Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Okay.

Mr. SPECTER. Then I would give 20 minutes to Senator Cornyn.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I begin today as I began my opening statement on the confirmation hearing of Mr. Holder as Attorney General-designate. I begin today with the statement that I wish to be helpful to President Obama in his new administration and to reach across in a bipartisan fashion to help the President restructure the Department of Justice. In so doing, the beginning point of reference is the Constitution, which places upon the Senate the responsibility to confirm. That involves, under the principles of checks and balances, inquiry into the nominee, which has been undertaken in the Judiciary Committee. There is a sharp distinction between the Attorney General and other Cabinet officers. Other Cabinet officers carry out the President's programs and his policies. But the Attorney General has an independent responsibility to the people to uphold the rule of law. That is a very important quality. We have seen, historically, some Attorneys General who have succeeded admirably in that responsibility. Elliot Richardson, for example, refused to fire Archibald Cox at the direction of President Nixon on the infamous Saturday Night Massacre. Richardson himself resigned. Griffin Bell, Attorney General for President Carter, stood up to the President, who wanted him to initiate a certain criminal prosecution that Attorney General Bell thought was inappropriate, and he laid down the marker: If the President wanted that prosecution brought, he would have to find himself a new Attorney General. Other Attorneys General have not fared so well. Attorney General Daugherty of the Teapot Dome fame was sharply criticized in that scandal, although later he was personally exonerated. Attorney General Homer Cummings in the Roosevelt administration, author of the so-called court-packing plan, did not display the kind of independence that was requisite. And I expressed my own concerns about Mr. Holder on a series of matters he handled as Deputy Attorney General. Beyond any question, Mr. Holder brings an extraordinary resume to this position, an excellent academic record, including Columbia for his undergraduate degree and law school; he served as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia; he was a District of Columbia Superior Court judge; he served as a Deputy Attorney General and as a partner in a prestigious law firm handling many important matters. One recommendation in favor of his nomination I found particularly weighty was the recommendation of former FBI Director Louis Freeh. I have a very high regard for former Director Freeh. I knew him and worked closely with him on the Judiciary Committee on FBI matters and especially closely during the 104th Congress when I chaired the Intelligence Committee. Director Freeh was sharply critical of Mr. Holder on a number of items that were concerns of mine. Notwithstanding that, Director Freeh recommended Mr. Holder for the job. There is the infamous case of the Marc Rich pardon. He was a man who was a fugitive from justice, a man who had violated the Federal law, selling arms to Iran. Yet he was given a pardon out of the ordinary, without going through regular channels. That was a pardon to be rejected by any standard, in my opinion. Mr. Freeh characterized the pardon as corrupt. I cannot be any stronger than that. The corrupt act was in granting the pardon, not in Mr. Holder's recommendation of ``neutral, leaning favorable.'' But that was beyond the realm of what would ordinarily be considered prudent and independent. Mr. Freeh was also critical of Mr. Holder on the FALN terrorist commutation of sentences. The FALN terrorists robbed banks and committed murders and were released from jail on the recommendation of Mr. Holder. There again, Mr. Freeh was very critical. Nonetheless, he recommended Mr. Holder for Attorney General. The failure to appoint independent counsel in the investigation into Vice President Gore for an alleged violation of campaign finance laws, raising money from the White House--Director Freeh characterized it as one of the strongest possible grounds for appointing independent counsel, and the Department of Justice, with Mr. Holder's participation, declined to do so. Still, Mr. Freeh recommended the confirmation of Mr. Holder. Also, there is the strong recommendation of former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, a man whom I also worked with in the Department of Justice, which was weighty, as was the strong recommendation of former Secretary of Transportation William Coleman. So with all of those factors considered, it seemed to me that Mr. Holder was entitled to the benefit of the doubt and President Obama's nominee ought to be confirmed. It was for that reason that I voted aye in recommending Mr. Holder for action by the full Senate. I think, too, at the beginning of an administration it is significant to have bipartisan support. I commented at the committee level that when Senator Leahy or his ranking member supported the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts, that was a signal of bipartisan support, which was important and another factor that weighed in my consideration. I had discussed with Mr. Holder the issue of how to handle possible prosecutions against individuals who may have been engaged in waterboarding, where that question has been raised in some quarters. Mr. Holder went about as far as he could, saying that if there is a valid legal opinion and there is action within the confines of the opinion, that would weigh heavily against prosecution. Obviously, all of these matters are very much fact-determinative. I think those assurances go about as far as one can go. I also questioned Mr. Holder about the recognition of the differences in interrogation techniques of the Army Field Manual, contrasted with that of the FBI, which is stronger, and then again contrasted with the CIA, which may be a little stronger yet, and that all of those factors had to be considered in evaluating the interrogation tactics, depending upon the rule and the circumstances. I expressed my concerns to Mr. Holder about the Department of Justice policy on extracting really what amounts to coercion of a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, where the Department goes in and deals with the corporation and secures