Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I agree with the underlying approach that women ought to receive equal pay for comparable work. I voted for cloture on the Ledbetter bill in the last Congress. I had been a cosponsor of the bill. I had not cosponsored the legislation this year because of my interest in making two changes I think would improve the legislation and would reduce the opposition. I begin by congratulating Senator Mikulski and Senator Enzi for the very important work they have done. I congratulate Senator Hutchison on the amendment she has offered, the substitute. I intend to support her amendment. The time when the statute of limitations begins to run is when the employee knew or should have known. I think that is fair. I think it is reasonable to say to an individual where you are being discriminated against, and you know about it, or you should, in reasonable diligence, know about this. This is a standard used in the law in many areas: actual knowledge or constructive knowledge, where somebody should have known. That is fair to say, at that point a person is on notice, they ought to begin their lawsuit. It is fair for the statute of limitations to begin running at that time to give the defendant a fair opportunity to know about it. The amendment I have offered is hand in glove with the concept of ``should have known,'' that is, or actual knowledge, actual or constructive, to provide that the defendant will have the defense based on waiver or estoppel or laches. Waiver means you take an affirmative act and say: I do not want to assert my rights. That is a waiver. Estoppel means you are estopped from bringing the defense because of some conduct on your part which precludes you from bringing the action, or estopped. You are estopped from bringing the claim. And laches means too much time has passed, that you are barred by time. These are equitable doctrines which have more flexibility as opposed to a specific date. The essence of these defenses of waiver, laches, and estoppel was articulated in the dissenting opinion of Justice Ginsburg. She disagreed in the 5 to 4 decision which precluded women from claiming equal pay. She said that women ought to be able to claim equal pay and employers have a fair right to defend if they can assert these defenses. So this is what Justice Ginsburg said: 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 Justice Ginsburg lays out are the defenses which the employers would have in any event, but in putting it into the statute, it makes it conclusive. I think it is good so that you do not have an argument as to whether employers have these defenses. It allows the plaintiff to bring the claim, and allows a reasonable defense by the employer. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Hutchison amendment and my amendment be set aside so that I may lay down a second and final amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 27.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the essence of this amendment is to strike the term ``or other practices.'' The core issue here is pay, and that is what I think we ought to deal with. There are objections to this bill on the grounds that it is a lawyers bonanza and will allow a lot of litigation. Well, I do not think that is a sound argument, but I think there is merit in specifying that this legislation is aimed at pay, and if you talk about other practices it is going to produce a lot of litigation because there is no definition of what the ``other practices'' means. For example, other practices might be promotion, might be hiring, might be firing, might be training, might be territorial assignment, might be transfer, might be tenure, might be demotion, place of business reassignment, might be discipline. All of these are possibilities when you talk about ``other practices.'' I do not purport to be making an exhaustive list. Those are only some of them, the possibilities on what might be included in other practices. When talking about pay, you know what you are talking about. Now, if it is the objective of the drafters of the bill to cover promotion or to cover hiring or to cover firing, fine; let's say so. If there is an intent to cover any of these other specific items, let's consider that. Let's make an evaluation as to whether that is a practice which requires remedial legislation. But in order to have ``other practices,'' I think we have the potential of reaching a quagmire and have a lot of litigation about what the intent was of Congress, a lot of questions as to what we intend to do. Now, of course, in listing all of these items, if this amendment is defeated, I know lawyers will be citing this argument to say, well, if the amendment offered by Arlen Specter was defeated, it must mean that all of those other practices are included, and then some, which is not my intent. But I do believe it would be a crisper bill, and we would know exactly what we are talking about. Again, I say if anybody wants to include other practices, so be it. Mr. President, I was advised that the senior Senator from Illinois was going to be here at 5:15. I want the Record to show that I finished my comments 1 minute early so as to allow the manager to maintain her commitment.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation to extend two important provisions that were enacted as part of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008: 50 percent Bonus Depreciation; and Increased $250,000 limit for the Small Business Expensing Allowance. I introduced S. 2539 and cosponsored S. 269 similar legislation in the 110th Congress. I support tax policies to spur new business investments through the use of partial and full expensing. When a company buys an asset that will last longer than one year, the company cannot, under most circumstances, deduct the entire cost and enjoy an immediate tax benefit. Instead, the company must depreciate the cost over the useful life of the asset, taking a tax deduction for a part of the cost each year. By allowing firms to deduct the cost of a new asset in year one, expensing spurs new investments quickly and drives immediate job creation. As part of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008--passed by Congress and signed by the President on February, 13, 2008--I successfully included my legislation, S. 2539, to allow for an immediate 50 percent ``bonus depreciation'' on new equipment purchases. This provision only applied to purchases made in 2008 and my legislation would extend the benefit for an additional year. The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 also provided a 1-year boost in the Section 179 Small Business Expensing Allowance. This provision, which also applies to equipment, was increased to a $250,000 limit for 2008. Absent further action, the benefit reverts to $125,000 in 2009 and will expire at the end of 2010 and revert to $25,000. On January 25, 2008, I cosponsored legislation, S. 269, to increase the Small Business Expensing Allowance and to make it permanent. This legislation I am introducing today would extend the $250,000 limit for an additional year. Both of these provisions merely accelerate a benefit that will be given to firms over a longer span. To that end, the cost will be higher in year one, but tax revenue will be higher in the years thereafter. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the cost of the ``bonus depreciation'' provision as part of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 was $43.9 billion in 2008, but just $7.4 billion over 10 years. The Small Business Expensing Allowance provision was scored at $900 million in 2008, and only $100 million over 10 years. These provisions were included in a broader package drafted by Senators Baucus, Grassley, Kennedy, and Enzi at the end of the 110th Congress. I look forward to working with these Members to seek extension of these expiring provisions in the 111th Congress. Enactment of these provisions was an important step in the direction of allowing full expensing of new equipment. I urge my colleagues to support these pro-growth policies that create incentives for business expansion and long-term economic growth.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce the Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2009, which would repeal Section 511 of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. Section 511 will require a 3 percent withholding on all Government contracts beginning on January 1, 2011. This legislation was sponsored in the 110th Congress by Senator Larry Craig, S. 777, and with his retirement, I have decided to continue to press for its passage to protect small businesses, contractors, and State and local governments who will be unfairly burdened by this onerous provision. In 2006 Congress enacted tax relief on capital gains, dividends, and the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, as part of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. These provisions provide important incentives for small businesses by encouraging investment that can lead to job creation and economic growth. At the same time, the Section 511 withholding tax provision was inserted at the last minute by conferees as a revenue raiser. As a result, the legislation which was intended to provide tax relief ended up containing a $7 billion tax penalty on Government contractors. If no action is taken to repeal this provision, Section 511 will institute a 3 percent tax withholding on all local, State, and Federal Government payments, effective on January 1, 2011. This will apply to Governments with expenditures of $100 million or more, and will affect payments on Government contracts as well as other payments, such as Medicare, grants, and farm payments. Impacted firms will ultimately get a refund when they file their tax return if the amount withheld is in excess of what is actually owed. The proponents of Section 511 argue that it will be an effective tool to close the tax gap--the difference between what American taxpayers owe and what they actually pay. However, an examination of the mechanics of the provision support a different conclusion. At the time of passage, Section 511 was estimated to increase revenue by $7 billion from 2011 to 2015. However, $6 billion of that amount is attained solely because of the initial collection on contracts in 2011, not because of an actual revenue increase from increased tax compliance. Estimates show that Section 511 will only generate $215 million in 2012 and increases slightly in each of the 3 years thereafter. While I support efforts to close the tax gap, those efforts must be weighed on a case-by-case basis against the unintended harm that is done to those impacted. For example, the 3 percent figure is an arbitrary amount and does not take into account the company's taxable income or tax liability. As a result, an honest taxpaying contractor in a loss year could be without access to the withheld capital for a significant period of time, only to see it returned when it files its taxes. Many of these firms do not have extra capital on hand to get by and, because some file yearly returns as opposed to quarterly returns, will not receive a refund on the amount withheld for 12 to 18 months. In many cases, businesses operate with a profit margin that is smaller than 3 percent of the contract; and in some cases, there is no profit at all. In these cases, Section 511 will effectively withhold entire paychecks--interest free--thereby impeding the cash flow of small businesses, eliminating funds that can be used for reinvestment in the business, and forcing companies to pass on the added costs to customers or finance the additional amount. Section 511 will also impose significant administrative costs on the Federal, State, and local governments who are required to create, or expand, collections staffing to comply. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, said the provision constitutes an unfunded mandate on the State and local governments. According to CBO, the projected costs of Section 511 will exceed the $50 million unfunded mandate annual threshold. On a Federal level, there is evidence that the high cost of preparation is unnecessary. For example, the Department of Defense estimated that the costs to comply with the 3 percent withholding requirement could be in excess of $17 billion over the first 5 years, which is more than any estimated revenue gains. There is strong support from a number of stakeholders for repeal of the Withholding Tax requirement, including the Associated Builders and Contractors, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, National Federation of Independent Business, and American Farm Bureau Federation. I am pleased that this legislation garnered the support of 260 cosponsors in the House of Representatives, H.R. 1023, in the 110th Congress, with a broad mix of support from both parties. For example, cosponsors from the Pennsylvania delegation included Representatives Altmire, Brady, Carney, Doyle, English, Gerlach, Holden, Murphy, Pitts, Platts, Sestak, and Shuster. In the Senate, I will seek to build on the efforts of Senator Craig and the 15 other cosponsors, including myself. At the time of passage of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, Congress had not adequately debated the merits of the withholding requirement in a committee hearing or with debate in either body. An issue of this magnitude deserves proper debate, and had that occurred, it is difficult to believe that Congress would have included Section 511. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support repeal of this unfair tax penalty. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of supporters to this bill be provided in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation to expand a widely-used business tax benefit whereby business owners balance-out net losses over prior years when the firm has a net operating gain. Spreading out this tax liability helps a business to decrease the adverse impact of a difficult year. At the current time, there is a critical need for pro-growth policy initiatives to ensure an economic recovery. Specifically, this legislation increases the general net operating loss, NOL, carryback period from 2 years to 5 years in the case of an NOL for any taxable year ending during 2007, 2008, or 2009. As an example, a company could offset NOLs in 2008 against positive income it earned in 2003-2007; resulting in a refund paid in 2009. NOLs represent the losses reported by a company within a taxable year and, under current law, generally may be carried back 2 years and forward 20 years for tax purposes. Under current law, NOLs are not allowed to reduce Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, liability by more than 90 percent. My legislation would eliminate this limit. This second provision is necessary for this bill to achieve its goal of allowing firms dollar-for-dollar access to their NOLs. This is because firms with temporarily low income are more likely both to create NOLs and to find themselves subject to the AMT. From an economic standpoint, the key impact of the bill will be to lower the user cost of capital for firms and to encourage business fixed investment for those firms that were profitable in the past 5 years but are not profitable at the current time. Such firms will receive an immediate refund for their current costs. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, and National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, have all been supportive of this proposal in previous years. Similar legislation was considered in the 110th Congress, but was not enacted. During consideration of the Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008, an amendment drafted by the Senate Finance Committee leadership included this important provision, as well as other items. On February 6, 2008, the Senate rejected this broader package on a procedural vote, leaving it just 1 vote short of the 60 that were required. Ultimately, that bill included tax rebates for individuals and capital investment incentives for businesses. Following that debate, I introduced the NOL carryback provision as a stand-alone bill, S. 2650, with 7 cosponsors. Over the long-term, this is a low cost proposal for the taxpayer that can stimulate economic growth. According to a February 2004 report entitled ``Stimulating Job Creation and Investment: Economic Impact of NOL Carryback Legislation,'' by Kevin A. Hassett, Ph.D, and Brian C. Becker, Ph.D, ``If enacted, this expansion of the carryback period would result in current-year refunds for many companies that otherwise would have to wait until future years to apply NOLs. Having done so, however, would reduce the quantity of losses that are carried forward, and hence increase, relative to baseline, tax revenue in the future. As such, the tax revenue implications are negative initially, but positive in the future.'' The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that passage of a similar provision as part of the Senate Finance Committee Stimulus package, which I referenced earlier in my statement, would have cost $15 billion in 2008 and $5.1 billion over 10 years. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation that will help numerous industries that are currently struggling to survive in a harsh economic downturn.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce the Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2009, which would repeal Section 511 of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. Section 511 will require a 3 percent withholding on all Government contracts beginning on January 1, 2011. This legislation was sponsored in the 110th Congress by Senator Larry Craig, S. 777, and with his retirement, I have decided to continue to press for its passage to protect small businesses, contractors, and State and local governments who will be unfairly burdened by this onerous provision. In 2006 Congress enacted tax relief on capital gains, dividends, and the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, as part of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. These provisions provide important incentives for small businesses by encouraging investment that can lead to job creation and economic growth. At the same time, the Section 511 withholding tax provision was inserted at the last minute by conferees as a revenue raiser. As a result, the legislation which was intended to provide tax relief ended up containing a $7 billion tax penalty on Government contractors. If no action is taken to repeal this provision, Section 511 will institute a 3 percent tax withholding on all local, State, and Federal Government payments, effective on January 1, 2011. This will apply to Governments with expenditures of $100 million or more, and will affect payments on Government contracts as well as other payments, such as Medicare, grants, and farm payments. Impacted firms will ultimately get a refund when they file their tax return if the amount withheld is in excess of what is actually owed. The proponents of Section 511 argue that it will be an effective tool to close the tax gap--the difference between what American taxpayers owe and what they actually pay. However, an examination of the mechanics of the provision support a different conclusion. At the time of passage, Section 511 was estimated to increase revenue by $7 billion from 2011 to 2015. However, $6 billion of that amount is attained solely because of the initial collection on contracts in 2011, not because of an actual revenue increase from increased tax compliance. Estimates show that Section 511 will only generate $215 million in 2012 and increases slightly in each of the 3 years thereafter. While I support efforts to close the tax gap, those efforts must be weighed on a case-by-case basis against the unintended harm that is done to those impacted. For example, the 3 percent figure is an arbitrary amount and does not take into account the company's taxable income or tax liability. As a result, an honest taxpaying contractor in a loss year could be without access to the withheld capital for a significant period of time, only to see it returned when it files its taxes. Many of these firms do not have extra capital on hand to get by and, because some file yearly returns as opposed to quarterly returns, will not receive a refund on the amount withheld for 12 to 18 months. In many cases, businesses operate with a profit margin that is smaller than 3 percent of the contract; and in some cases, there is no profit at all. In these cases, Section 511 will effectively withhold entire paychecks--interest free--thereby impeding the cash flow of small businesses, eliminating funds that can be used for reinvestment in the business, and forcing companies to pass on the added costs to customers or finance the additional amount. Section 511 will also impose significant administrative costs on the Federal, State, and local governments who are required to create, or expand, collections staffing to comply. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, said the provision constitutes an unfunded mandate on the State and local governments. According to CBO, the projected costs of Section 511 will exceed the $50 million unfunded mandate annual threshold. On a Federal level, there is evidence that the high cost of preparation is unnecessary. For example, the Department of Defense estimated that the costs to comply with the 3 percent withholding requirement could be in excess of $17 billion over the first 5 years, which is more than any estimated revenue gains. There is strong support from a number of stakeholders for repeal of the Withholding Tax requirement, including the Associated Builders and Contractors, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, National Federation of Independent Business, and American Farm Bureau Federation. I am pleased that this legislation garnered the support of 260 cosponsors in the House of Representatives, H.R. 1023, in the 110th Congress, with a broad mix of support from both parties. For example, cosponsors from the Pennsylvania delegation included Representatives Altmire, Brady, Carney, Doyle, English, Gerlach, Holden, Murphy, Pitts, Platts, Sestak, and Shuster. In the Senate, I will seek to build on the efforts of Senator Craig and the 15 other cosponsors, including myself. At the time of passage of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, Congress had not adequately debated the merits of the withholding requirement in a committee hearing or with debate in either body. An issue of this magnitude deserves proper debate, and had that occurred, it is difficult to believe that Congress would have included Section 511. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support repeal of this unfair tax penalty. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of supporters to this bill be provided in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation to expand a widely-used business tax benefit whereby business owners balance-out net losses over prior years when the firm has a net operating gain. Spreading out this tax liability helps a business to decrease the adverse impact of a difficult year. At the current time, there is a critical need for pro-growth policy initiatives to ensure an economic recovery. Specifically, this legislation increases the general net operating loss, NOL, carryback period from 2 years to 5 years in the case of an NOL for any taxable year ending during 2007, 2008, or 2009. As an example, a company could offset NOLs in 2008 against positive income it earned in 2003-2007; resulting in a refund paid in 2009. NOLs represent the losses reported by a company within a taxable year and, under current law, generally may be carried back 2 years and forward 20 years for tax purposes. Under current law, NOLs are not allowed to reduce Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, liability by more than 90 percent. My legislation would eliminate this limit. This second provision is necessary for this bill to achieve its goal of allowing firms dollar-for-dollar access to their NOLs. This is because firms with temporarily low income are more likely both to create NOLs and to find themselves subject to the AMT. From an economic standpoint, the key impact of the bill will be to lower the user cost of capital for firms and to encourage business fixed investment for those firms that were profitable in the past 5 years but are not profitable at the current time. Such firms will receive an immediate refund for their current costs. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, and National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, have all been supportive of this proposal in previous years. Similar legislation was considered in the 110th Congress, but was not enacted. During consideration of the Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008, an amendment drafted by the Senate Finance Committee leadership included this important provision, as well as other items. On February 6, 2008, the Senate rejected this broader package on a procedural vote, leaving it just 1 vote short of the 60 that were required. Ultimately, that bill included tax rebates for individuals and capital investment incentives for businesses. Following that debate, I introduced the NOL carryback provision as a stand-alone bill, S. 2650, with 7 cosponsors. Over the long-term, this is a low cost proposal for the taxpayer that can stimulate economic growth. According to a February 2004 report entitled ``Stimulating Job Creation and Investment: Economic Impact of NOL Carryback Legislation,'' by Kevin A. Hassett, Ph.D, and Brian C. Becker, Ph.D, ``If enacted, this expansion of the carryback period would result in current-year refunds for many companies that otherwise would have to wait until future years to apply NOLs. Having done so, however, would reduce the quantity of losses that are carried forward, and hence increase, relative to baseline, tax revenue in the future. As such, the tax revenue implications are negative initially, but positive in the future.'' The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that passage of a similar provision as part of the Senate Finance Committee Stimulus package, which I referenced earlier in my statement, would have cost $15 billion in 2008 and $5.1 billion over 10 years. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation that will help numerous industries that are currently struggling to survive in a harsh economic downturn.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to discuss the resolution of disapproval on the release of the final $350 billion of the economic rescue package. At the outset, I am dissatisfied with the way the first $350 billion has been spent because of failure to deal with the home mortgage issue, the ineffectiveness in restoring normal lending to consumers and businesses, and the lack of transparency. The Treasury Department started off by stating that it would purchase toxic securities backed by troubled home mortgages but has since shifted to providing funds for the banks, some of which didn't want them. That didn't loosen up the credit market. One of the key problems has been foreclosures, which the first $350 billion hasn't begun to deal with. Good ideas like FDIC Chairwoman Bair's have been rejected. As a matter of public policy, I am opposed to bailouts. In our free enterprise system, the market, not the Government, should determine winners and losers. However, there is a necessary exception when the potential consequences of failing to provide Federal economic aid could produce a devastating effect on the economy. That was the basis for the very tough vote which I cast in supporting the $700 billion economic stabilization package because I felt that the failure of Congress to take some decisive, substantial action would run the risk of dire consequences to the U.S. economy. I objected to the process used to consider the $700 billion package. Insufficient consideration by the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve followed by a rush to judgement by Congress resulted in legislation that had not been given appropriate consideration. I wrote a series of letters and advocated for the Senate to follow regular order, which starts with the introduction of legislation, committee hearings and markup, debate and amendment by individual Members, and the House-Senate conference. The President then reviews the final bill. Ultimately, Congress did not follow regular order. Instead, Senators were only given a chance to vote yes or no on what started as a 4-page memorandum from the Treasury Department and quickly grew to 414 pages. As a result, the bill included undesirable pork provisions. Had there been an opportunity to offer amendments, these undesirable provisions could have been removed. In a series of town meetings in October, I found the temperature of my constituents at 212 degrees Fahrenheit. We are now confronted with a decision of whether to release the final $350 billion installment of the program. The authorizing legislation passed by Congress in October did not release the entire $700 billion immediately, but instead there have been installments of $250 billion, $100 billion at the request of the President and $350 billion more subject to congressional objection. At the time, I raised concerns that a resolution of disapproval by Congress on the final $350 billion may be unconstitutional under the Supreme Court decision in INS v. Chadha. The resolution of disapproval requires a majority vote in both Houses for adoption and is subject to a veto by the President. In coming to a determination of how to vote on the resolution of disapproval, I felt it important to evaluate the effectiveness of the program to date, whether the outgoing administration has carried out its responsibilities as intended by Congress, the intentions of the incoming administration to utilize the program, and the necessity for further market stabilization based on current economic conditions. The $700 billion economic rescue was requested by the administration in September as major financial institutions were threatened with failure as a result of toxic assets on their balance sheets. Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke warned of an imminent meltdown in financial markets which would threaten retirement funds, jeopardize the jobs of millions of Americans, and subject homeowners to more evictions. Major institutions such as Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and AIG had already reached a tipping point, and the Federal Government began making decisions on a case-by-case basis of whether to extend assistance. The stock market followed each move closely. It was argued that unless financial institutions were able to sell off securities backed by souring assets such as subprime mortgages there would be additional failures that would jeopardize the worldwide markets in an irreversible manner. After enactment in early October, the Treasury Department quickly began implementation of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP as it came to be known. In what was widely seen as a reversal of position, on October 14, 2008, the Treasury Department announced that $250 billion would be devoted to purchasing senior preferred shares in financial institutions as part of the Capital Purchase Program, CPP, to ``encourage U.S. financial institutions to build capital to increase the flow of financing to U.S. businesses and consumers and to support the U.S. economy.'' According to a January 14, 2009, article in the New York Times, 257 financial institutions in 42 states had received $192 billion in capital injections from the CPP, with 7 of those firms receiving 62 percent of the funds. Additional funds have been devoted to AIG, $40 billion; Citigroup, $25 billion; the auto industry $19 billion, and to backstop a Federal Reserve program to boost consumer lending, $20 billion. While these initial investments may be viewed as a success in fending off an outright collapse of our financial markets, there has been little evidence thus far that there has been a loosening of the credit markets resulting in increased lending by banks to consumers and businesses. Instead, there has been widespread dissatisfaction among my constituents that the funds given to banks have been used for global buyouts, as exemplified by Bank of America seeking a larger stake in China Constuction Bank, PNC Financial Services Group taking over National City Corp., and USB acquiring several California lending firms. All three firms received TARP funds. There have even been press reports of participating firms using TARP funds for corporate sponsorships, as exemplified by CitiBank completing a 20-year contract to pay the New York Mets $400 million to name the team's new stadium ``Citi Field'' and by AIG paying the British soccer team Manchester United $125 million for the privilege of having its logo appear on its uniforms. There has also been inadequate transparency and accountability thus far, which was demanded by the taxpayer when Congress enacted the authorizing legislation. My constituents have been frustrated to learn so little about how their money is being used by these financial institutions and about the amount of lending that is taking place. I supported the $700 billion economic rescue package because I felt that the failure of Congress to take some decisive, substantial action would run the risk of dire consequences to the U.S. economy. However, I was also led to believe that there would be significant oversight and transparency to accompany the broad powers that have been granted. This lack of transparency presents a serious challenge to the oversight panels created as part of the authorizing legislation. According to a December 2, 2008, Government Accountability Office, GAO, report, the Treasury Department has not yet imposed reporting requirements on the participating financial institutions. Doing so would enable Treasury to monitor how the infusions were being used and whether they are meeting the goals of increasing the flow of financing to U.S. businesses and consumers and encouraging the modification of existing residential mortgages for those in need. The GAO report also raised questions about Treasury efforts in achieving its intended goals and monitoring compliance with limitations on executive compensation and dividend payments. The five-member Congressional Oversight Panel, COP, created to oversee the implementation of the economic rescue program has been very critical thus far, suggesting that more accountability should be in place before the final $350 billion is released. The panel is chaired by Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren, and its other members are Representative Jeb Hensarling, NY State superintendent of banks Richard Neiman, AFL-CIO associate counsel Damon Silvers, and former Senator John Sununu. On December 10, the panel released its first report which contained 10 questions for the Treasury Department. Its second report, released on January 9, 2009, analyzed Treasury's answers and stated that its ``initial concerns about the TARP have only grown, exacerbated by the shifting explanations of its purpose and the tools used by the Treasury.'' It reported that Treasury still has not adequately explained how it is selecting banks for its capital injection program or its strategy for stabilizing the financial markets. It acknowledged that the TARP has forestalled a financial collapse, but with ``no demonstrable effects on lending.'' Also, it said that Treasury has no ability to ensure banks lend the money they have received and no standards for measuring the success of the program. It also noted that Treasury ignored or offered incomplete answers to some questions. The authorizing legislation also created a Special Inspector General with authority to track and investigate how the Government spends the TARP funds. The President selected, and the Senate confirmed, Neil M. Barofsky, a former New York assistant U.S. attorney, for this position. According to a January 7, 2009, letter to Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, Mr. Barofsky has had some success in pushing Treasury to include more restrictions on any funds given out in future transactions. As a result, the letter said, Treasury had included new standards that will force companies to establish new internal controls and account for the Government funds they receive. Mr. Barofsky's first formal report is due to the Finance Committee on February 6, 2009. There is further frustration from an investigation conducted by the Associated Press, AP, showing that there has been insufficient transparency into the operations of the banks that have received TARP funds. The AP contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in Government money and asked four basic questions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings? And, what is the plan for the rest? According to the AP, none of the banks provided specific answers. If the oversight panels are unable to get answers to these very basic questions posed by the AP, they will be unable to adequately determine the effectiveness of the TARP program. I believe that the onus is on the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve to impose reporting requirements on the participating financial institutions. It is imperative that the American public have a full understanding of how their hard earned tax dollars are being used. In the absence of action by the Treasury Department to impose satisfactory reporting requirements by participating financial institutions, Congress has been forced to consider taking additional legislative action. I cosponsored legislation--S. 133, the Troubled Asset Recovery Program Transparency Reporting Act--introduced on January 6, 2009, by Senators Dianne Feinstein and Olympia Snowe that would require participating financial institutions to provide detailed, publically available quarterly reports to the Treasury outlining how the funds have been used. This legislation further requires that TARP funds not be used for lobbying expenditures or political contributions. Additionally, this legislation requires the Secretary of the Treasury to develop and publish corporate governance principles and ethical guidelines for recipients of such funds, including but not limited to restrictions governing the hosting, sponsorship, or payments for conferences and event, and expenses relating to entertainment or similar ancillary corporate expenses. Violators of this legislation would be subject to civil penalties including fines and may become ineligible for future emergency economic assistance. I have additional concerns that there has been little emphasis on foreclosure mitigation assistance in the TARP program. On November 14, 2008, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair proposed a plan to forestall foreclosures by offering banks an incentive to modify mortgages by having the Government agree to share in the loss of a loan that fell into default. Specifically, mortgage payments for homeowners that are at least 2 months delinquent would be reduced to between 31 and 38 percent of monthly income by modifying the interest rate, extending the repayment period, and deferring principle. To encourage servicers to participate, the Government would share up to 50 percent of the losses if a homeowner who had received a modification later defaulted, and the FDIC would pay servicers who process mortgages $1,000 for each modified loan. The plan was expected to initially help 2.2 million borrowers get new loans, and after some borrowers redefaulted, 1.5 million would ultimately keep their homes. The plan was estimated to cost approximately $24 billion. The FDIC plan was rejected as the Treasury Department looked at other strategies, including ways to reduce interest rates on distressed loans. However, in the end, neither approach has been implemented. They have instead relied on industry-led efforts by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and others to voluntarily modify troubled loans. In the December 2008 GAO report, it was noted that Treasury had initially intended to purchase mortgage backed securities and use its ownership position to influence loan servicers and to achieve more aggressive mortgage modification standards. The Treasury changed its strategy within weeks and, instead, decided to make capital injections into financial institutions. It also noted that despite language in the lending agreements with these financial institutions to work under existing programs to modify the terms of residential mortgages, ``it remains unclear how [the Treasury's Office of Financial Stability] and the banking regulators will monitor how these institutions are using the capital injections to advance the purposes of this act . . .'' The Congressional Oversight Panel chair Elizabeth Warren echoed this sentiment, ``The bailout money doesn't require a specific approach . . . It entrusts Treasury with developing an approach, and that's what Treasury should be doing.'' The incoming administration has sought to assure Congress that it would make a number of changes to the TARP program, including a ``sweeping effort'' to address foreclosures and reduce mortgage payments for ``responsible homeowners.'' It has promised efforts to boost consumer and business lending. It has also said it will improve transparency and accountability for participating firms. However, there have been few details on exactly how they plan to move forward. It has been argued that further deterioration in the economy will require additional intervention. Lawrence Summers, who has been chosen to head the National Economic Council by President-elect Obama, has called the need for the second round of funds ``imminent and urgent.'' In addition, it has been argued that a failure to release the second half of the TARP funding could once again frighten the markets and lead to a sharp drop in the Dow. The 777-point plunge in the Dow plunge on September 29, 2008, in the wake of the House's rejection of the legislation, demonstrated the potential for even greater problems if Congress did not act. Amidst the various criticisms that have been raised against the TARP program and its implementation by the outgoing administration, many economists remain concerned about the state of the financial system. Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke has expressed concern about the world economy and the financial markets and suggested that foreclosure prevention and purchases of troubled assets might be useful tools to help the economy in the near term. Bernanke also commented that fiscal stimulus would not be enough to support the economy. With respect to the TARP program, Chairman Bernanke said on January 13, 2009, ``. . . Treasury's injection of about $250 billion of capital into banking organizations, a substantial expansion of guarantees for bank liabilities by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Fed's various liquidity programs . . . likely prevented a global financial meltdown in the fall . . . with the worsening of the economy's growth prospects . . . more capital injections and guarantees may become necessary to ensure stability and the normalization of credit markets.'' He also said, ``Responsible policymakers must therefore do what they can to communicate to their constituencies why financial stabilization is essential for economic recovery.'' Also on January 13, 2009, the Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn said, ``The remaining TARP funds will play an essential role in further strengthening the financial system and restoring normal credit flows . . . An important use of these [TARP] funds will be to step up efforts to avoid preventable foreclosures . . . more needs to be done . . . A continuing barrier to private investment in financial institutions is the large quantity of troubled, hard-to-value assets that remain on institutions' balance sheets. The presence of these assets significantly increases uncertainty about the underlying value of these institutions and may inhibit private investment and new lending.'' According to a January 14, 2009, article in the New York Times-- mentioned earlier--"Some banking experts are even questioning if the bailout may be doing more harm than good.'' It cited a struggling small bank in Michigan that had made a series of bad loans but had been given a ``cushion'' instead of allowing it to ``sink or swim'' on its own. The articled suggested that by doing so, ``It could also delay mergers of weaker banks with healthier ones.'' With a projected deficit of $1.2 trillion for 2009 and a possible $800 billion expenditure on a stimulus package in the next few weeks, Congress must be vigilant in its use of the taxpayer's dollars. At the current time, there appears to be no immediate threat to our financial system, which raises the question of whether the additional authorization is needed at this time, especially in light of the failures with the program so far. Based on a comprehensive evaluation of these issues, I am reluctant to support an additional authorization of $350 billion at this time. To date, I have seen little evidence that the TARP program has been effective in increasing lending by the institutions who have received billions in taxpayer dollars. I also have serious questions about the effectiveness of existing programs to help troubled homeowners and whether additional steps should be taken. Further, unless steps are taken to significantly improve oversight and transparency of the TARP program, my constituents and I will not feel confident that we are not simply throwing good money after bad by releasing the final $350 billion. On the current state of the record, I cannot continue to support this program and intend to vote for the resolution of disapproval. In the future, I stand ready to act if it appears that a failure to take decisive, substantial action would run the risk of dire consequences to the U.S. economy.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to give you the reasons why I voted against the motion to invoke cloture on S. 22, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. I support this legislation on its merit. The bill is a collection of priorities for many of my Senate colleagues, most of which concern public land matters specific to their home States. Indeed, I have actively supported two provisions in S. 22 that concern my home State of Pennsylvania: reauthorization of the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor and the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail Designation Act. Moreover, I believe this legislation will go a long way to help preserve and protect some of our country's most pristine land for future generations without seriously compromising our national capacity to develop domestic energy. It is for these reasons and others that it is particularly unfortunate that the majority leader has decided to fill the amendment tree and thus demonstrate his intention to utilize in this Congress, procedural roadblocks to deny the rights of the minority to offer amendments. For more than 200 years this body has prided itself on careful deliberation of legislation. Free and fair debate is the hallmark of the U.S. Senate, and I am not prepared to accept the abdication of these traditions for the purpose of political expediency for the majority party. In the 110th Congress, the majority leader used this tactic to block Republican amendments on 16 different occasions. Important legislation such as FAA reauthorization, climate change legislation, an energy speculation legislation and energy speculation legislation were all derailed because the majority leader's decision to deviate from regular order and deny minority participation in the debate. Mr. President, as my colleagues have mentioned, it has been over 120 days since a Republican amendment has received consideration on the floor. It is my hope that the Senate will return to fair procedures for debate, which have well served this proud institution since its inception. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes. I have conferred with the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, who was scheduled to speak first. That is satisfactory with him. I further ask unanimous consent that Senator Coburn be recognized at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak briefly about foreign travel which I undertook over the past recess, focusing principally on the Mideast and on Europe. My group arrived in Jerusalem on December 26, late in the evening on Friday. The next day, the hostilities arose in Gaza. I had an occasion to discuss this matter with a number of officials in Israel and also with Prime Minister Fayyad of the Palestinian Authority. As is well known from the news reports, the Israeli action was taken in response to shelling by Hamas on Israel over a protracted period of time. Israel's action was legal under international law, Article 51 of the United Nations charter which expressly recognizes the right of self-defense under circumstances where a nation is attacked. And that was the factual matter there. In speaking to Israeli President Peres and Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, the point was made that Israel was taking this action only as a last resort to protect Israeli citizens. It is highly significant that the Palestinian Authority, which has had its differences with Hamas, has backed the Israeli position. We had a discussion with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Fayyad, who said that the Palestinian Authority was convinced that Israel had acted properly and that the Palestinian Authority would do what it could to maintain quiet within the Palestinian Authority's jurisdiction in the face of any demonstrations which might occur. It is worth noting that Egypt has backed the Israeli action, noting the aggressive stand taken by Hamas, and Saudi Arabia, too, has noted Hamas's inappropriate conduct. We visited in Vienna with Ambassador Schulte and discussed at some length the International Atomic Energy Agency efforts to conduct inspections on what is going on in Iran with respect to any efforts by Iran to create a nuclear weapon. A year ago, I had an opportunity to meet with IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei. He was out of town when we were there. I had a conversation with him by telephone on the issue of the efforts by the IAEA to conduct the inspections and that at the moment Iran is not cooperating and, further, international action needs to be taken to be sure Iran does meet its obligations under international agreements and that there are adequate safeguards to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. When we were in Syria, Iran's activities on that subject were discussed with Syrian President Bashar al-Asad. On the Iranian subject, President Asad urged that action be taken to try to get the inspections, and that would be a more productive line than challenging whatever rights Iran had asserted. In our discussions with President Asad, the subject of a potential Israel-Syria peace treaty was discussed. The Syrians have made it plain that they are interested in a return of the Golan Heights. Only Israel can decide for itself whether it is willing to give up the Golan with respect to whatever strategic advantage the Golan may have. Obviously, it is a different world strategically today than it was in 1967 when Israel captured the Golan Heights. It is my view that there could be substantial advantages for Israel in terms of Syrian concessions in a number of directions to leave Lebanon as a sovereign nation without efforts to destabilize Lebanon but withdrawing