Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 5, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Strengthening the Federal Acquisition Workforce: Government-wide Leadership and Initiatives.''

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes in support of the Sanders amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the dairy farmers in Pennsylvania and the Nation are receiving record low prices for their products, prices that we have not seen since the late 1970s. From January through June of this year, the price received by farmers was 37 percent below that of a year earlier. Feed costs, by comparison, have fallen by 11 percent. In this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture expects the all-milk price to average between $11.85 per hundredweight and $12.15 per hundredweight, down from $18.29 last year, and 18 to 20 percent below the 10-year average. Exports, which have driven much of the recent growth in the dairy industry, have fallen from 11 percent of production last year. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, these losses are translated into losses as high as $1,000 per cow per year, so that a farmer milking 100 cows will lose as much as $100,000 this year. This amendment provides the U.S. Department of Agriculture with $350 million in additional funds to enable it to increase the level at which the government buys surplus dairy products off the market. This funding would allow the Secretary to raise the support price on three different types of dairy products. That is a brief statistical summary of the problems which the dairy farmers are facing, not only in the my State, Pennsylvania, but across the country. I recently convened a session in my office to hear in some detail the plight of the dairy farmers. I have traveled the State. Before August is finished, I will have visited all of Pennsylvania's 67 counties, which is a practice I make, covering virtually every county every year. I have seen firsthand the desperate plight of the farmers of our State. We had been considering a number of amendments to this bill, but they have been ruled not germane. For those who may be watching this program--this session; it is really a program, but it is a session of the Senate--that means technically we could not offer other legislation. But I compliment the distinguished Senator from Vermont who has structured this amendment in a way which will enable the Department of Agriculture to meet this pressing problem. Recently about a dozen Senators met with the Secretary of Agriculture, and the conclusion was that the Department of Agriculture, the Obama administration, wanted to help farmers by raising price supports, but they lacked the money to do so. So this amendment, if adopted--and I urge my colleagues to adopt it--and there is pretty widespread concern about milk prices covering virtually every section of the United States. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment to give some very much needed relief to the dairy farmers. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 2285

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation that will honor and preserve the industrial legacy of our Nation for the benefit of current and future generations. The bill, which I am introducing along with my Pennsylvania colleague Senator Bob Casey, would establish a partnership between the Department of Interior and the National Museum of Industrial History: a museum and interpretive center to be located at the site of the former Bethlehem Steel Plant in Bethlehem, PA. The industrial revolution was a critical period in American history, during which our country and the foundation of our national economy experienced an unprecedented transition. It is important that people, especially children and future generations, have an opportunity to learn about the history of American industrialization and how it shaped our world and our lives. For this opportunity to be realized, the timeless stories and treasured relics of our industrial history must be preserved, interpreted and made available for all to see, study and enjoy. The National Museum of Industrial History will exist for just this purpose. The Museum will be located at an ideal site to tell the story of America's industrial history because the former tenant of the site was a lead character in the story. The Bethlehem Steel Company was a world- leader in steel production for nearly 150 years and truly epitomized the industrial revolution and expansion throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Steel produced in Bethlehem was used to build some our country's most treasured structures and landmarks, including the Chrysler Building in New York City and the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. Bethlehem Steel was a major contributor to the war effort during the first and second World Wars, building many ships and supplying much of the armored plating and large-caliber guns for our armed forces. Bethlehem Steel began to cease much of its operation in the 1990s and was bought by another steel company in 2001. The closing of Bethlehem Steel marked the end of an era and also created one of the largest brownfield sites in the country. It is on this site, rich in history and industrial heritage, where the National Museum of Industrial History will stand as a monument to industry and as an educational resource to the public. The legislation I have introduced will establish an agreement between the Department of Interior and the National Museum of Industrial History, wherein the Department will assist in the creation and program development of the Museum. Every dollar provided by the Federal Government would have to be matched by a non-Federal source. The Museum has a long history of working with the Federal Government. The National Museum of Industrial History was the first museum to become affiliated with the Smithsonian Institute. This partnership spawned the Smithsonian Institute's ``Affiliates Program,'' which now has over 150 members around the country. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation that will honor and preserve the industrial legacy of our Nation for the benefit of current and future generations. The bill, which I am introducing along with my Pennsylvania colleague Senator Bob Casey, would establish a partnership between the Department of Interior and the National Museum of Industrial History: a museum and interpretive center to be located at the site of the former Bethlehem Steel Plant in Bethlehem, PA. The industrial revolution was a critical period in American history, during which our country and the foundation of our national economy experienced an unprecedented transition. It is important that people, especially children and future generations, have an opportunity to learn about the history of American industrialization and how it shaped our world and our lives. For this opportunity to be realized, the timeless stories and treasured relics of our industrial history must be preserved, interpreted and made available for all to see, study and enjoy. The National Museum of Industrial History will exist for just this purpose. The Museum will be located at an ideal site to tell the story of America's industrial history because the former tenant of the site was a lead character in the story. The Bethlehem Steel Company was a world- leader in steel production for nearly 150 years and truly epitomized the industrial revolution and expansion throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Steel produced in Bethlehem was used to build some our country's most treasured structures and landmarks, including the Chrysler Building in New York City and the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. Bethlehem Steel was a major contributor to the war effort during the first and second World Wars, building many ships and supplying much of the armored plating and large-caliber guns for our armed forces. Bethlehem Steel began to cease much of its operation in the 1990s and was bought by another steel company in 2001. The closing of Bethlehem Steel marked the end of an era and also created one of the largest brownfield sites in the country. It is on this site, rich in history and industrial heritage, where the National Museum of Industrial History will stand as a monument to industry and as an educational resource to the public. The legislation I have introduced will establish an agreement between the Department of Interior and the National Museum of Industrial History, wherein the Department will assist in the creation and program development of the Museum. Every dollar provided by the Federal Government would have to be matched by a non-Federal source. The Museum has a long history of working with the Federal Government. The National Museum of Industrial History was the first museum to become affiliated with the Smithsonian Institute. This partnership spawned the Smithsonian Institute's ``Affiliates Program,'' which now has over 150 members around the country. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President. I have sought recognition to urge support for the legislation I just introduced, the Liability for Aiding and Abetting Securities Violations Act of 2009. My legislation would overturn two errant decisions of the Supreme Court--Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, 511 U.S. 164, 1994, and Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 522 U.S. 148, 2008, by amending the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to authorize a private right of action for aiding-and-abetting liability. The Act's main anti-fraud provision, Sec. 10(b), makes it ``unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly,'' to commit acts of fraud ``in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.'' Nearly fifty years ago the Court implied a private right of action under Sec. 10(b). The result was that investors could recover financial losses caused by violations of 10(b) and the companion regulation issued by the SEC commonly known as ``Rule 10b-5.'' Until Central Bank, every circuit of the Federal Court of Appeals had concluded that Sec. 10(b)'s private right of action allowed recovery not only against the person who directly undertook a fraudulent act-- the so-called primary violator--but also anyone who aided and abetted him. A five-Justice majority in Central Bank, intent on narrowing Sec. 10(b)'s scope, held that its private right of action extended only to primary violators. When Congress debated the legislation that became the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, PSLRA, then-SEC chairman Arthur Levitt and others urged Congress to overturn Central Bank. Congress declined to do so. The PSLRA authorized only the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, to bring aiding-and- abetting enforcement litigation. It is time for us to revisit that judgment. The massive frauds involving Enron, Refco, Tyco, Worldcom, and countless other lesser- known companies during the last decade have taught us that a stock issuer's auditors, bankers, business affiliates, and lawyers--sometimes called ``secondary actors''--all too often actively participate in and enable the issuer's fraud. Federal Judge Gerald Lynch recently observed in a decision calling on Congress to reexamine Central Bank that secondary actors are sometimes ``deeply and indispensably implicated in wrongful conduct.'' In re Refco, Inc. Sec. Litig., 609 F. Supp. 2d. 304, 318 n.15, S.D.N.Y. 2009. Professor John Coffee of Columbia Law School, a renowned expert on the regulation of the securities markets, has even laid much of the blame for the major corporate frauds of this decade on the ``acquiescence'' of the ``outside professionals''--especially accountants, securities analysts, and corporate lawyers--responsible for ``preparing, verifying, or certifying corporate disclosures to the securities markets.'' Coffee, ``Gatekeeper Failure and Reform: The Challenge of Fashioning Relevant Reforms,'' 84 Boston University Law Review 301, 304, 2004. The immunity from suit that Central Bank confers on secondary actors has removed much-needed incentives for them to avoid complicity in and even help prevent securities fraud, and all too often left the victims of fraud uncompensated for their losses. Enforcement actions by the SEC have proved to be no substitute for suits by private plaintiffs. The SEC's litigating resources are too limited for the SEC to bring suit except in a small number of cases, and even when the SEC does bring suit, it cannot recover damages for the victims of fraud. Last year's decision in Stoneridge made matters still worse for defrauded investors. Central Bank had at least held open the possibility that secondary actors who themselves undertake fraudulent activities prescribed by Sec. 10(b) could be ``held liable as . . . primary violator[s].'' Stoneridge has largely foreclosed that possibility. A divided Court held that Sec. 10(b)'s private right of action did not ``reach'' two vendors of a cable company that entered into sham transactions with the company knowing that it would publicly report the transactions in order to inflate its stock price. The Court conceded that the suppliers engaged in fraudulent conduct prescribed by Sec. 10(b), but held that they were not liable in a private action because only the issuer, not they, communicated the transaction to the public. That remarkable conclusion put the Court at odds with even the Republican Chairman of the SEC. My legislative response would take the limited, but important, step amending of the Exchange Act to authorize a private right of action under Sec. 10(b) (and other, less commonly invoked, provisions of the Act) against a secondary actor who provides ``substantial assistance'' to a person who violates Sec. 10(b). Any suit brought under my proposed amendment would, of course, be subject to the heightened pleading standards, discovery-stay procedures, and other defendant-protective features of the PSLRA.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President. I have sought recognition to urge support for the legislation I just introduced, the Liability for Aiding and Abetting Securities Violations Act of 2009. My legislation would overturn two errant decisions of the Supreme Court--Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, 511 U.S. 164, 1994, and Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 522 U.S. 148, 2008, by amending the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to authorize a private right of action for aiding-and-abetting liability. The Act's main anti-fraud provision, Sec. 10(b), makes it ``unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly,'' to commit acts of fraud ``in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.'' Nearly fifty years ago the Court implied a private right of action under Sec. 10(b). The result was that investors could recover financial losses caused by violations of 10(b) and the companion regulation issued by the SEC commonly known as ``Rule 10b-5.'' Until Central Bank, every circuit of the Federal Court of Appeals had concluded that Sec. 10(b)'s private right of action allowed recovery not only against the person who directly undertook a fraudulent act-- the so-called primary violator--but also anyone who aided and abetted him. A five-Justice majority in Central Bank, intent on narrowing Sec. 10(b)'s scope, held that its private right of action extended only to primary violators. When Congress debated the legislation that became the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, PSLRA, then-SEC chairman Arthur Levitt and others urged Congress to overturn Central Bank. Congress declined to do so. The PSLRA authorized only the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, to bring aiding-and- abetting enforcement litigation. It is time for us to revisit that judgment. The massive frauds involving Enron, Refco, Tyco, Worldcom, and countless other lesser- known companies during the last decade have taught us that a stock issuer's auditors, bankers, business affiliates, and lawyers--sometimes called ``secondary actors''--all too often actively participate in and enable the issuer's fraud. Federal Judge Gerald Lynch recently observed in a decision calling on Congress to reexamine Central Bank that secondary actors are sometimes ``deeply and indispensably implicated in wrongful conduct.'' In re Refco, Inc. Sec. Litig., 609 F. Supp. 2d. 304, 318 n.15, S.D.N.Y. 2009. Professor John Coffee of Columbia Law School, a renowned expert on the regulation of the securities markets, has even laid much of the blame for the major corporate frauds of this decade on the ``acquiescence'' of the ``outside professionals''--especially accountants, securities analysts, and corporate lawyers--responsible for ``preparing, verifying, or certifying corporate disclosures to the securities markets.'' Coffee, ``Gatekeeper Failure and Reform: The Challenge of Fashioning Relevant Reforms,'' 84 Boston University Law Review 301, 304, 2004. The immunity from suit that Central Bank confers on secondary actors has removed much-needed incentives for them to avoid complicity in and even help prevent securities fraud, and all too often left the victims of fraud uncompensated for their losses. Enforcement actions by the SEC have proved to be no substitute for suits by private plaintiffs. The SEC's litigating resources are too limited for the SEC to bring suit except in a small number of cases, and even when the SEC does bring suit, it cannot recover damages for the victims of fraud. Last year's decision in Stoneridge made matters still worse for defrauded investors. Central Bank had at least held open the possibility that secondary actors who themselves undertake fraudulent activities prescribed by Sec. 10(b) could be ``held liable as . . . primary violator[s].'' Stoneridge has largely foreclosed that possibility. A divided Court held that Sec. 10(b)'s private right of action did not ``reach'' two vendors of a cable company that entered into sham transactions with the company knowing that it would publicly report the transactions in order to inflate its stock price. The Court conceded that the suppliers engaged in fraudulent conduct prescribed by Sec. 10(b), but held that they were not liable in a private action because only the issuer, not they, communicated the transaction to the public. That remarkable conclusion put the Court at odds with even the Republican Chairman of the SEC. My legislative response would take the limited, but important, step amending of the Exchange Act to authorize a private right of action under Sec. 10(b) (and other, less commonly invoked, provisions of the Act) against a secondary actor who provides ``substantial assistance'' to a person who violates Sec. 10(b). Any suit brought under my proposed amendment would, of course, be subject to the heightened pleading standards, discovery-stay procedures, and other defendant-protective features of the PSLRA.