a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, subjecting employees to losing their privilege, in the context where the Department threatens more severe charges or stronger recommendation on sentencing. This practice began with the Holder Memo in 1999 and was carried through in the so-called Thompson Memo and then the McNulty Memo, and legislation is pending which would change that. In my view, there are two very basic principles involved. One is the obligation of the commonwealth government to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and, secondly, the right to counsel. An indispensable ingredient of right to counsel is a privilege, to be able to communicate freely to an attorney. When I was district attorney of Philadelphia, handling very complex, tough prosecutions, many involving governmental corruption, I would never have dreamed of trying to prove my case out of the mouth of the defendant. I believe Mr. Holder will look at this with a conciliatory attitude as we work on that legislation through the Congress. I also talked to Mr. Holder about the issue of reporters' privilege. Judith Miller of the New York Times spent 85 days in jail--I visited her in a jail in Virginia--for failing to disclose confidential informants when the source of the information was known. Mr. Holder also acknowledged the extensive authority of the Congress under standards defined in the congressional research memorandum, which I provided to him, and gave assurances that he would be available to talk to the minority as well as to the majority on matters of concern. For all these reasons, I am pleased to move ahead at this time to lend my support to the confirmation of Attorney General-designate Eric Holder.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are due to vote at 6:15. I believe everybody has spoken for Mr. Holder who chooses, so I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to use the remaining time to talk about the stimulus package.

Mr. SPECTER. Well, unless--

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, if I could have the attention of the chairman.

Mr. SPECTER. I wish to yield 20 minutes to Senator Cornyn at the conclusion, but do we have an idea as to how long, or when that will be?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, later this evening, we are going to be moving ahead to discuss the stimulus package, and I want to use a few moments now to express my views on the subject. There is no doubt about the need for stimulating the U.S. economy. January figures show 7.2 percent unemployed, 2.8 million jobs lost last year, more layoffs all the time, and more foreclosures. It is my hope that there will be a very strong stimulus package which is directed at putting people to work. The proposals which have come from the House bill are laudable and in many respects are measures which I have long supported. But on analysis, it seems to me they belong more directly in a budget program where we have targets for spending--discretionary spending--making an evaluation of priorities and moving in that direction. But when the American people are being asked to support a stimulus program of more than $800 billion, which is deficit financing, the programs ought to be directed at job opportunities. Mr. President, I ask my distinguished colleague, the chairman, if nobody wants his time, if I might use 5 minutes of it.

Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, 2 minutes won't do me any good. The chairman wants his time; he has it.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I voted against the Hatch amendment for the following reasons. This amendment sought to codify in law a legal concept of unborn children, therefore establishing the fetus as protected separately from the mother. The need to provide health care coverage for expectant mothers is clear and the State Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization being considered allows States to provide coverage to pregnant mothers. While I support the policy of providing health coverage to pregnant mothers in the pending legislation, this amendment is an effort to advance a political cause rather than provide a medical necessity. This amendment has no practical effect in terms of health care coverage for pregnant women.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to voice my support for the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. In voicing my support, I must note that the bipartisan support that accompanied the drafting of this bill's predecessor in the 110th Congress was absent in this bill's introduction in the 111th Congress. The legislation was revised without working across the aisle, which has resulted in a bill that is not as widely supported as its predecessor. Children's health is the wrong issue on which to push partisan politics. When we last debated the Children's Health Insurance Program in the 110th Congress, I was proud to lend my support to what I believe was a good, bipartisan bill. I voted in favor of the legislation twice, on August 2, 2007 and again on September 25, 2007. I was very disappointed in President Bush's veto of the legislation resulting in the delay of critical access to health care for millions of children. This important legislation will revise and expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, enabling it to provide access to medical coverage to an additional 5.5 million children whose parents earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private health insurance. Nationwide, 7 million children are currently enrolled in SCHIP, including 183,981 in Pennsylvania. The reauthorized bill will provide an estimated 4.1 million children with access to health care coverage. To achieve that increase, the bill extends coverage to children in families with an annual income at or below 300 percent of the poverty level, or $66,150 for a family of four. The triple-the-poverty-level rate would bring the Nation in line with Pennsylvania's current plan. It is imperative that we take steps to ensure health care coverage for our most important resource, our children. In a January 12, 2009, column in The Washington Post, E.J. Dionne wrote, ``[S]tates have enacted budget cuts that will leave some 275,000 people without health coverage . . . By the end of this year, if further proposed [State budget] cuts go through, the number losing health coverage nationwide could rise to more than 