any Syrian support from Hezbollah and also from Hamas. When we discussed with President Asad the issue of Hezbollah and Hamas, he said if the Palestinian issue could be resolved, those other matters would fall into place. There is also the potential advantage of trying to move Syria away from the influence of Iran. That is not an easy matter. But if there were to be an Israeli-Syrian peace treaty--and I think that can happen only with the participation of the United States--the prospect would be present of improving that situation of trying to separate Syria from Iran. In Brussels, we had a meeting with General Craddock, who is the NATO commander there. We discussed a variety of subjects, as described in a more extensive report that I will ask to have printed in the Record. With respect to our discussions with General Craddock, the key point was the issue of what is going on in Afghanistan. General Craddock made the point that there cannot be a military victory in Afghanistan but the military can be successful in securing the situation, that there will have to be improvements in the Afghanistan Government in dealing with the people of Afghanistan. General Craddock commented that he thought it would be a protracted period of time where we would have to have substantial NATO forces, in addition to those provided by the United States, to find a resolution of the issues in Afghanistan. I was accompanied on my trip by my legislative director, Chris Bradish, my military escort, Phil Skuta, and by Dr. Ronald Smith, all of whom did an excellent job. A very comprehensive trip report has been prepared by Mr. Bradish. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, as if stated in full on the floor, the trip report.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I know Senator Coburn is near the floor and should be appearing shortly. But until he does, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today in order to reintroduce a resolution I first put forward in the 110th Congress that would prohibit the use of the procedural tactic of filling the tree. I feel strongly that this practice contributed greatly to inefficiencies and ineffectiveness that the United State Senate experienced in the 110th Congress. Commonly known as the ``world's greatest deliberative body,'' the Senate has prided itself on free and fair debate on each and every issue that comes before it. Traditionally, members have had the right to offer virtually any amendment on any bill at any point in the legislative process. This all inclusive practice of legislating has earned the United States a unique place among modern democracies because of the open arena for ideas and sufficient debate. However, in the past 15 years both sides of the aisle have increasingly seen the majority leaders use their authority to seek first recognition and fill the amendment tree. Republicans and Democrats alike have been equally as guilty of this practice for history has shown, when there is a problem with this institution, bipartisan blame is easily applicable. Beginning in 1993, ``filling the tree'' became increasingly prevalent as Senator George Mitchell used it 9 times in the 103rd Congress, Senator Trent Lott used it nine times in the 106th, and Senator Frist used it 9 times in the 109th. In the recently concluded 110th Congress, Majority Leader Senator Reid filled the tree on 16 different occasions, bypassing the previous record amount by a significant margin. Regular order in this chamber was sacrificed in this past Congress, and in its place was a procedural tactic that prevented passage of legislation that would have been extremely beneficial for this country. Bills such as FAA Reauthorization--H.R. 2881, Climate Change Legislation--S. 3036, and the Energy Speculation Bill--S. 3268 were all derailed by this practice. Cloture on each piece of legislation was not achieved and caused any further movement on them to be stymied. Blame was placed on Republicans for engaging in obstruction through the use of the filibuster to prevent movement to debate. The fact of the matter was our side was completely blocked from participating in the legislative process, forcing our hand to oppose moving to the bill. My proposed resolution would disallow the majority leader or any other member from offering a first-degree amendment, followed by a second-degree amendment. It amends Rule 15, Standing Rules of the Senate and it is my hope the Senate can adopt this and operate under this rule in the 111th Congress and beyond. It is time for this chamber to conduct business in a logical, factual way; that is, for Senators to come to the floor and address the substance of the bill and offer amendments if they choose. Congress currently has an approval rating at a level that is unacceptable. As we enter a new Congress, efforts must be made to allow regular procedure to return to the United States Senate. It is my hope that the grueling hours members and staff put into legislation will be honored by giving it due consideration on the Senate floor. With a few changes in procedure, this Senate can ensure a more productive environment in the 111th Congress and beyond.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as our economy sinks further into recession, OPEC, which controls about 40 percent of the world oil supplies, has announced its biggest single production cut ever. As a result, since December 17 when the cartel announced its record production cuts, oil prices have risen 40 percent. For decades, the members of OPEC have conspired to manipulate oil prices by limiting the number of barrels sold. U.S. antitrust laws explicitly prohibit conspiracies in restraint of trade, which include agreements to cut production in an effort to cause prices to rise. Cartel activity by OPEC members clearly violates U.S. antitrust laws. Unfortunately, OPEC members have escaped liability for their antitrust violations. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act makes foreign states liable under U.S. law for their commercial activities but not their governmental activities. In International Association of Machinists v. OPEC, a California district court held that OPEC's cartel activity was governmental activity, not commercial activity, and was therefore immune from the antitrust laws. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. These court decisions were wrong. Government-owned companies engaged in purely business activities are subject to the antitrust laws. That is why Senator Kohl and myself as well as nine other cosponsors are reintroducing the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act, or NOPEC. The legislation reverses these court decisions, making it clear that cartel activity OPEC is commercial activity that is subject to the antitrust laws. NOPEC also makes it clear that OPEC members are subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. Applying antitrust law to foreign conduct is consistent with current law. In Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California, the Supreme Court held that U.S. courts have jurisdiction over antitrust suits involving foreign conduct by foreign actors if the conduct has substantial effects in the United States. Clearly, OPEC's cartel activities have substantial effects in the United States. The Justice Department has over the years prosecuted many foreign cartels in a myriad of industries, including vitamins, marine hose, liquid crystal display panels, textiles, construction, food, chemicals, graphite electrodes, ocean shipping and fine arts auctions. Indeed, over the past decade, around half of the corporate defendants in cartel cases brought by the Justice Department have been foreign-based. In the vitamins case, for example, the Justice Department successfully prosecuted a cartel of foreign vitamin manufacturers that held meetings abroad to allocate market share and set prices--just like OPEC. In many of the cases involving foreign cartels, foreign executives have been extradited to the U.S. to serve significant prison sentences. Critics have argued that NOPEC would harm U.S. relations abroad or discourage foreign investment in the United States. However, NOPEC leaves the decision to prosecute OPEC members in the hands of the executive branch by giving the Justice Department sole authority to prosecute. NOPEC enjoys strong bipartisan support and has since its first introduction back in 2000. The Senate Judiciary Committee has unanimously passed NOPEC on four separate occasions, most recently on May 22, 2007. During the 109th Congress, the legislation passed the Senate by a vote of 70 to 23 as an amendment to the Clean Energy Act. It was stripped out in conference. NOPEC passed the House last year by an overwhelming vote of 345 to 72. The bill even has the support of the conservative Heritage Foundation, which has noted that NOPEC ``would place much needed pressure on OPEC.''

