislation he so strongly supported. Ted's greatest concern was for the well-being of every American, and he made it his mission to ensure the underprivileged received the fair treatment they deserved. In his lifetime, Ted Kennedy was able to accomplish more than most men could ever dream of accomplishing. I have no doubt that if we were lucky enough to have him with us today, he would continue to add even greater accomplishments to his already impressive resume. Ted will be deeply missed.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak on the pending amendment relating to the Mount Washington Community Development Corporation. There has been an effort to delete an appropriation of $200,000 to help the Mount Washington Community Development Corporation clean up and remove hazardous waste and prepare the site for future development. In phase I, there will be a cleanup of asbestos and hazardous waste, with a total cost of $1.2 million. On phase II, there will be construction for a total cost of $90 million to $100 million. The project is a brownfield redevelopment site preparation for the future construction of One Grandview Avenue in the city of Pittsburgh. The site currently includes a blighted structure in a state of total disrepair. The dilapidated building has been vacant since 1979 and was recently condemned by the city of Pittsburgh. Historically, this property has been the hub of illegal activities and has been a public safety hazard for the city. Since 1989, there have been over 30 documented incidents of assault, vandalism, and theft at the location. The residents of the area have signed a petition in favor of the Grandview apartment development, which cites the chaotic history of this particular locale. Three hundred people have signed on urging that the development take place, and the petition reads in part: Since the summer of 2008, the developer and his representatives have attended countless meetings with the MWCDC [the development project]. It goes on to recite the details of what is needed there. What the $200,000 will be designed for is, arguably, a responsibility of the Federal Government for failure to take steps to avoid that kind of contamination or, once the contamination occurs, to make remedial action to improve it. The total cost is going to be in the neighborhood of $1.2 million. The Federal contribution, which we are asking for on this earmark, is, I submit, a very modest matter and a good reason for the Federal Government to undertake greater responsibility than $200,000. In addition to the citizens, the request has been made by the mayor of the city of Pittsburgh. I ask unanimous consent that the petition from his chief of staff be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this has also been supported by Senator Casey, Congressman Mike Doyle, in whose district it is, and by Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato, the county council, the Mount Washington community, and by two representatives of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, Senator Wayne Fontana and Representative Chelsa Wagner. It is hard to envisage a more appropriate use of $200,000 than is present here. It is a clear-cut matter of looking to the Federal Government to fulfill its responsibility to an area that has become blighted, a waste site that should have been cleaned up a long time ago under Federal law. Amendment No. 2410 Mr. President, in addition to the considerations on the Mount Washington Community Development Corporation, I am opposed to the amendment No. 2410, which would prohibit the use of funds for the John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport. A similar amendment was defeated in the House of Representatives by a decisive vote of 263 to 154. This airport supports 45,000 takeoffs and landings per year. The Cambria County Airport receives Federal funding from the Essential Air Service, a program run by the Department of Transportation on a formula basis to rural regions. The recently passed stimulus also provides funding but on a purely competitive basis. The Johnstown Airport is one of many airports across the United States that receive Essential Air Service annual funding. The current subsidy is $1.4 million or just over $100 per passenger. There are 152 similar regional airports around the country, including a number in my State, in Altoona, Bradford, Dubois, Lancaster, and Oil City. Johnstown Airport ranks only 40th in the per-passenger subsidies. The majority of the $150 million that critics cite was funded for military purposes. There are over 1,000 Guard and Reserve troops stationed at the airport, and they use these facilities daily. These troops have been involved in over 19 overseas deployments in the last 5 years alone to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas around the world. The upgrades funded in previous years were essential to keep these troops in a proper state of readiness to sustain such a high rate of deployment. National Guard LTC Christopher Cleaver had this to say: The airport is a vital part of the Guard's strategic deployment plans. In today's climate of warfare, it's extremely prudent to be able to move fast. We have a commitment to mobilize in 96 hours. It's a great advantage to have a runway at your doorstep to quickly move to anywhere in the world. On this basis, I think the appropriation is entirely warranted. amendment no. 2366 Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss my vote against an amendment offered to the fiscal year 2010 Transportation and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill. the amendment, offered by Senator Roger Wicker, would cut off funding for Amtrak unless it amends its current policy and allows passengers to transport firearms by March 31, 2010. It is my understanding that Amtrak implemented the firearm ban in 2004 after it conducted a review and evaluation of security measures following the attacks on passenger trains in Madrid on April 11, 2004. Though Amtrak ought to have authority to set policy that is in its best interest, I am reluctant to support a policy that prohibits law abiding citizens from carrying permitted firearms. This policy was the subject of a similar amendment that Senator Wicker introduced on April 2, 2009, to the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution. The budget resolution established a reserve fund for multimodal transportation projects and Senator Wicker's amendment to the budget disqualified Amtrak from accessing this proposed reserve fund if it did not allow passengers to