1 million, almost half of them children.'' Congress can, and should, act to make sure children's health care does not suffer as a result of the economic downturn. Throughout my time in the Senate, I have consistently supported providing quality health care to children, including prenatal care. To improve pregnancy outcomes for women at risk of delivering babies of low birth weight and reduce infant mortality and the incidence of low-birth- weight births, I initiated action that led to the creation of the Healthy Start program in 1991. Working with the first Bush administration and Senator Harkin, as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee, we allocated $25 million in 1991 for the development of 15 demonstration projects. For fiscal year 2008, we secured $99.7 million for 96 projects in this vital program. Health care initiatives like the Healthy Start program and the Children's Health Insurance Program are key to improving the health and well-being of children in this country. The health care work of the 111th Congress will not be complete with just the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. This legislation will address the needs of some of the most vulnerable children, but Congress must act in a bipartisan fashion to address health reform so that all of America's 47 million uninsured have access to adequate health care.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I also wish to discuss the precarious state of our United States economy, which is facing one of the most dire economic crises in history. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I understand that it is imperative that the Federal Government use all means at its disposal to address these problems. It is critical as we move forward that the Appropriations Committee and the Senate focus on spending our Nation's dollars on worthwhile projects, which both benefit the American people on their merits and will also lead to an increase in jobs. To this end, I wish to highlight a few projects in my home State of Pennsylvania which appear to have significant potential to stimulate economic investment, as well as return our unemployed workers to the workforce. The fastest way to put people to work on transportation infrastructure projects is to finance highway repairs. These repairs support construction jobs that can start immediately. Additionally, infrastructure repairs ensure an acceptable level of safety and reliability on existing highway networks, which is critical in a State like Pennsylvania that has 6,000 structurally-deficient bridges. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Pennsylvania could obligate $1.5 billion on 313 shovel-ready highway repair projects. These projects all focus on Pennsylvania's bridge deficiencies, pavement needs and safety concerns, as well as create jobs and achieve meaningful infrastructure improvements. Additionally, all of the highway infrastructure repairs can be put out to bid within 6 months, with construction starting shortly thereafter. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation has also provided me with a list of 147 public transportation projects totaling $700 million that, according to transit agencies around the State, are ready to begin. The projects include replacing catenary pole involved in electrified train service, station improvements, alternative fuel bus purchases and intermodal centers. The Port of Pittsburgh Commission in Pennsylvania has identified over $580 million in shovel-ready project work that could be started in 6 months, of which $430 million could be completed in 2 years and the remaining $150 million could be completed in 3 years. The largest share of that money would be applied to the Lower Monongahela Improvement Project for Locks and Dams 2-3-4, a project 5 years behind the original completion date of 2004. Without investment from the economic stimulus, the project will not otherwise be completed until the 2019-2022 period. Stimulus funding could result in a working, reliable chamber, a major improvement over the current schedule. Funding can also be provided for emergency repairs to Emsworth Dam. These projects would add or preserve tens of thousands of high- skilled, high-paying jobs for the southwest Pennsylvania region, including permanent employees at facilities that depend on river transportation, such as U.S. Steel's Clairton Coke Works, ArcelorMital's Coke Works, Eastman Materials, Welland Chemical, Kinder Morgan, Ashland Petroleum, Consol Energy and the Elrama Power Plant. Previous delays have resulted in increasing costs, interruptions to service and benefits foregone. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers calculates that the region has already lost over $1.2 billion in benefits that can never be recuperated. Health care is one of the largest drivers of our economy and a worthwhile investment in the physical and economic health of the country. In 2002, the Northeastern Pennsylvania Medical Education Development Consortium was formed to explore the feasibility of locating a new medical college in northeastern Pennsylvania. A 2006 feasibility study made the need for a medical school clear. This region of Pennsylvania has shortages of physicians in many specialties and over one-third of the practicing physicians are expected to retire in the next decade. To address this critical need, the Commonwealth Medical College is scheduled to open in 2009 and has already received investments of $35 million from the Pennsylvania Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program and $25 million from Blue Cross of Northeastern Pennsylvania, as well as State, Federal, and private philanthropic sources. Additional funding will be used to support construction of the college, which will attract medical and biomedical research to northeastern Pennsylvania, improving the local and regional economy, as well as the health of the population. Over the next 20 years, the Commonwealth Medical College is expected to greatly increase the number of physicians in the area, add $70 million to the local economy and create 1,000 jobs. This project also has national implications, as the research conducted there will focus on healthcare conditions affecting the aging population, including research on cardiovascular disease and diabetes. There are numerous higher education projects throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which exemplify