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to briefly comment on two amendments that I filed to the fiscal year 2010 Energy and Water appropriations bill. The first amendment deals with the Bloomsburg Flood Control Project. This project was authorized by Congress in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 to protect the town of Bloomsburg from chronic flooding that has plagued it throughout its history. Bloomsburg has suffered 33 floods since 1990. The proposed floodwall will protect more than 400 homes, 7 businesses, and 1,200 people affected by flooding. The project was authorized at a total cost of $44.5 million. However, I am advised that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force issued revised criteria for floodwalls which increase the project's cost. The amendment would raise the authorization amount to $65 million to account for this change and proceed with this important project to project the citizens of Bloomsburg. The second amendment deals with the Scranton Flood Control Project. This project was initially authorized in 1992 and modified in 1996, and this amendment would further modify it so that the city of Scranton can proceed with downstream mitigation activities and construction of a recreational trail. The amendment also provides that the city shall receive credit against its nonFederal share for mitigation activities it already completed. I urge my colleagues to adopt these amendments to improve flood protection in Pennsylvania.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment about the status of efforts to legislate comprehensive health care reform. Recently there was a comment by a Senator opponent of President Obama, who disclosed what has been known for some time as to the tactics of President Obama's opponents. The Senator who opposes President Obama said this: If we are able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him. This is essentially the same tactic that was used by President Obama's opponents on the stimulus package. I am not betraying any confidence about matters that were on the public record, but immediately after the inauguration, within 2 weeks, when the Senate took up the stimulus package, it was apparent that President Obama's opponents in the Senate were simply going to say no and obstruct the matter. It is a matter of public record that only three then-Republican Senators would even talk to the Democrats about the stimulus package-- Senator Collins, Senator Snowe, and myself. Now it is apparent, with what the Senator opponent of President Obama has said what the plan is. Now that we know we will not vote on comprehensive health care reform until September, there is time for a little bipartisanship--perhaps even a little statesmanship--to come together on this issue. We have been sent by our constituents to Washington to solve problems, not to obstruct potential solutions. There are many items where we can all agree. There are many potential savings available, which I outlined a few weeks ago in an extensive floor statement. For example, on advanced directives, estimates are that as much as 27 percent could be saved on Medicare. So much money is spent in the last few hours, few days, few weeks of a person's life. We know from the statistics that funding from the National Institutes of Health can prevent illness and can cut down tremendously on the cost. We also know that by changing the prosecution on Medicare and Medicaid fraud and imposing jail sentences, there would be a deterrent to that tremendous amount of fraud and abuse. A fine is simply a license. We know also that substantial savings are possible by covering those 47 million Americans so that we have medical care at an earlier stage to avoid chronic illnesses that are so very expensive, so that we could come together on these items where I think there is general agreement. The Senator opponent of President Obama is referred to in this morning's Washington Post as saying that he is in favor of fixing the system, it has been one of the main causes of his career, and a specific: We need some real health care reform. Well, it would be worthwhile to have that Senator opponent of President Obama say whether he believes we ought to cover the 47 million Americans now not covered. I believe there is a consensus that that ought to be done. But if there are differences of opinion, let them be stated, because if we agree that the 47 million Americans have to be covered, then the next question a responsible elected public official would have to ask is: How do we pay for it? But if someone is going to say ``I am not in favor of covering the 47 million Americans,'' let him or her answer to his constituents. The Senator opponent of President Obama ought to note, as reported in the Post this morning, that there are 700,000 of his State's residents who are uninsured. If he believes we ought not to cover those 47 million Americans, including the 700,000 in his State, let him respond and say so. It may be that there is a political price to pay if you face up to that. But if you move beyond the question of whether we need to have health care for all Americans, then we need to move forward. When you talk about the Waterloo of President Obama, it sounds as if we are fighting some foreign power as opposed to the collegiality which is supposed to be present in the Senate, reputedly the world's greatest deliberative body. I was pleased to see the Senator who is opposing President Obama with his Waterloo statement--I am glad to see a number of his colleagues on that side of the aisle distance themselves. But as yet we have not had a proposal which comes from the Republican side of the aisle, just as we did not have a proposal coming from the Republican side of the aisle on the stimulus package. It was my view, as I spoke on the floor on February 6, that the problems about sliding into a 1929 Depression were present. We faced that risk. Complaints have been made about the stimulus package that it has not worked, but there have only been 5 months which have elapsed. Yesterday I was in Pennsylvania at a major interchange, I-81 and Route 39, announcing $12 million for road repairs; earlier, at the Philadelphia International Airport announcing a substantial grant; in western Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh announcing millions of dollars for locks and dams. It may be that a better proposal could have been crafted on the stimulus package. But there were negotiations. President Obama was sworn in on January 20. In the week of February 2, within 2 weeks from the inauguration, taking the oath of office, we were already having obstructionism. It is my hope that while we adjourn for the August recess, there is time to have a bipartisan plan, a plan which will reject partisanship, a plan which might even bring a little statesmanship to this body. When the three of us on the stimulus issue joined with the Democrats in providing the necessary votes, the indispensable 60 votes to invoke cloture and allow the stimulus package to move forward, the comment was made from the other side of the aisle: Three Senators don't make a bipartisan bill. So far, only three Republicans are negotiating on comprehensive health care reform. So let's see if we can't have in the intervening weeks between now and September a concerted effort made to move forward to answer some of these basic questions. If someone is opposed to covering the 47 million Americans, let's hear it. If someone is opposed to having a public option, as proposed by Senator Schumer, which maintains a level playing field, let's hear the specifics so that our constituents can judge us, so that the 700,000 people who are not covered by insurance in the home State of the Republican Senator who has spoken out to break the President, to promote the President's Waterloo--we will have a chance to evaluate that kind of an attitude. I thank the Chair, note the expiration of my time, 10 minutes, and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to speak on legislation I am introducing that will restore the system of notice pleading that has served our Federal judicial system well since 1938, the year the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted. Civil litigation in our Federal system is commenced by the filing a complaint that puts the defendant on notice of the plaintiffs claims. Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a complaint need only contain a ``short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader'', usually the plaintiff, ``is entitled to relief.'' This is not a demanding standard. An appendix to the Rules includes a form complaint for negligence that the drafters of Rule 8 obviously thought would satisfy Rule 8's standard. That complaint, in relevant part, alleges only that ``[o]n June 1, 1936, in a public highway called Boylston Street in Boston Massachusetts, defendant negligently drove a motor vehicle against plaintiff who was crossing the highway.'' The Federal Rules require the court to await the submission of the plaintiff's evidence--first at the summary-judgment stage and, if summary judgment is not granted, then at trial--before evaluating or passing on the truth of the complaint's allegations. It's only sensible that courts do so: Not until a plaintiff has had access to relevant information in the defendant's possession during the discovery process that follows the filing of a complaint as a matter of right can the plaintiff normally offer evidence to support the complaint's allegations. For over 70 years following the adoption of the Federal Rules, the Supreme Court of the U.S. consistently and faithfully implemented Rule 8's notice-pleading language. Its leading decision on the subject, Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 1957, prohibited federal courts from dismissing a complaint ``for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief.'' Two years ago in Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 2007, the Court jettisoned the standard set forth in Conley and announced that henceforth it would require not only factual specificity in complaints not previously required of plaintiffs, but also that a complaint's allegation of wrongdoing appear ``plausible'' to the court. This year in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 2009, the Supreme Court significantly expanded upon Twombly by, to quote Professor Stephen Burbank of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, effectively authorizing federal judges to indulge their ``subject judgments'' in evaluating an allegation's plausibility. According to an article that just appeared in The York Times, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently told a group of Federal judges that, as a result of these two cases, the Supreme Court has ``messed up the federal rules'' governing pleading. When it passed the Rules Enabling Act, Congress established a carefully designed process for amending the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The process ends with the Supreme Court's presentation of a proposed rule change to Congress for approval. In Twombly and Ashcroft the Court effectively end ran that process. The effect of the Court's actions will no doubt be to deny many plaintiffs with meritorious claims access to the Federal courts and, with it, any legal redress for their injuries. I think that is an especially unwelcome development at a time when, with the litigating resources of our executive-branch and administrative agencies stretched thin, the enforcement of Federal antitrust, consumer protection, civil rights and other laws that benefit the public will fall increasingly to private litigants. The Notice Pleading Restoration Act will require the Federal courts to test the sufficiency of a complaint's allegations under the well- established standards that prevailed in the Federal courts until Twombly. I urge its passage.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak briefly on the hate crimes legislation. The details of the bill have been explained. The statistics have been enumerated by a number of my colleagues. Perhaps the most impressive statistic is the one from the Attorney General on 77,000 hate crimes. I do believe it is time we act. This issue first came before the Senate back in 1997, some 12 years ago. Senator Kennedy was the originator. At that time, he searched for cosponsors among Republicans, and I believe it is accurate to say that I was the only one who would support cosponsorship, and we moved the legislation forward by publishing an op-ed piece in the Washington Post. I ask unanimous consent that op-ed piece be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am glad to say that since the time this issue has come before the Senate, there are now 18 Republican cosponsors. My sense is that there will be widespread, if not unanimous, support among the Democrats so that there is a very solid statement respectively in the Senate. Ordinarily, matters of criminal prosecution are left to the States. The offense is prosecuted in the jurisdiction where it occurred. I have a strong bias for local prosecutions as a generalization and developed that concern from my own experience as a district attorney for the city and county of Philadelphia. Law enforcement ought to be local. But the brutal fact of life is that when you deal with hate crimes--and there are many examples. In 1997 when Senator Kennedy and I first introduced the bill, there was the case of racial matters--dragging an African- American through the streets of a Texas town. There has since been many other brutal cases, one highly publicized of a gay young man, a victim of a hate crime in Wyoming. Regrettably, discrimination for race or national origin continues until this day. There has recently been a publicized matter that occurred in Huntingdon Valley, a suburb of the city of Philadelphia, at a swim club where the swim club operators negotiated with a group representing Hispanic and African-American children, ages 5 to 11, to occupy a swimming pool, with the swimming pool's permission. When the youngsters, Hispanics and African Americans, went to swim, there was, according to the media reports--and I have spoken to people on both sides personally to find out what went on--there was animus hostility, racial comments directed at African Americans and the Hispanics, conduct which one would have thought America would have passed long ago. But it is as current as 2 weeks ago in the suburbs of my hometown of Philadelphia, PA. The matter has moved forward. It has resulted in lawsuits being filed. It would be my hope that a way could be found to handle the matter to the satisfaction of all parties. But I can understand if the parents of the children involved want to pursue remedies. This is a matter that could be handled by the civil rights division, which has prosecutorial authority and also has authority for mediation and reconciliation. I cite that as an illustration of a matter that is as current as today's news on animus based on race, whether it be African Americans or Hispanics. It is my hope that this matter will receive prompt attention in the Senate and will be part of the pending legislation and it will go to conference and become the law of the land. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Dec. 1, 1997] When Combating Hate Should Be a Federal Fight (By Edward M. Kennedy and Arlen Specter) The Post's Nov. 17 editorial criticizing the measure we have introduced on hate crimes reflects a misunderstanding of our proposal to close the gaps in federal law and a failure to recognize the profound impact of hate crimes. Hate crimes are uniquely destructive and divisive because they injure not only the immediate victim, but the community and sometimes the nation. The Post's conntention that a ``victim of a bias-motivated stabbing is no more dead than someone stabbed during a mugging'' suggests a distressing misunderstanding of hate crimes. Random street crimes don't provoke riots; hate crimes can and sometimes do. The federal government has a role in dealing with these offenses. Although states and local governments have the principal responsibility for prosecuting hate crimes, there are exceptional circumstances in which it is appropriate for the federal government to prosecute such cases. Hate crimes often are committed by individuals with ties to groups that operate across state lines. The Confederate Hammerskins are a skinhead group that began terrorizing minorities and Jews in Tennessee, Texas and Oklahoma a decade ago. Federal law enforcement authorities are well situated to investigate and prosecute criminal activities by such groups, and the federal government has taken the lead in successfully prosecuting these skinheads. Hate crimes disproportionately involve multiple offenders and multiple incidents and in such cases, overriding procedural considerations--including gaps in state laws--may justify federal prosecution. In Lubbock, Tex., three white supremacists attempted to start a local race war in 1994 by shooting three African American victims, one fatally, in three separate incidents in 20 minutes. Under Texas law, each defendant would have been entitled to a separate trial in a state court, and each defendant also might have been entitled to a separate trial for each shooting. The result could have been at least three, and perhaps as many as nine trials, in the state courts, and the defendants, if convicted, would have been eligible for parole in 20 years. They faced a mandatory life sentence in federal court. Federal and local prosecutors, working together, decided to deal with these crimes under federal laws. The defendants were tried together in federal court, convicted and are serving mandatory life sentences. The victims and their families were not forced to relive their nightmare in multiple trials. Federal involvement in the prosecutions of hate crimes dates back to the Reconstruction Era following the Civil War. These laws were updated a generation ago in 1968, but they are no longer adequate to meet the current challenge. As a result, the federal government is waging the battle against hate crimes with one hand tied behind its back. Current federal law covers crimes motivated by racial, religious or ethnic prejudice. Our proposal adds violence motivated by prejudice against the sexual orientation, gender or disability of the victim. Our proposal also makes it easier for federal authorities to prosecute racial violence, in the same way that the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 helped federal prosecutors deal with the rash of racially motivated church arsons. The suggestion in the editorial that our bill tramples First Amendment rights is ludicrous. Our proposal applies only to violent acts, not hostile words or threats. Nobody can seriously suggest that the neo-Nazis who murdered Fred Mangione in a Houston nightclub last year because they ``wanted to get a fag'' were engaged in a constitutionally protected freedom of speech. In addition, hate-crimes prosecution under our bill must be approved by the attorney general or another high-ranking Justice Department official, not just by local federal prosecutors. This ensures federal restraint and that states will continue to take the lead in prosecuting hate crimes. From 1990 through 1996, there were 37 federal hate crimes prosecutions nationwide under the law we are amending--fewer than six a year out of more than 10,000 hate crimes nationwide. Our bill should result in a modest increase in the number of federal prosecutions of hate crimes. When Congress passed the Hate Crimes Statistics Act in 1990, we recognized the need to document the scope of hate crimes. We now know enough about the problem, and it is time to take the next step. As the Lubbock prosecution shows, combating hate crimes is not exclusively a state or local challenge or a federal challenge. It is a challenge best addressed by federal, state and local authorities working together. Our proposal gives all prosecutors another tool in their anti-crime arsenal. The issue is tolerance, and the only losers under our proposal will be the bigots who seek to divide the country through violence.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be given to Linda Hoffa, a detailee in my office.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to congratulate and recognize a tremendous asset to the children of Philadelphia, PA, the United States, and really the world--the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. The hospital, or CHOP as it is known, has been ranked first in children's cancer, diabetes and endocrine disorders, neonatal care, respiratory disorders and urology care by U.S. News & World Report. I congratulate the hospital's president and chief executive officer, Dr. Steven Altschuler, and his team of over 10,0000 employees for this tremendous accomplishment. CHOP was the Nation's first established children's hospital, growing from its original structure with 12 beds on Philadelphia's Watts Street to a sprawling campus in West Philadelphia with over 40 outpatient locations throughout southeast Pennsylvania and New Jersey, providing care to over 1 million patients last year. CHOP notably provides the highest level of pediatric care and conducts groundbreaking research through funding from the National Institutes of Health. When I came to the Senate in 1981, funding for the NIH totaled $3.6 billion. Since becoming LHHS Chairman in 1996, Senator Harkin and I have succesfully worked to more than double NIH funding, which was $12.7 billion at that time. In the fiscal year 2009 Senate LHHS Appropriations Subcommittee bill, we provided $30.2 billion for NIH funding, a $1 billion increase from fiscal year 2008. We also secured an additional $10 billion in funding through an amendment to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I recently visited CHOP for a townhall meeting and was able to see firsthand some major discoveries that have occurred there as a result of NIH-funded research. In a conversation with Dr. Philip Johnson, the director of CHOP's Research Institute, I learned about an experimental therapy developed at CHOP using elements of the body's immune system to improve cure rates for children with neuroblastoma, a challenging cancer of the nervous system. This type of cancer is very aggressive, causing 15 percent of all childhood cancer deaths. I am told that patients who received this therapy were 20 percent more likely to live disease-free two years after treatment. Shortly after visiting CHOP, I also learned of a study led by Dr. Johnson that could lead to an HIV vaccine, by inserting a gene into the muscle that can cause it to produce protective antibodies. AIDS is one of the most devastating pandemics, having killed more than 25 million people. Such a vaccine appears years away from realization; however, with continued investment from the NIH, it is possible that this work could save millions of lives. I have fought and will continue to fight for increased funding for the NIH because medical research saves and improves lives. The medical research at CHOP, through federally funded NIH support, provides children with a real chance to be cured so that they may continue to grow and prosper. As we continue the debate around health reform, it is important that we recognize the unique needs of children. As I stated, CHOP served over 1 million patients last year. When it opened in 1855, it treated just 63 patients in its first year. Clearly the demand for highly specialized, pediatric care is growing not only in Pennsylvania but throughout the United States; however, there are shortages in the number of pediatric specialists able to treat children with very particular needs. That is why it is important to support programs, such as the Children's Hospitals Graduate Medical Education Program, to help children's hospitals train future pediatricians. I have supported ample funding for this program because it helps address a national dilemma and provides children's hospitals with the resources they need to foster innovation and improve quality. Mr. President, the accomplishments seen at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia are unique and revolutionary. I am proud of CHOP for their efforts to improve children's health care and promote health and wellness.