transport firearms. I supported that amendment and it passed 63-35. However, the passage of that amendment did not jeopardize Amtrak's regular annual appropriation. On the other hand, Senator Wicker's amendment on September 16, 2009, to the Appropriations bill may ultimately result in a complete cutoff of Federal funding for Amtrak. The legislation we are considering includes $1.574 billion for Amtrak and this funding is critical to maintaining our national passenger rail system. Amtrak provides a vital service for the entire Nation and I have consistently advocated for robust Federal funding to support its operations. Cutting off Federal funding would cause passenger rail operations to cease and deprive millions of Americans from an important mode of transportation. I am not willing to risk stranding Amtrak users in order to compel Amtrak to amend its firearm policy. We ought to consider Amtrak's firearm policy independently from the appropriations process. Should Congress decide to mandate a revision to this policy, Amtrak ought to be given sufficient time to ensure it has proper personnel and infrastructure in place without the threat of funding cuts for not meeting an unrealistic implementation deadline. Mr. President, I also wish to describe an amendment I have introduced to the fiscal year 2010 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. This amendment preserves funding which has already been secured for a critical project in Pennsylvania. The corridor along U.S. route 422 in southeastern Pennsylvania has experienced rapid population growth over the past decade including many daily commuters to Philadelphia. This population expansion has led to significant congestion along route 422 in Montgomery and Berks Counties. Transportation officials and community leaders in the area have for years worked diligently developing proposals to mitigate the congestion and expand mobility options for residents living along the corridor. The community has made considerable progress in this effort over the past 2 years, including completion in 2008 of a study to consider the feasibility of extending an existing rail line and commencement in 2009 of a study to explore long-term financing options for a commuter rail system and maintenance of route 422. Additionally, on August 24, 2009, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood joined me for a roundtable meeting with local public officials and transportation leaders to discuss the problem and these recent developments. The amendment I have introduced would simply preserve funding that was included in appropriation bills from previous years to support the local effort in this important undertaking. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the hour of Democratic speaking time be divided 30 minutes under my control, 15 minutes for Senator Lautenberg, and 15 minutes for Senator Dodd.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment about the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor for Associate Justice to the Supreme Court and to comment on other subjects directly related to the confirmation process and comment about the reality of judicial legislation, about the emerging standard on rejecting the tradition of deference to the President, with Senators' ideology being the determinant, the Court's reduced workload, the failure to decide major cases, the lack of public understanding of what the Court does, the need for accountability and transparency, and the strong case to be made for televising the Supreme Court. For me, the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor is an easy one. During the 11 confirmation proceedings I have participated in and others I have studied, I know of no one who brings a stronger record than Judge Sotomayor: summa cum laude at Princeton, Yale Law School, Yale Law Journal, prestigious New York firm, assistant district attorney with DA Morganthau who sings her praises, 17 years on the Federal bench. The criticisms which were made against her, my judgment is they were vacuous. A great deal of time in committee was spent on her comment about ``a wise Latina woman.'' My view is that she should have been commended for that statement, not criticized. Why do I say ``commend''? Why shouldn't a woman stand up for women's capabilities? In a society which did not grant women the right to vote until 1920, in a society which still harbors the tough glass ceiling limiting women, in a society where only two women have served on the Supreme Court, in a Senate where only 17 of the 100 Senators are women, I would expect a woman to proudly speak up for women's competency. To talk about being a Latino, well, what is wrong with a little ethnic pride? And isn't it about time that we had some greater diversity on the Supreme Court? Isn't it surprising, if not scandalous, that it took until 1967 to have an African American on the Court, Thurgood Marshall, and it took until 1981 to have the first woman on the Court, Sandra Day O'Connor? Judge Sotomayor is a role model and will be a broader role model if confirmed. The conventional wisdom is that she will be confirmed. Isn't there a greater assurance in a society as diverse as ours to have someone on the Court to represent that kind of diversity, all within the rule of law? A criticism was made of her with respect to the New Haven firefighters case--very complex, very subtle, very nuanced on disparate impact. The Supreme Court divided 5 to 4. So what is there to criticize on Judge Sotomayor's standing for joining a per curiam opinion? I asked a question of the New Haven firefighters who appeared: Do you have any reason to believe that Judge Sotomayor operated in anything but good faith? Both of the young firefighters candidly said they had no opinion on that subject. Then there is the criticism about her conclusion, her judgment that second amendment rights are not incorporated within the 14th amendment due process clause to be applied to the States. That is the precedent of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is not up to a certain court to rule differently when they are bound by the Supreme Court, even if it is an old case. The distinguished seventh circuit agreed with Judge Sotomayor. The argument was made well. The ninth circuit has said second amendment rights are applicable to the States. Since the hearing, the court en banc in the ninth circuit has granted review of a decision by the three-judge panel with every indication that the three-judge panel in the ninth circuit will be reversed. So when you add up