the types of activities that this country should target as it searches for an effective means to stimulate the economy. These meritorious projects provide necessary infrastructure improvements to many colleges and universities in my home State, while at the same time creating a myriad of new jobs and stimulating the economy. It is my understanding that all of these projects are ready for construction within 6 months or sooner. Specifically, the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, which represents 14 public universities in my home State, provided me with a list of 47 projects totaling $445 million. These programs focus on new building construction, renovations to existing buildings and energy conservation measures. The Pennsylvania Commission for Community Colleges, which represents the 14 community colleges throughout Pennsylvania, also provided me with a list of 34 projects totaling $128 million. Selected projects include building renovation and construction, public safety programs, infrastructure repairs and upgrades, and new resources for education and training. In regard to the private colleges and universities in Pennsylvania, the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Pennsylvania, which represents 86 private institutions, provided me with a list of 42 projects totaling $385 million. Many of these projects focus on the construction of new academic buildings, the renovation and expansion of training facilities and improvements to existing infrastructure. In many cities and small towns in Pennsylvania aging sewer pipes and treatment plants are malfunctioning, leading to sewage contamination of local freshwater. In many areas across Pennsylvania, and the country, water infrastructure is 50, 60 years old or much older. Throughout Pennsylvania the need for funding is great, because without it many of my constituents, a significant number of whom are retired and on a fixed income, are facing sewer rate increases of up to 100 percent. An investment in water infrastructure is a wise one, as it will lead to construction jobs in areas where jobs are often hard to come by, while relieving a significant financial burden on residents. In western Pennsylvania, the Allegheny County Sanitary Authority, which services communities in and around Pittsburgh, is assisting municipalities in that region seeking to meet clean water compliance standards. Currently, the Pittsburgh region is facing its largest and most costly public works project thus far, the rehabilitation and long- term maintenance of 4,000 miles of sewers that serve nearly one million residents in the area. Additionally, in central Pennsylvania, the Borough of Philipsburg's outdated storm and wastewater collection system overflows during periods of heavy rain. The cost of modernizing this sewer system is significant, but it is necessary. While these are just two examples of water and sewer projects in Pennsylvania, an investment in wastewater infrastructure would create construction jobs, and ease the financial burden on the residents in many economically disadvantaged regions of Pennsylvania. The Environmental Protection Agency's Brownfields Remediation Grant Program provides funding for private developers to take real property business sites with environmental concerns and clean them up in order to redevelop. Redeveloping this land creates space for new businesses-- with new jobs--to expand in areas that might not otherwise be available. Pennsylvania alone has an estimated 150,000 acres of brownfields with great potential for re-use. Brownfields cleanups create jobs not only through the workers needed to do the cleanups themselves, but subsequently with the new businesses that occupy the property. I recently met with a developer in Pennsylvania who is prepared to immediately undertake cleanup projects totaling $283 million in my home State. Combined, his projects could create an estimated 322,225 new jobs in Pennsylvania. For every $1 invested into brownfields cleanups, an estimated $15-20 are immediately returned to the economy in the form of job creation and State and Federal tax revenue. Jobs created by brownfields cleanups-- both before and after--are taken by locally available workers, stimulating local economies. This is exactly the result we should be requiring from every program in the stimulus package. These projects include cleanups in Bensalem, King of Prussia, Lehman Township, Bridgeport, Frazer, Norristown, Malvern, Limerick, Conshohocken, West Norriton, and Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. These are all areas in Pennsylvania that could certainly use targeted economic development. I understand that there is a question over how fast this money can be spent, and I agree that money from the stimulus be put to use as soon as possible after passage of the bill. However, the developers with whom I have spoken have all assured me that brownfields funding can be used within the 120 day benchmark to determine shovel- ready projects. Programs, such as this one, should be the focus of the stimulus. I recently met with a group of Pennsylvania State Senators and Representatives who expressed their concern over cleanup efforts in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, a large watershed which covers much of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia. Cleanup efforts from agricultural runoff and other environmental impacts can be expensive. The Watershed Rehabilitation Program can mediate some of the enormous costs to individual landowners--often small business farmers--who are tasked with the cleanup of their own property. These cleanup efforts will require labor--stimulating the workforce while simultaneously making our environment a cleaner place for our children and grandchildren. Military construction projects funded through the stimulus must be identified as priorities by military leadership and be at or near design completion so that construction can be started in short order. These projects must help modernize our military support structure and defense capabilities. The following projects are both shovel-ready and of vital importance to the State, the military and the Nation. The End Item Shipping and Receiving Facility at Letterkenny Army Depot is a perfect example of a shovel ready project that will create construction work for Pennsylvanians and will enhance Letterkenny's capability to support the movement of military