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss, first of all, the pending nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Sotomayor comes to this nomination with impeccable credentials: summa cum laude at Princeton; Yale Law School; was on the Yale Law Journal; had a distinguished career in private practice; an assistant district attorney with DA Morgenthau in Manhattan; service on a U.S. District court, a trial court; and now serves on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The conventional wisdom is that Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed. But notwithstanding the conventional wisdom, under the Constitution it is the responsibility of the Senate, on its advice and consent function, to question the nominee to determine how she would approach important issues. It also presents a good opportunity to shed some light on the operations of the Supreme Court of the United States in an effort to improve those operations. It has been my practice recently to write letters to the nominees in advance, as I discussed it with Judge Sotomayor during the so-called courtesy visit I had with her, and she graciously consented to respond or to receive the letters and was appreciative of the opportunity to know in advance the issues which would be raised. Sometimes if an issue comes up fresh, the nominee does not know the case or does not know the issue and may be compelled to say: Well, let me consider that, and I will get back to you. So this enables us at the hearings to move right ahead into the substantive materials. The first letter I wrote involved congressional power and the adoption by the Supreme Court of a test on congruence and proportionality, which Justice Scalia called the ``flabby test,'' which enables the Court to, in effect, legislate. The second letter involved the prospect of televising the Supreme Court to grant greater access to the public to understand what the Supreme Court does. And the third letter, which I sent to Judge Sotomayor yesterday, involves the issue of the Court's backlog and the opportunities for the Court to take on more work. Chief Justice Roberts, in his confirmation hearings, noted that the Court ``could contribute more to the clarity and uniformity of the law by taking more cases.'' The number of cases the Supreme Court decided in the 19th century shows it is possible to take up more cases. In 1870, the Court had 636 cases on the docket, decided 280; in 1880, the Court had 1,202 cases on the docket, decided 365; in 1886, the Court had 1,396 cases on the docket, decided 451. Notwithstanding what Chief Justice Roberts said in his confirmation hearing, during his tenure the number of cases has continued to decline. In the 1985 term, there were 161 signed opinions. In the 2007 term, with Chief Justice Roberts in charge, there were only 67 decided cases. The Court has what is called a ``cert. pool,'' where seven of the nine Justices--excluding only Justice Stevens and Justice Alito--have their clerks do the work, suggesting that the Justices spend little time if any on the cert. petitions except to examine a memo in this sort of a pool, raising questions as to whether that is adequate on individualized justice with the individual Justices considering these issues. The Justices can't consider the thousands of cases which are filed, but there may be a better system, as Justice Stevens and Justice Alito have it, with their taking their own individual responsibility. There is another major problem in the Court and that is its failure to take on cases where the courts of appeals for the circuits are split. There are many such cases. In my letter to Judge Sotomayor, I have identified some. Illustrative of the cases are important issues such as mandatory minimums for the use of a gun in drug trafficking or the propriety of a jury consulting the Bible during its deliberations. Justice Scalia, in dissenting on one of the refusals to take up a case with a circuit split, said this--dissenting, Justice Scalia wrote: In light of the conflicts among the circuits, I would grant the petition for certiorari and squarely confront both the meaning and the constitutionality of the section involved. He went on to say: Indeed, it seems to me quite irresponsible to let the current chaos prevail. Well, that is the kind of chaos which prevails when two circuits split. The case may come up in another circuit where the precedents are divided, and it seems to me that the Court ought to take up the issues. That could be ameliorated by a change in the rules. Four Justices must agree to hear a case, and I intend to ask Judge Sotomayor her views on this subject and on her willingness, perhaps, to be interested in taking cases with only three Justices or perhaps two Justices. The refusal of the Court to take up these major cases is very serious, illustrated by its denial of consideration of perhaps the major--or at least a major--conflict between the power of Congress under article I of the Constitution to enact the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provided for the exclusive means to have wiretap warrants issued, contrasted with President Bush's warrantless wiretap procedures under the terrorist surveillance program. The Detroit District Court found the terrorist surveillance program unconstitutional. The Sixth Circuit decided it would not decide the case by finding a lack of standing. In the letter to Judge Sotomayor, I cite the reasoning of the dissenting judge, showing the flexibility of the standing doctrine. Then the Supreme Court of the United States decides not to decide the case. It so happens, in so many matters, what the Court decides not to decide may well be more important than what the Court actually does decide. These are issues which I intend to take up with Judge Sotomayor. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my letter to Judge Sotomayor be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, moving on to a second subject, The New York Times today has an analysis of health care which bears directly upon the legislation which will soon be considered by the Congress on comprehensive health care. The article focuses on prostate cancer, for illustrative purposes, to raise the issue that the key factor of holding down costs is not being attended to under the current system because there are no determinations as to what is affected. The article points out that the obvious first step is figuring out what actually works. It cites a number of approaches for dealing with prostate cancer, varying from a few thousand dollars to $23,000, to $50,000 to $100,000. It notes that drug and device makers have no reason to finance such trials because insurers now pay for expensive treatments, even if they aren't effective. The article notes that the selection customarily made is the one which is the most effective. I have talked to Senator Baucus and Senator Dodd and have written to them concerning my suggestion in this field. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the New York Times article be printed in the Record, together with my letters to Senator Baucus, Senator Dodd, and Senator Kennedy.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is my view that this is a critical and arguably indispensable item to be taken up in this comprehensive health care reform--and certainly weighs heavily on my mind--and that is to fund the National Institutes of Health at the $30 billion currently as the base, plus the $10 billion in the stimulus package, for a base of $40 billion. The results from medical research have been phenomenal, with decreases in fatality to stroke, breast cancer, and many other of the health maladies. Then, to combine that with legislation which I have introduced, S. 914, the Cures Acceleration Network, which addresses the issue taken up by The New York Times, and that is to make a determination of what actually works. There has been identified a so-called ``valley of death'' between the bench and clinical research and the bedside and application of the research. The pharmaceutical companies do not take up this issue because of the cost. This is something which ought to be taken up by the Federal Government as the dominant funder for the National Institutes of Health. So should the comprehensive health care include this issue to address, in a meaningful way, the very high costs of medical care? Certainly, if the tests make a determination that the less-expensive items are the ones which ought to be followed, that could meet the Federal standard and that could prevail.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, moving to yet another subject, there is a major miscarriage of justice currently being perpetrated on the victims of the Holocaust and their survivors. The Washington Post, 2 weeks ago Sunday, on June 28, pointed out that Holocaust survivors and their heirs are battling museums and governments for the return of thousands of pieces of looted art, despite pledges made by dozens of countries and Washington a decade ago to resolve the claims. At a major conference underway in Prague, delegates from 49 countries acknowledged that Jews continue to be stymied in their efforts to reclaim art that was stolen by the Nazis and later transferred to museums and galleries around the world, especially in Europe. An estimated 100,000 artworks, from invaluable masterpieces to items of mostly sentimental value, remain lost or beyond legal research of their victimized owners and descendants. Stuart Eizenstat, head of the U.S. delegation to the conference said: This is one of our last chances to inject a new sense of justice into this issue before it's too late for Holocaust victims. The article goes on to point out that: In December 1998, after many world-famous museums were found to have Nazi-tainted art in their collections, representatives from 44 countries met in Washington and endorsed guidelines for investigating claims of stolen items and returning them