all of the comments and all of the criticism, nothing, in my judgment, is left standing. The issue of judicial legislation is one which occupied the thinking and consideration of a number of those who were opposed to Judge Sotomayor. But there is nothing in her record to suggest she will engage in judicial legislation. When you take a look at the Supreme Court of the United States, that has become the rule of the era, as opposed to rule of law where the Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution and statutes and leave to the Congress and the State legislatures the job of establishing public policy. During the era of the Warren Court, there was a vast expansion of constitutional rights. I was in the Philadelphia district attorney's office at the time and literally saw the Constitution change day by day. In 1961, Mapp v. Ohio came down applying the fourth amendment protection on search and seizure to the States. In 1963, Gideon v. Wainwright, right to counsel; 1964, Escobedo v. Illinois; 1966, Miranda. Those were constitutional rights and changing values as articulated by Justice Cardozo in Palko. But in more recent times, there has been a vast expansion of the Supreme Court, in effect, legislating. I refer specifically to the case United States v. Morrison which involved the issue of the legislation protecting women against violence. Chief Justice Rehnquist handed down an opinion saying that the ``method of reasoning'' of the Congress was deficient. The dissents on that 5-to-4 opinion laid out the vast record which supported the legislation. The Supreme Court has adopted a standard of judging constitutionality as to whether the statute satisfies congruence and proportionality, a standard which has emerged very recently. It defies understanding to quantify or figure out what congruence and proportionality means, except to give the Supreme Court carte blanche, in effect, to legislate. Two cases interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act went 5 to 4 in opposite directions between Titles I and II--one case holding one of them constitutional and the other was unconstitutional. Justice Scalia, dissenting in one case, characterized congruence and proportionality to be a flabby standard which, in effect, allowed the Court to legislate. When Chief Justice Roberts appeared before the Judiciary Committee in response to questions from Senator DeWine and myself, he said it was up to the Congress to make findings of fact, that that was a peculiarly legislative function because it is the Congress which has the hearings, the ability to develop facts, and it is congressional responsibility. Yet when the Voting Rights Act case was heard earlier this year, although decided on narrower grounds, every indication is being given that Chief Justice Roberts' assurances to the Judiciary Committee are being reversed and that the Court, from all indicators, is on the verge of declaring the Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional, notwithstanding the voluminous record which was created and the great care the Senate operated to come down with the voting rights legislation. So when you have a criticism of the problem of judicial legislation, it is my view that you ought to look at what Judge Sotomayor has done in 17 years on the bench. And there is no indication at all of her substituting her values. But when you come to the Supreme Court of the United States, there is good reason to question what they are doing. There is, simply stated, a lack of understanding as to what goes on in the Court. The one comment I do have, other than full support for Judge Sotomayor, was her reluctance to answer questions. One question which I asked her is illustrative. Chief Justice Roberts, in his confirmation hearing, when confronted with the light workload of the Court, said that he thought the Court could take on more responsibility. I asked Judge Sotomayor if she agreed with that conclusion. Judge Sotomayor would not answer the question. She said she would have to be more fully familiarized, even though the statistics which I quoted to her about the Court's workload contrasted with 1886 when the Supreme Court decided 451 cases; in 1985, there were only 161 written opinions; in 2007, only 67 written opinions. It seemed to me plain that the Court could undertake more work, as Chief Justice Roberts had agreed, during his confirmation hearings. But there has developed an attitude among nominees who appear before the Judiciary Committee that it is unsafe to answer questions because of what happened to Judge Bork. As I have pointed out in committee, and it is worth repeating, it is a myth that Judge Bork was defeated because he answered too many questions. In the context of his writings and in the context of his record where he advocated original intent, it was necessary for Judge Bork to speak up. Judge Bork was rejected because he had a view of the Constitution which was totally outside the constitutional continuum or outside the constitutional mainstream. For example, in his testimony, he said that the equal protection clause applied only to race and ethnicity, but would not be extended to women, aliens, indigents, illegitimates, or others, in line with the decisions of the Supreme Court of solid precedents on the application of the equal protection clause. Judge Bork disagreed with the clear and present danger standard, established as far back as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. When it came to his doctrine on original intent, he was at a loss to explain how you could desegregate the District of Columbia schools. On the same day that Brown v. Board of Education was decided, there was a companion case captioned Bolling v. Sharpe applicable to the District of Columbia. Judge Bork was of the view that there was no application of the due process clause; that you couldn't incorporate any of the 10 amendments and you couldn't incorporate the equal protection clause. But the Supreme Court desegregated the DC schools on the basis of holding that the equal protection clause was part of due process and due process did apply to the District of Columbia. Judge Bork was at a loss to answer that. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of an op-ed I wrote for the New York Times, dated October 9, 1987, which sets forth in some greater detail--which I do not have the time to go into now--the reasons why I voted against Judge Bork and I think the reasons why Judge Bork's nomination was defeated by the margin of 58 to 42 when it came before the Senate for a vote.