equipment. The identified site is on Federal land, close to utilities, next to rail and ground transportation and in the depot industrial area. Design is complete and Congress authorized $7.5 million for the facility in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 2007--P.L. 109-365. Regrettably, this valuable project failed to move forward and additional funding is needed to complete the project at this time. Another vital military construction project is the Hermitage Readiness Center, in Hermitage, PA. When complete, the facility will support 128 Pennsylvania Army National Guard members who are currently housed in substandard and undersized buildings. This project is a high priority for the Pennsylvania Adjutant General, as land has been acquired and the design is 99 percent complete. I am told that construction could be started within 3 months, creating construction jobs almost immediately. A third military construction project is the Combined Surface Maintenance Shop at the Fort Indiantown Gap Vehicle Paint Prep Facility in Annville, PA. This facility will reduce hazardous waste associated with paint operations, create safer working conditions, increase productivity and reduce costs. I understand that land and environmental reviews are complete and the design is 75-percent complete, allowing for construction within 3 or 4 months, were funds to be made available. Vital funding in the economic stimulus bill will allow us to improve the care we provide to our veterans. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, necessary improvements to the Southeastern Veterans' Center in Spring City, PA, could commence with $17 million in Federal funding. A new long term health care facility would replace the ten substandard modular units currently on the premises of the Southeastern Veterans' Center. This proposed project will include the construction, furnishing and equipping of a multi-story facility with the capacity to provide skilled nursing care and dementia care for 120 residents. Further, this project will provide appropriate housing for the veterans and will enable the Southeastern Veterans' Center to entirely vacate the substandard modular units, while reducing costly maintenance. In addition to major construction projects, I understand that Pennsylvania has nearly $119 million in non-recurring maintenance and minor construction projects that are needed and could be completed in Fiscal Year 2009 were funds made available at this time. The importance of these smaller projects should not be ignored, as many of them hold the potential to impact positively the lives of our veterans in short order. Providing funds in the economic stimulus package for construction and maintenance projects at national parks could have a stimulating affect on the economy and put people to work. Among the projects in Pennsylvania that could benefit from economic stimulus funding is the Flight 93 National Memorial, which will honor the 40 passengers and crewmembers of United Airlines Flight 93 who gave their lives to save countless others on September 11, 2001. I have worked with members of the Pennsylvania delegation to secure funding for this most important project in the annual appropriations bills. However, it is my understanding that an additional $6.2 million is required for the first phase of construction to commence. Additionally, according to the Congressional Research Service, recent estimates suggest that the National Park Service has a deferred maintenance backlog of almost $10 billion. Deferred maintenance projects often include important construction work on buildings, trails, recreation sites and other infrastructure within the parks. For example, according to Gettysburg National Military Park officials, the current maintenance backlog at the park would cost $55 million to complete. In addition, there are deferred maintenance projects at Valley Forge National Historical Park, Independence National Historical Park and the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Park, among others. Funding these projects will not only put people to work, but will go a long way to support the ongoing efforts to preserve, protect and enhance our country's most precious and historically significant national treasures. In conclusion, while I would like to hear further from the administration and other economic experts to give us guidance on addressing the current economic crisis, the projects which I have outlined in Pennsylvania are the kind of expenditures that will provide the most realistic opportunity to stimulate the economy.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss my vote against the nomination of Mr. Timothy F. Geithner to be Secretary of the Treasury. I was originally inclined to support the nomination to enable President Obama to get his team together and begin addressing the economic crisis. As I have said publicly, I want to be supportive of President Obama and I understand the importance of assembling his full economic team to address the critical problems facing our Nation's economy. After considerable thought, I have decided I cannot support this nomination. I have since taken a close look at the circumstances of Mr. Geithner's failure to pay Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes from 2001 to 2004 while an employee at the International Monetary Fund--IMF. Then, I spoke to Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley who provided some additional insight. Based on those factors, I decided to vote against Mr. Geithner. International organizations such as the IMF are exempt from the employer contribution of payroll taxes, so U.S. citizens who work there are required to pay their portion as if they are self-employed. During an IRS audit conducted in 2006, it was discovered that Mr. Geithner failed to pay these taxes and he then paid what was owed for tax years 2003 and 2004. Despite having made the same error in previous years, he did not pay for 2001 and 2002 because the statute of limitations had expired. Only after the non-payment was discovered during the vetting process by the Obama transition team in late-2008 did Mr. Geithner finally pay for tax years 2001 and 2002. Mr. Geithner was paid an extra sum, or tax allowance, by the IMF with the expectation that he would use it to pay the IRS for his payroll tax liabilities. According to remarks by Senator Grassley at Mr. Geithner's confirmation