to their rightful owners. Notwithstanding that international determination, the program has not been carried out. The article goes on to cite the case involving Mr. Michael Klepetar, a real estate project manager from Prague, who has been trying for 9 years to persuade the Czech National Gallery to relinquish 43 paintings that once belonged to his great uncle, Richard Popper, a prominent collector who was deported to Poland and perished in the Jewish ghetto in the city of Lodz. Popper's wife and daughter also died in the Nazi camps. The National Gallery in Czechoslovakia has refused to part with the paintings, citing a law adopted in 2000 by the Czech Government that entitles only Holocaust victims or their ``direct descendants'' to file claims for the property. The Ministry of Culture in Czechoslovakia has classified 13 of the looted artworks as ``cultural treasures,'' a designation that prevents them from being taken out of the country. Mr. Klepetar went on to point out the salient underlying factor: This country-- Referring to Czechoslovakia-- like most of the region, has always been anti-semitic through the centuries. The only difference now is that it's not politically correct. That's the root of the whole problem. I am writing today to Secretary of State Clinton asking her to use the persuasive power of the Department of State to rectify this problem. I am also writing to the State Department legal counselor, inquiring about what enforcement action might be taken in international legal tribunals to rectify this situation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Post article, and the copies of my letters to Secretary Clinton and the State Department legal adviser be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have been asked by the leader to propound a unanimous consent request as follows: That the order of July 7 be modified to provide that after the Senate resumes H.R. 2892, the time until 10:55 a.m. be for debate with respect to the Sessions amendment No. 1371 and all other provisions of the July 7 order remain in effect.

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 have sought recognition to comment briefly on the pending nomination of Judge Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. I have made it a practice to write to nominees in advance of the hearings in order to give advance notice to the nominee so that the nominee will be in a position to respond to questions raised without going back to read cases or consider the issues and facilitate the proceeding. I commented to Judge Sotomayor, when she had the so-called courtesy call with me, that I would be doing that. In a letter dated June 15, I wrote her and commented about it in a floor statement, discussing in some detail the qualifications of Judge Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. To briefly recapitulate, I noted in my earlier floor statement her excellent academic record and highest rankings in Princeton undergraduate and Yale Law School, her work as an assistant district attorney, her professional experience with a major law firm, her tenure on the Federal trial court, and her current tenure on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Today, I am writing to Judge Sotomayor to give her advance notice that I will be inquiring into her views on televising the Supreme Court. I have long advocated televising the proceedings of the Supreme Court and have introduced legislation to require that, subject to a decision by the Court on a particular case if they thought the Court ought not to be televised. I think the analogy is very apt to televising proceedings of the Senate or the House of Representatives so that the public may be informed as to what is going on with these public matters. The arguments in the Supreme Court are open to the public. Only a very few people have an opportunity to see them. First, it is not easy to come to Washington and, second, there are so many people who do come to Washington, but they are only allowed to be in there but a few minutes. With the marvel of television, this proceeding appears in the homes of many Americans on C-SPAN2, the House is televised on C-SPAN1, and many of our hearings are similarly televised. That is a great educational tool, and also it shows what is going on. The Supreme Court of the United States, in a 1980 decision, Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, noted that a public trial belongs not just to the accused but to the public and the press as well. The Supreme Court noted that such openness has ``long been recognized as an indisputable attribute of an Anglo-American trial.'' Chief Justice William Howard Taft put the issue into perspective, stating: Nothing tends more to render judges careful in their decisions and anxiously solicitous to do exact justice than the consciousness that every act of theirs is subject to the intelligent scrutiny of their fellow men and to candid criticism. In the same vein, Justice Felix Frankfurter said: If the news media would cover the Supreme Court as thoroughly as it did the World Series, it would be very important since ``public confidence in the judiciary hinges on the public's perception of it.'' The term ``press'' used in Richmond Newspapers would comprehend television in modern days. And certainly Justice Frankfurter's use of the term ``media'' would comprehend television as well. It is worth noting that Justices have frequently appeared on television. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Stevens appeared on ``Prime Time,'' ABC TV. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's interview on CBS by Mike Wallace was televised. Justice Breyer participated in Fox News Sunday and a debate between Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer was filmed and available for viewing on the Web. There is no doubt of the enormous public interest in what the Supreme Court does. When the case of Bush v. Gore was decided, the block surrounding the Supreme Court Chamber, just across the green from the Senate, was loaded with television trucks. Although the cameras could not get inside, there was tremendous public concern. The decisions of the Court are on all of the cutting edge issues of the day. The Court decides executive power, congressional power, defendants' rights, habeas corpus, Guantanamo, civil rights, voting rights, affirmative action, abortion, and the list could go on and on. In both the 109th and 110th Congresses, I introduced legislation calling for the Court to be televised. Twice it was reported favorably out of committee, but neither time did it reach the floor of the Senate. I intend to reintroduce the legislation and I intend to pursue it. A number of Justices have commented about television. Justice Stevens said he favors televising the Supreme Court. He thinks, as he put it, ``it is worth a try.'' Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she would support television and cameras as long as it was gavel to gavel. Justice Alito, in his Senate confirmation hearing, noted that when he was on the Third Circuit, he voted in favor of televising the proceedings, but had a reservation, saying if confirmed, he would want to consult with his colleagues about it. Justice Kennedy has said that he thinks televising the Court is inevitable. Chief Justice Roberts left the question open. There is an obvious sensitivity in the Court if a colleague strenuously objects, and such a vociferous objection has been lodged by Justice Souter, who was quoted as saying, ``I can tell you the day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it is going to roll over my dead body.'' That is quite a dramatic statement. Justice Souter has announced his retirement. Perhaps in the absence of that strenuous objection, it is a good time for the Court to reconsider the issue. I intend to ask Judge Sotomayor in her confirmation hearing whether she agrees with Justice Stevens that televising the Supreme Court is worth a try, whether she agrees with Justice Breyer that televising judicial proceedings is a valuable teaching device, whether she agrees with Justice Kennedy that televising the Court is inevitable. She can shed some light on the issue, because her courtroom was part of a pilot program where it was televised. There was a program from 1991 through 1994, where the Judicial Conference evaluated a pilot program conducted in six Federal district courts and 2 Federal circuits, and they found: Overall, attitudes of judges toward electronic media coverage of civil proceedings were initially neutral and became more favorable after experience under the pilot program. The Judicial Center also stated: Judges and attorneys who had experience with electronic media coverage under the program generally reported observing small or no effects of camera presence on participants in the proceedings, courtroom decorum, or the administration of justice. I think that is a very solid step forth from some of the Justices who have expressed concern that the dynamics of the Court would be changed. With the ability to put a camera in a concealed position and the findings of the Judicial Center that is a solid argument in favor of proceeding and, to repeat, I will continue to press the issue; and the confirmation proceedings of Judge Sotomayor will be a good opportunity to ask her about her experience when she presided over the trial under the pilot program, and to further develop the issue and perhaps stimulate some more public interest. I commend to the attention of my colleagues the report of the Judiciary Committee on the legislation I had introduced in the 110th Congress. I cite Calendar No. 907, Senate Report 110-448 to Accompany S. 344, ``A Bill to Permit the Televising of Supreme Court Proceedings.'' It is lengthy, but I think it has a good summary to supplement the remarks that I have made to acquaint the public with the issue and the importance of it.