Mr. SPECTER. Moving on to another subject, which perhaps is of the greatest importance of what we see emerging from these hearings and the confirmation proceeding, is an emerging standard on rejecting the traditional deference to the President, with Senators substituting their own ideology in order to make the decision. In the article I referred to on Bork, in the op-ed piece, I noted that in voting as to Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia, I decided the judicial philosophy of a nominee need not agree with mine. When the hearings came up as to Justice Clarence Thomas, I made the observation that there might be an occasion, one day, when there would be a partnership between the Senate and the President with respect to looking at ideology. It has become accepted that elections do matter when the President moves to the nominating process. They are active parts in the Presidential campaigns, and the tradition has been to make the deference to the President's ideology. I suggest we are seeing, in the confirmation process of Judge Sotomayor, in conjunction with the nomination process of Justice Alito, that there is a shift in that standard and that judgment. The issue was framed by the comments of then-Senator Barack Obama now President Barack Obama when he was commenting about his judgment on the Alito nomination and then Senator Obama had this to say: There are some who believe that the President, having won an election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee and the Senate should only examine whether the Justice is intellectually capable. Senator Obama went on to say: I disagree with this view. I believe it calls for meaningful advice and consent, and that includes an examination of the judge's philosophy, ideology. In the Alito hearings, there is no doubt that in terms of academic, professional, and judicial competence, Justice Alito was well qualified--a Yale law graduate with a distinguished career in private practice, serving as a U.S. attorney for New Jersey, with 15 years on the circuit court. Some concerns were expressed as to his ideology on his view of a woman's right to choose; his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in the Third Circuit. Only four Democrats crossed the aisle to vote for Justice Alito. Today, according to the announcements that have been made, about that many Republicans are going to cross the aisle to vote for Judge Sotomayor. Some of those who have announced their intention to vote against Judge Sotomayor have long records for not having opposed any judicial nominee. It is a complex issue. There is a question of pressure from the far right, from those who might be looking at primary opposition. There is a question of partisanship, which has gripped this body with such intensity. But there is an overwhelming view that the approach of Judge Sotomayor and what she is likely to do on the Supreme Court is something which is contrary to their views as to when the matters ought to be decided. It has long been accepted that you can't ask a Supreme Court nominee how he or she will decide a specific case, but there is an opportunity to glean from many factors the disposition or inclination of the nominees. And although many in this body had, for a long time, as I view it, made decisions based upon their own ideology, contrasted to what they accepted the nominee to do on the Court, I think that view has become crystallized and, as articulated by then-Senator Obama, is a view which has perhaps added weight now that it is President Obama. Certainly, there are nominees whom I have voted for, if I were to have been the President and made the selection, it would have been different. If I were to have applied my own philosophy or ideology on the vote to confirm or not, it would have been different. When Judge Bork was so far out of the mainstream and had views so totally antithetical to the continuum of constitutional law--being out of the mainstream--it was different. But I think it is worth noting what is happening to the confirmation process, as Senators are moving to utilize their own ideology in deciding how to vote--illustrated, as I say, by Alito and the confirmation which we currently have--and not giving the traditional and customary deference to the President. Moving on to the subject of the Court's reduced workload and the failure to decide major cases, in the context of the statistics which I cited--451 cases decided in 1886, 161 written opinions in 1985; the year 2007, only 67 signed opinions; the Supreme Court having decided not to hear the case involving the terrorist surveillance program, which posed a dramatic conflict between congressional authority under article I to enact the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with the President's asserted authority under article II as Commander in Chief to have warrantless wiretaps; the district court in Detroit declared the terrorist surveillance program unconstitutional. The Sixth Circuit reversed 2 to 1 on the grounds of standing--with the dissent being much better reasoned--a doctrine to avoid deciding the case and the Supreme Court denying cert. Similarly, on the conflict which was posed by litigation brought by the survivors of victims of 9/11 against Saudi Arabian princes, where the Congress had legislated in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to exclude torts, as when you fly an airplane into the World Trade Center, the executive branch intervened. The Department of State objected through the Solicitor General to the court hearing the case, and that case was not decided. Many circuit splits, which are detailed in a series of letters which I am going to ask to be admitted into the Record, letters which I sent to Judge Sotomayor, dated July 7, June 15, and June 25, detailing a great many circuit splits which the Court has not decided. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record the letters I referred to.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, when the Federalist Papers were written, the authors said that the Supreme Court was the least dangerous branch. I think if the Framers had seen the status of events in the year 2009, they might have written that the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court especially, was the least accountable branch--the least transparent branch. For many years, I have urged that the Supreme Court be televised. Legislation which I have introduced has twice been voted out of committee, and it is pending again. I think this is an especially good time to take up the issue. The Congress has the authority to establish when the Supreme Court sits--the first Monday in October; what it takes to have a quorum; how many members there will be on the Court--contrast that to what President Roosevelt tried to do to expand the number to 15. We have authority on the timetable, under the Speedy Trial Act, to set time limits on habeas corpus, and it is my legal judgment that we have the authority to call on the Supreme Court to be televised. The Supreme Court has the final word on that subject, as they do on all others, and could invalidate legislation on the grounds of separation of power. But in light of what is happening and the demand for greater transparency, the televising of the House, the televising of the Senate; the fact that recently the highest court in Great Britain has admitted television cameras, it is time that should occur. With the departure of Justice Souter, assuming the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor, the major opponent to televising the Court will no longer be there. Justice Souter made the famous statement that the television cameras would roll in over his dead body. When the nominees have been questioned repeatedly, they have always been very concerned, almost to a person, about being solicitous of the views of others. I concede that Justice Souter's strong views might have been a considerable obstacle. Justice Stevens has said it is worth a try. Justice Ginsburg said it would be fine if it were gavel to gavel. Other Justices have been televised. It is worth noting that the Federal Judicial Conference authorized a 3-year pilot program for six Federal district courts and two Federal circuit courts of appeals. The Judicial Center concluded: Overall, attitudes of judges toward electronic media coverage of civil proceedings were initially neutral and became more favorable after experience under the pilot program. Judges and attorneys who had experience with electronic media coverage under the program generally reported observing small or no effects of camera presence or participants in the proceedings, courtroom decorum, or the administration of justice. It is my suggestion it would be very healthy for our country to have a little sunshine come into the Supreme Court.

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. I think it would be very beneficial to have a little sunlight to come into the Supreme Court so there could be a public understanding as to how far the Supreme Court is going now on judicial legislation--that they are going beyond constitutional rights, that they are reaching into statutes such as the statute protecting women against violence, to declare it unconstitutional notwithstanding a voluminous record but based on the method of reasoning of Congress, as if our method of reasoning was deficient to theirs; or on the standard of congruence and proportionality, which is simply not understandable; or in the context of a workload which defies explanation, with so many circuit splits going undecided. It may surprise people to know that it was not until 1981 that the Judiciary Committee proceedings on nominations were televised. Seeing what a great appearance it is today, and of how much value--this is really our only opportunity to speak to the Court, to speak to Chief Justice Roberts. Are you going back on your commitment that it is up to the Congress to decide facts on a congressional record? Why are you doing congruence and proportionality when no one understands it? So while the judgment on Sonia Sotomayor, as I said initially, was easy for me to vote aye, there are many more perplexing issues that have emerged, especially what I perceive to be an institutional change here, with Senators substituting their own judgments and ideology for the traditional deference allotted to the President. Before I yield the floor, Mr. President, I have been asked to read an addendum statement, if I may? It is an introduction for a letter from members of the Supreme Court bar in favor of Judge Sotomayor: The Committee recently received a letter of support for Judge Sotomayor's nomination from over 45 regular practitioners at the Supreme Court including a number of former Solicitors General and Assistants to the Solicitor General. Among those who joined this letter are a number of highly respected Republican appointees such as Charles Fried, nominated by President Reagan to be Solicitor General; John Gibbons, the former Chief Judge for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals who was nominated by President Nixon; and Tim Lewis, nominated by President George H.W. Bush and confirmed as a Judge for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 5, 2009, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining Proposals to Enhance the Regulation of Credit Rating Agencies.''

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 5, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 5, 2009, in Russell 253, at 2 p.m.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 5, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. or Ms. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 5, 2009, at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 5, 2009.