hearing, ``Furthermore, the nominee received a tax allowance from the IMF to pay the difference between the `self- employed' and `employed' obligations of his Social Security tax.'' At his confirmation hearing, Mr. Geithner acknowledged receiving various documents detailing his obligations as an American employee at the IMF. The IMF provides its employees with a tax manual at the time they are hired that includes information describing how to pay self-employment taxes. Page 2 of the document states, ``U.S. citizens who are staff members are required to pay U.S. tax are entitled to receive tax allowances.'' Page 12 of the document states, ``Employees of international organizations are considered self-employed for purposes of social security taxes. As such, they must pay both the employer's and the employee's share of social security taxes. The Fund gives you a tax allowance for the employer's share of social security taxes only. You are responsible for the employee's portion of this tax.'' Mr. Geithner signed a document each year in order to receive this extra tax allowance. At the end of the tax allowance form are the words, ``I hereby certify that all the information contained herein is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I will pay the taxes for which I have received tax allowance payments from the Fund.'' Also, the IMF provides its employees with detailed statements of their liabilities. These errors set a bad example for other taxpayers when the Government seeks to collect back taxes. We can be assured that the precedent set by Mr. Geithner's neglect will be cited repeatedly by future offenders. Mr. Geithner's conduct would be problemsome on the confirmation of any high-level officers, but especially so for Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary has within his jurisdiction the Internal Revenue Service which is responsible for collecting taxes. With the full Senate confirming Mr. Geithner, it is a virtual certainty that other taxpayers will cite his situation as a reason or excuse for their not having paid taxes. If the issue of failure to pay taxes goes to court in either civil or criminal proceedings, it will be an obvious defense or argument by defense counsel in mitigation or defense. President Obama has placed ethics reform as a top priority for his administration. In his inaugural address, he said, ``Those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.'' That is the appropriate tone to set an example, especially for young people, where in the past election there has been a resurgence of interest in voting and government. We ought to do everything we can to maintain that interest and momentum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I object.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 26.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment provides that: Nothing in this Act or any amendment by the act shall be construed to prohibit a party from asserting a defense based on waiver of a right, or an estoppel or laches doctrine. This amendment goes to the issue of giving the employers a fair opportunity for offering a defense. I have long supported equal pay for women. I have long supported breaking the glass ceiling as a matter of equitable fairness. In my book, ``Passion For Truth,'' I wrote almost a decade ago: The majority in a democracy can take care of itself while individuals and minorities often cannot. Moreover, our history has demonstrated that the majority benefits when equality helps minorities become part of the majority. Last Congress I cosponsored two bills dealing with equal pay. I cosponsored the Fair Pay Restoration Act with Senator Kennedy and the title VII Fairness Act with Senator Hutchison. Earlier today I voted with Senator Hutchison, which would have started the tolling of the statute of limitations when the employee knew or should have known. The availability of the defense is very important. What the amendment does is to incorporate the language in the dissent of Justice Ginsburg in the Ledbetter case, where Justice Ginsburg pointed out that: Allowing employees to challenge discrimination that extends over long periods of time into the charge-filing period . . . does not leave employers defenseless against unreasonable or prejudicial delay. Employers disadvantaged by such delay may raise various defenses. Doctrines such as waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling allow us to honor title VII's remedial purpose without negating the particular purpose of the filing requirement, to give prompt notice to the employer. So what we have, essentially, are equitable defenses. If you have waiver, where there is an affirmative act to give up a right, or where you have estoppel or laches, that means the party has waited an unreasonable period of time, so those defenses may be asserted. Now, it is my legal judgment that these defenses would be available without this amendment, but you never can tell what a court will do. One of the objectives of legislation is to cure any potential ambiguity, so it is plain what will happen in court. That is what this amendment does. If I may have the attention of the distinguished senior Senator from Maryland, we had discussed first, if it is agreeable to the Senator from Maryland, who is managing the bill, I compliment her on her outstanding work and again repeat, I cosponsored her bill in the last Congress. I did not do so this year, not that I am opposed to the principle of equal pay, but I tried to work out these matters to make what I consider to be improvements. The question I would ask of the Senator from Maryland, is: Do you believe that the defenses of waiver, estoppel, laches, and equitable tolling are available now or would be available if this bill were enacted, even without such a specific amendment such as I have offered? I raise that question because there has been some discussion that we could have a colloquy. I think it is preferable to having it firmly in the statute. But I begin with the form of a colloquy. Do you agree the defenses of laches, waiver, equitable tolling----

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Certainly.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, after a brief discussion with the distinguished Senator from Maryland and the distinguished majority leader, we decided to go ahead with the debate and a vote on the amendment. At this time, I call up amendment No. 27.