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I compliment the President for his decision to send an Ambassador back to Syria. I am a firm believer in dialog. I believe that even though we may have some substantial questions about Syria's activities and Syria's conduct, we ought to continue the dialog. I believe in the famous maxim that you make peace with your enemies and not your friends. The derivative of that would be to talk to people who may be adversaries--not that I necessarily put Syria in an adversarial position, and I certainly wouldn't characterize them as an enemy. But the Ambassador was withdrawn 4 years ago as a protest to the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The Security Council of the United Nations adopted a resolution on April 7, 2005, to establish an independent international investigating commission to inquire into all aspects of the terrorist attack killing Prime Minister Hariri. That tribunal has faced considerable obstacles, but it is still in operation, and I think its report would be very important in making a determination as to who was responsible for the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri and whether Syrian officials were implicated in any way. I do believe and have believed for a long time that Syria could be the key to advancing the peace process in the Mideast. In connection with my duties as chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the 104th Congress and my work on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee during my tenure in the Senate, I have traveled extensively abroad and have concentrated on the situation in the Mideast. In connection with those travels, I have visited Syria 18 times and have studied the Syrian Government. I have gotten to know former President Hafez al-Asad, current President Bashar al-Asad, Foreign Minister Walid Mualem, who for 10 years was Ambassador to the United States and now is Foreign Minister. It has long been my view that a dialog with Syria is very important. In December of 1988, I had my first meeting with Syrian President Hafez al-Asad, a meeting which lasted 4 hours 35 minutes. During the course of that meeting--President Hafez al-Asad was noted for his long meetings--we discussed virtually every problem of the world and every problem of the Mideast. It seemed to me from that meeting that President Asad was open to conversation. I have had many similar meetings with him. I was the only Member of Congress to attend his funeral in the summer of 2000. At that time, I met his successor, President Bashar al-Asad, and have gotten to know him, with meetings virtually every year in the intervening time. There have been back-channel negotiations conducted through Turkish intervention between Israel and Syria, and I think dialog between the United States and Syria could promote future discussions between Syria and Israel. It would be my hope that the day would be sooner rather than later when Syria would be willing to talk to Israel directly. The Israeli officials, the Prime Ministers, have repeatedly stated their interest in direct conversations. Syria has resisted but has undertaken conversations through back channels. President Clinton came very close to effectuating--or made a lot of progress toward an agreement is perhaps more accurate to say--in 1995 when Prime Minister Rabin was in charge of Israel. In the year 2000, again, there was substantial progress made by President Clinton on those efforts. The back-channel communications brokered by Turkey suggest the time is right for promoting that kind of an effort. Only Israel can make a determination as to whether Israel wants to give up the Golan Heights, which is key to having the peace talks proceed. But it is a very different world today in the era of rockets than it was in 1967 when Israel captured the Golan Heights. Syria, obviously, wants the Golan back as a matter of national pride. Former Secretary of State Kissinger told me that he found President Hafez al-Asad to keep his word on the negotiations for the disengagement in 1974, so that, obviously, any arrangements would have to be very carefully negotiated under President Reagan's famous dictum of ``trust but verify.'' It seems to me now is a good time to promote that dialog. The advantages would be if Lebanon could be stabilized. It is an ongoing question to the extent Syria is destabilizing Lebanon. The Syrian officials deny it. There is no doubt that Syria supports Hezbollah and Hamas, so that Israel could gain considerably if the weapons to Hamas were cut off and attacks from the south and Hezbollah were not a threat from the north. The sending of an Ambassador is a very positive sign, a positive sign that Envoy former-Senator George Mitchell was visiting. I think this bodes well. The article I wrote in the Washington Quarterly some time ago sets forth in some greater detail my views on the issue of dialog. I note my colleague has come to the floor, so I will conclude my statement and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Bingaman, I ask unanimous consent that Caroline McNeill, Sierra Spence, Nathan Keffer, and Stephanie Louis be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate on the nomination of Dean Koh to be Legal Adviser to the State Department.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak on behalf of Dean Harold Koh, dean of the Yale Law School, for confirmation to the position of Legal Adviser to the Department of State. I know Dean Koh personally. I have known him for more than a decade while he has taught at Yale and been the dean of the Yale Law School. He spoke at a class reunion. I was in the Yale Law School class of 1956 and hosted a reunion here in the Capitol on June 6, 2008. He was greeted by a number of prominent Members of the Senate at that time. I make these comments about my personal association with him in the interest of full disclosure, but the thrust of my recommendation is based upon his extraordinary record. Harold Koh graduated from Harvard College, also Harvard Law School. He graduated Harvard College summa cum laude in 1975. He was Marshall Scholar at Oxford University, where he got a master's degree in 1977. He graduated cum laude from the Harvard Law School in 1980, where he was developments editor of the Harvard Law Review. He then clerked for Judge Richard Wilkey in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, then for Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun. He then worked as a lawyer with the distinguished Washington firm Covington & Burling and then as Attorney-Adviser in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel. He then served in the Clinton administration as Assistant Secretary of State, was unanimously confirmed by the Senate, and served there from 1998 to 2001 when he returned to the Yale Law School, becoming its dean some 5 years ago. He comes from a very distinguished family. His father was the first Korean lawyer to study in the United States. He attended Harvard Law in 1949. He was then counsel for--the father, that is--for the first Korean democratic government. When a military coup occurred, he left that position. He was the first Korean to teach at the Yale Law School in 1969. Dean Koh has an extraordinary record. His curriculum vitae fills 8 pages of very small print. He has a long list of honorary degrees. He received a number of medals. His list of honors and awards goes on virtually indefinitely; his publications, books, and monographs occupy six and a half pages; his selected legal activities, another half a page; lectures that he performed, many; teaching activities, voluminous; boards of editors, professional affiliations, presentations, workshops, boards, bars, member of the bars with which he is associated. I ask unanimous consent to have this full text printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.