Mr. SPECTER. This amendment would strike the language of ``other practices.'' In the statute, the language reads: ``pay or other practices.'' And this amendment would strike the language ``other practices,'' focusing on the pay. As I said before, I believe there ought to be equal pay for women. The glass ceiling ought to be broken and they ought to be treated fairly and equally. But I am concerned about the language of ``other practices,'' which might well engage and promote an enormous amount of litigation, as to whether ``other practices'' included such items as promotion, hiring, firing, training, tenure, demotion, reassignment, discipline, temporary reassignment or transfer and all those items. That is not intended to be a dispositive list. There could be more items that someone might say ``other practices'' encompass. There have been objections to this legislation, that it is going to promote extensive litigation. I think the best way to approach this issue is to provide equal pay. If somebody wants to include one of those other items, such as promotion or hiring or firing or any of them, I would certainly be willing to consider them in the legislation. But what I would like not to see is the language ``other practices'' with the vagueness and the ambiguity that is present in that kind of language. That is the essence of the argument. In an extensive floor statement, I have set forth my general approach and my reasons for offering these two amendments. I ask unanimous consent that it appear at the conclusion of my extemporaneous remarks.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment strikes the language ``or other practices.'' I believe there ought to be equal pay, and the legislation would provide for equality of pay for women, break the glass ceiling, but would eliminate the surplusage language of ``or other practices'' because it is vague and ambiguous. It could include promotion, demotion, hiring, transfer, tenure, training, layoffs, or many other items. It may be some of these other items ought to be included, and I, for one, would be glad to consider them, but they ought to be specified so we do not have the vague and ambiguous term, ``other practices,'' which would lead to tremendous litigation. Let's be specific, what we are looking for. We are looking for pay. If somebody wants to add something, fine, but ``other practices'' ought not to be part of the legislation which would just stimulate litigation.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment briefly on the nomination of Senator Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State. I believe Senator Clinton brings extraordinary talent and an extraordinary record to this very important position. Her educational and professional background are sterling. I have a little parochial pride at the fact that she is a graduate of the Yale Law School and has carried forward that school's tradition for public service. I got to know Mrs. Clinton first when she was First Lady. Shortly after I had brain surgery, in 1993, I bumped into her at the carriage entrance, coming into the Senate Chamber, and we talked a little bit about my medical experience. She invited me to visit with her in the White House, which I did--as I recollect, on the second floor of the West Wing. I told her of the personal experience I had and also my ideas from serving on the subcommittee of Labor, Health, Human Services and Education for the 13 years that I had been in the Senate. As First Lady, Mrs. Clinton was an activist. The record speaks for itself on all that she undertook. Then, to maintain candidacy for the Senate in New York was very courageous, gutsy, reminiscent of Robert Kennedy leaving the Attorney General's job, going to a State not his home State to seek election to this body. In the Senate she has had an extraordinary record. She was very accomplished here. I had the good fortune to cosponsor a number of matters with her and to work on other matters with her. We most notably, perhaps, cosponsored the legislation of our Public Service Academy; that is, to have an academy such as West Point or Annapolis or the Air Force Academy, where young people interested in public service would go for training in those arts. Then we all know of the phenomenal race she carried on for the Presidency of the United States, coming as close as she did in the historic year we just saw, 2008, with the election of an African American and the ascendancy of a woman into the finals of the Presidential contest. When she was talked about for Secretary of State, I thought it was a 10-strike. I did something that was a first for me, that I had never done before. When I read in the newspaper that she was equivocating as to whether to take the job, I called her with some unsolicited advice. I cannot recall having done that before. If somebody asks for advice, OK, but I called her and urged her to take the job. I urged her to do so because I thought she was an extraordinary fit for it. I think of all of the positions available at the moment--there are some very important positions. I have been delayed coming to the floor where we were having an executive session of the Judiciary Committee on the nomination of Attorney General-designate Holder, a very important position. But no position, aside from the Presidency, is more important than Secretary of State. Perhaps the Attorney General is close, with the heavy responsibilities for national security in the fight against terrorism, the balance with civil liberties, and the very important questions facing the economy with so many fraud cases looming with people misrepresenting balance sheets. But Secretary of State poses the big issues. I have traveled extensively in my term in the Senate in connection with my duties on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of Appropriations and the chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee, which I held in the 104th Congress. I believe there are tremendous opportunities today for an activist U.S. policy on the hot spots around the world. I have visited Syria on many occasions, have gotten to know President Bashar al Asad and more extensively his father before he died in the year 2000, President Hafez Asad. I believe that Syria is the key to peace in the Middle East. There have been very extensive negotiations there. The parties, Israel and Syria, came very close in 1995 when Rabin was Prime Minister, on negotiations brokered by then-President Clinton, and again in the year 2000, when Ehud Barak was Prime Minister--very close. Turkey, for the last 18 months to 2 years, has been brokering for a long while behind the scenes, negotiations. What Syria is looking for is the return of the Golan Heights and only Israel can decide whether it is in Israel's security interests to give up the Golan. But it is a very different world today from what it was in 1967 on the strategic interests and strategic value of the Golan Heights. If a deal can be struck, I think there is great advantage for Israel and for the region. I think that would induce Syria to stop aid to Hamas or funneling aid from Iran to Hamas; stopping them from aiding Hezbollah; stopping Syria from any activities to destabilize Lebanon. So an activist policy is a matter of the first magnitude. With respect to Iran, there again I think dialog has some hope. Can it solve the problem? I don't know. But I do know the problems with Iran cannot be solved without dialog. I asked questions of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates before the Appropriations Committee on the undertaking of dialog and negotiations. I asked Secretary Rice how it was realistic to ask Iran to stop enriching uranium as a precondition of talks when the object of the talks was to get them to stop enriching uranium. How do you do that? It seems to me a major failure of U.S. foreign policy for decades has been a lack of civility and dignity and respect that we damn Yankees--we ugly Americans--don't accord other people, as a matter of basic dignity and respect. I have had an opportunity to talk to the last three Iranian Ambassadors to the United Nations. They are very rational people to whom you can talk. Ahmadinejad? A real problem, when he talks about wiping Israel off the face of the Earth. But he is not going to be President of Iran forever. I think there are forces besides President Ahmadinejad who have different views in Iran. If you take a look at Muammar Qaddafi, there you have an example of someone who is arguably the world's worst terrorist in history--except, perhaps, for bin Laden and what al-Qaida has done. But Qaddafi and Libya blew up Pan Am 103, bombed the Berlin discotheque, killed Americans--and through negotiations, Qaddafi stopped developing a nuclear weapon, made reparations to the victims in Pan Am 103 and those who were victims in the bombing of the Berlin discotheque. I had an opportunity to visit Muammar Qaddafi, about 30 months ago, with Congressman Tom Lantos. When you went to see Qaddafi, you would go to the desert. He lives in a tent and he meets you in plastic chairs. But you can talk to him and the talking has paid results. With that success, I think it is an indicator, a precedent for talking to anybody. Nothing may come of it, but the dialog is an indispensable first step. We know with the difficulties in North Korea--and there have been plenty--an agreement was made in the early 1990s. They breached that in 1993. We are back on track there. But I think it takes bilateral talks. It takes representatives of the United States to stand up and be willing to talk to other people on an equal footing, with courtesy, with civility, and with dignity. In August of 2005, I had a chance to meet President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. The relationship between the United States and Venezuela has been very rocky for what President Chavez has undertaken. At that time the United States Ambassador was trying to meet with the Venezuelan Secretary of the Interior over the drug issue, where there were common interests between the United States and Venezuela. I believe it is accurate to say that as a result of the conversations which I had with Chavez, the Ambassador and the Minister of the Interior met. It was kind of a rocky day because at the same time I had the meeting with President Chavez, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was in Peru, and he commented in a condemnatory way about Chavez. Gratuitous insults do not advance the pace or the cause of dialog. So I would say, even with President Chavez, we ought to make the effort. President Obama had some comments about President Chavez on a Sunday news show last week, which have started some mild fireworks. Chavez, according to the press, retaliated that he had not thrown the first stone. It is my hope, even with Chavez, that we can engage in direct, civil, courteous dialog to see if there are some areas where we can find common cause. I know, though, the occasions I have had to talk to Fidel Castro that there were issues on sea lanes and other air lanes where the United States could have cooperated on the interdiction of drugs. I have introduced legislation which passed the Senate on two occasions and was stymied in the House of Representatives. But I mentioned this as illustrative of where I think we can go with an activist, engaged Secretary of State. It is my projection that Senator Clinton, soon to be Secretary of State Clinton, will undertake those matters. There is one additional comment I have to make, and that is on the potential conflict of interest between contributions which were made to former President Clinton's Foundation and the activities of Secretary of State Clinton, if, as, and when she is confirmed. I think Senator Lugar was exactly on target in the comments he made in the Foreign Relations Committee about what ought to be undertaken. There has already been a memorandum of agreement that has been entered into on the subject of some substantial import. There is a memorandum of understanding which related to this issue which was signed on December 16 of last year, right after Senator Clinton was in the running for this position. It would be my hope that Secretary of State Clinton would rethink some of the additional requests which Senator Lugar made. I do not think they are disqualifiers, but I do believe it is a matter of concern if, for example, some foreign government makes a contribution to the Clinton Foundation, then there are interests which that foreign government has, I think we would understand and trust Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that, in the eyes of many, especially those in the Arab world, they may be suspicious of what would appear to them to be a potential conflict of interest. But I trust Hillary Clinton's good judgment, and I think she will work through the issues and the memorandum of understanding which was executed on December 16 of last year, and the additions she has made go a long way, and it would be my hope that she would rethink what Senator Lugar has suggested. She is a very ethical person and a wise person. I think she can undertake to handle this issue satisfactorily. So for these reasons I am pleased to speak on her behalf, and I think the temper of this body is to give her an overwhelming vote of confidence so she can carry out the very important responsibilities of Secretary of State.