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation that will honor the importance of the steel industry in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Nation by creating the ``Steel Industry National Historic Site'' in southwestern Pennsylvania. The importance of the steel industry to the development of the United States cannot be overstated. A national historic site devoted to the history of the steel industry will afford all Americans the opportunity to celebrate this rich heritage, which is symbolic of the work ethic endemic to this great Nation. The legislation offered today would create a national historic site that would be affiliated with the National Park Service. There is no better place to honor our Nation's steel industry heritage than in southwestern Pennsylvania, which played a significant role in early industrial America and continues today. I have long supported efforts to preserve and enhance the historical steel-related heritage through the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area, which includes the city of Pittsburgh, and seven southwestern Pennsylvania counties: Allegheny, Armstrong, Fayette, Greene, Washington, and Westmoreland. I have sought and been very pleased with congressional support for the important work within the Rivers of Steel Heritage Area. I have consistently advocated for increased funding to support our National Heritage Areas and I am hopeful that this support will continue. However, more than just resources are necessary to ensure the historical recognition of this site and our steel heritage. That is why I am introducing this legislation today. It is important to note why Pennsylvania should be the home of the national site that my legislation authorizes. The combination of a strong workforce, valuable natural resources, and Pennsylvania's strategic location in the heavily populated northeastern United States allowed the steel industry to thrive in the 19th and 20th centuries. Today, the remaining buildings and sites that were devoted to steel production are threatened with deterioration. Many of these sites are nationally significant and perfectly suited for the study and interpretation of this crucial period in our Nation's development. Some of these sites include the Carrie Furnace Complex, the Hot Metal Bridge, and the United States Steel Homestead Works, which would all become a part of the Steel Industry National Historic Site under my legislation. As testimony of the area's historic significance, on September 20, 2006, the Carrie Furnaces were designated as a National Historic Landmark by the Secretary of the Interior. Highlights of this proposed national historic site would commemorate a wide range of accomplishments and topics for historical preservation and interpretation, including industrial technology advancements and milestones in labor-management relations. One of the sites that would be included in the historic site would be the location of the Battle of the Homestead, waged in 1892 between steelworkers and Pinkerton guards. The Battle of the Homestead marked a pivotal moment in our Nation's workers' rights movement. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, individuals, and public and private entities have attempted to protect and preserve resources such as the Homestead battleground and the Hot Metal Bridge. For the benefit and inspiration of present and future generations, it is time for the Federal Government to join this effort to recognize their importance with the additional protection I provide in this bill. I commend my colleague, Representative Doyle, who has been a longstanding leader in this preservation effort and who has sponsored this legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. I look forward to working with officials in southwestern Pennsylvania and Mr. August Carlino, president and chief executive officer of the Steel Industry Heritage Corporation, to bring this national historic site designation to fruition. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation that will honor the importance of the steel industry in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Nation by creating the ``Steel Industry National Historic Site'' in southwestern Pennsylvania. The importance of the steel industry to the development of the United States cannot be overstated. A national historic site devoted to the history of the steel industry will afford all Americans the opportunity to celebrate this rich heritage, which is symbolic of the work ethic endemic to this great Nation. The legislation offered today would create a national historic site that would be affiliated with the National Park Service. There is no better place to honor our Nation's steel industry heritage than in southwestern Pennsylvania, which played a significant role in early industrial America and continues today. I have long supported efforts to preserve and enhance the historical steel-related heritage through the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area, which includes the city of Pittsburgh, and seven southwestern Pennsylvania counties: Allegheny, Armstrong, Fayette, Greene, Washington, and Westmoreland. I have sought and been very pleased with congressional support for the important work within the Rivers of Steel Heritage Area. I have consistently advocated for increased funding to support our National Heritage Areas and I am hopeful that this support will continue. However, more than just resources are necessary to ensure the historical recognition of this site and our steel heritage. That is why I am introducing this legislation today. It is important to note why Pennsylvania should be the home of the national site that my legislation authorizes. The combination of a strong workforce, valuable natural resources, and Pennsylvania's strategic location in the heavily populated northeastern United States allowed the steel industry to thrive in the 19th and 20th centuries. Today, the remaining buildings and sites that were devoted to steel production are threatened with deterioration. Many of these sites are nationally significant and perfectly suited for the study and interpretation of this crucial period in our Nation's development. Some of these sites include the Carrie Furnace Complex, the Hot Metal Bridge, and the United States Steel Homestead Works, which would all become a part of the Steel Industry National Historic Site under my legislation. As testimony of the area's historic significance, on September 20, 2006, the Carrie Furnaces were designated as a National Historic Landmark by the Secretary of the Interior. Highlights of this proposed national historic site would commemorate a wide range of accomplishments and topics for historical preservation and interpretation, including industrial technology advancements and milestones in labor-management relations. One of the sites that would be included in the historic site would be the location of the Battle of the Homestead, waged in 1892 between steelworkers and Pinkerton guards. The Battle of the Homestead marked a pivotal moment in our Nation's workers' rights movement. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, individuals, and public and private entities have attempted to protect and preserve resources such as the Homestead battleground and the Hot Metal Bridge. For the benefit and inspiration of present and future generations, it is time for the Federal Government to join this effort to recognize their importance with the additional protection I provide in this bill. I commend my colleague, Representative Doyle, who has been a longstanding leader in this preservation effort and who has sponsored this legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. I look forward to working with officials in southwestern Pennsylvania and Mr. August Carlino, president and chief executive officer of the Steel Industry Heritage Corporation, to bring this national historic site designation to fruition. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to speak on legislation I am introducing that will require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to hold at least one public hearing before issuance of a permit affecting public or private land use in a locality. I introduced legislation on this issue at the end of the 110th Congress, and fully expect it to remain relevant as we move forward with upgrades to our energy infrastructure, possibly as part of an economic stimulus package. The legislation has been updated; namely, it now allows for a second hearing when officially requested by a county or local government to address issues not addressed at the original hearing. Increasing demand for electricity throughout the Northeast is putting a strain on energy infrastructure in my State, necessitating new transmission lines and natural gas pipelines and the expansion of existing ones. In southwestern and northeast Pennsylvania transmission line expansions are planned over hundreds of miles of private property, while in the southeast natural gas pipeline expansions are underway. There is no doubt these projects can be invasive, and rarely do they fail to be controversial. I make a point of touching all of Pennsylvania's 67 counties each year. In traveling Pennsylvania this Fall I heard a lot of complaints, which didn't come as a surprise. I heard frequently from constituents who oppose these infrastructure projects, and who felt their concerns were being ignored by the energy companies and by FERC. I realize there will always be some opposition to large infrastructure projects. What is unacceptable, however, is for the people of my State to feel that their voices were not heard, that their issues were ignored. It may be the case that these projects are necessary. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is the authority, and in exercising its authority it must be sensitive to local concerns. To address this I propose simply that FERC hold a hearing in these affected communities. In many cases this is already done, but my legislation makes it mandatory. State Public Utility Commissions, who have a great say in these matters, are beyond Congress' reach. But where the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is involved we can take steps to ensure that our constituents' concerns receive due consideration. Holding a hearing may not lead to all sides agreeing on the proper route forward, but at the very least my Pennsylvania constituents will come away with the satisfaction of having publicly aired their grievances. To ensure that constituent concerns are given all due consideration, my legislation allows for affected parties to petition for a second hearing, provided certain conditions are met. In order for a second hearing to occur, a county government, or a municipal government within the affected county, must petition the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a second hearing. A second hearing will only occur to address an issue that was not addressed at the initial hearing, and the hearing shall occur between 30 and 60 days after approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The safeguards included in this legislation are critical to protecting individual property rights. As the Nation moves forward in making needed updates to its infrastructure, defending citizens' constitutional right to redress their government with their concerns should be paramount for this Congress. I will continue to fight to allow my constituents to be heard when Federal projects will affect their rights as homeowners and landowners.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, in the absence of any other Senator on the floor seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Finance Committee, under the chairmanship of Senator Grassley in the 109th Congress, and the Judiciary Committee, under my chairmanship in the 109th Congress, conducted an extensive inquiry into allegations of insider trading. The issue is succinctly framed in a letter which I wrote to Christopher Cox, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, in a letter dated December 24, 2008. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. SPECTER. The matter could be most succinctly articulated by quoting from parts of this letter as follows: Dear Chairman Cox: Senator Charles Grassley and I have already issued public findings concerning the Securities and Exchange Commission's . . . investigation into Pequot Capital Management's . . . suspicious trading. Referring to insider trading. These findings also criticized the original Office of Inspector General's report, which essentially ignored former SEC investigator Gary Aguirre's complaints of political influence in the Pequot investigation . . . after the new SEC Inspector General, David Kotz, largely agreed with our findings and recommended disciplinary action against Mr. Aguirre's supervisors up to the Director of Enforcement, the SEC selected an initiating official who, in a matter of days, found that disciplinary action was unwarranted. That official was described in press accounts as an Administrative Law Judge, and it was not until further inquiry that the SEC admitted she was not acting in a judicial capacity in issuing her decision. I am now writing because recent events provide the SEC with an opportunity to make good on its Pequot investigation, despite having . . . closed the case in November 2006. . . . The investigation centered, in part, on evidence that David Zilkha, a Microsoft employee who joined Pequot in April 2001 and separated from Pequot in November 2001, may have given Arthur Samberg, Pequot's CEO, inside information regarding Microsoft. Documents recently filed in a Connecticut divorce case (Zilkha v. Zilkha) disclose that Pequot has made or promised to make payments of $2.1 million to Mr. David Zilkha. On December 1, 2008, and December 16, 2008, Pequot and Pequot CEO Arthur Samberg filed motions for protective orders, and the state court has scheduled the hearing on those motions for January 16, 2009. On December 10, 2008, Senator Grassley and I requested from Pequot and Mr. Samberg all records related to the payments to Mr. Zilkha, as well as an explanation of the payments. On December 17, 2008, Mr. Samberg responded that the payments to Mr. Zilkha were for the purpose of ``settling a civil claim related to his employment and termination by Pequot.'' Mr. Samberg enclosed a few documents, but we have requested additional records, and have asked for a complete production. Given the troubled history of this case, the SEC should also be seeking answers as to any payments made to Mr. Zilkha by Pequot. I therefore write to strongly urge the SEC to consider filing pleadings in the Connecticut action, so that the court will have all relevant information when it considers the Pequot and Samberg motions for protective orders. In essence, we have serious allegations of insider trading. We have the Inspector General of the SEC recommending serious disciplinary action. We have the matter being papered over by the SEC on what purported to be new conclusions reached by the administrative law judge where, in fact, the individual was not an administrative law judge. And now we find $2.1 million in payments or promised payments to an individual who may have been in the position to provide insider information. The matter is coming before a court in a domestic relations case, but that provides an opportunity to find those facts. This letter has not been answered, and I am taking this occasion to put it into the Congressional Record in the hopes that we may have some action by the SEC which will be calculated to get to the bottom of this matter. Certainly, this is something that ought to be of major concern to the Securities and Exchange Commissioners, to the Chairman, and to the SEC, generally. The Finance Committee and the Judiciary Committee, through the efforts of Senator Grassley and myself, have gone to very substantial lengths to deal with this issue. Oversight by the Congress is very hard to pick up these complex matters and get into them, but a lot of work has been done, and we are still undertaking to try to get to the bottom of the allegations of insider trading. The issue now has turned to be greater than insider trading on one specific matter, but to the integrity of the SEC itself, in pursuing these kinds of allegations and in following the facts wherever they may lead. Chairman Cox has limited additional tenure, but there is sufficient time for him to act if he will, and if he will not, Senator Grassley and I may seek to intervene ourselves. This is something which is the primary responsibility of the SEC, and it would be my hope that Chairman Cox would act on this matter to intervene, file an amicus brief, find out what the facts are on that $2.1 million to get to the bottom of these serious allegations of insider trading. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, December 24, 2008. Hon. Christopher Cox, Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F. Street, N.E., Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Cox: Senator Charles Grassley and I have already issued public findings concerning the Securities and Exchange Commission's (``SEC'') bungled investigation into Pequot Capital Management's (``Pequot'') suspicious trading. These findings also criticized the original Office of Inspector General's report, which essentially ignored former SEC investigator Gary Aguirre's complaints of political influence in the Pequot investigation. You welcomed our findings and worked to implement our recommendations. Nonetheless, after the new SEC Inspector General, David Kotz, largely agreed with our findings and recommended disciplinary action against Mr. Aguirre's supervisors up to the Director of Enforcement, the SEC selected an initiating official who, in a matter of days, found that disciplinary action was unwarranted. That official was described in press accounts as an Administrative Law Judge, and it was not until further inquiry that the SEC admitted she was not acting in a judicial capacity in issuing her decision. I am now writing because recent events provide the SEC with an opportunity to make good on its Pequot investigation, despite having precipitously and unjustifiably closed the case in November 2006. In 2006, the SEC closed its investigation of April 2001 trading by Pequot in Microsoft stock. The investigation centered, in part, on evidence that David Zilkha, a Microsoft employee who joined Pequot in April 2001 and separated from Pequot in November 2001, may have given Arthur Samberg, Pequot's CEO, inside information regarding Microsoft. Documents recently filed in a Connecticut divorce case (Zilkha v. Zilkha) disclose that Pequot has made or promised to make payments of $2.1 million to David Zilkha. On December 1, 2008, and December 16, 2008, Pequot and Pequot CEO Arthur Samberg filed motions for protective orders, and the state court has scheduled the hearing on those motions for January 16, 2009. On December 10, 2008, Senator Grassley and I requested from Pequot and Mr. Samberg all records related to the payments to Mr. Zilkha, as well as an explanation of the payments. On December 17, 2008, Mr. Samberg responded that the payments to Mr. Zilkha were for the purpose of ``settling a civil claim related to his employment and termination by Pequot.'' Mr. Samberg enclosed a few documents, but we have requested additional records, and have asked for a complete production. Given the troubled history of this case, the SEC should also be seeking answers as to any payments made to Mr. Zilkha by Pequot. I therefore write to strongly urge the SEC to consider filing pleadings in the Connecticut action, so that the court will have all relevant information when it considers the Pequot and Samberg motions for protective orders. Please respond as to whether the SEC will take such an action. I also ask that you notify me immediately if the SEC reopens its investigation or takes any enforcement action in light of this new evidence. Sincerely, Arlen Specter.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, with the approaching hearings before the Judiciary Committee on the nomination of Eric Holder to be Attorney General, I thought it might be useful to frame some of the issues and put them into perspective, at least my perspective, in advance of the hearings, and to advise Mr. Holder in some greater detail than our brief meeting, when he paid his courtesy call a few weeks ago, to discuss some of those issues so he would be in a better position to respond. I begin with the view that I wish to be helpful to President-elect Obama in his dealings with the enormous problems which face our Nation. I have come to know President-elect Obama in his capacity as Senator for the last 4 years. His office is right down the hallway. I consider him a friend, and certainly we are in need of action on some of the enormous problems our Nation faces. We approach these problems in the context of our constitutional roles. The Constitution, in article I, gives certain powers to the Congress and, in article II, certain powers to the executive branch. The core of our constitutional Government is checks and balances so we have that responsibility to have oversight and to give our candid judgments. Frequently, it is more helpful to say no than to say yes. When we deal with the position of Attorney General, we have a role which is significantly different from other Cabinet officers. For example, Cabinet officers carry out the President's policies on a wide variety of issues and, to an extent, so does the Attorney General. But the Attorney General has a significantly different role in his responsibility to the people and to the rule of law. Senator Leahy and I wrote extensively on this subject, published last October in Politico. Some Attorneys General have been very compliant with the administration and have not fared very well historically. Attorney General Harry Daugherty was sullied by the Teapot Dome scandal. Although ultimately cleared, he resigned amid allegations of impropriety. We had the Attorney General during the administration of President Roosevelt, Attorney General Homer Cummings, who yielded to the court-packing plan, certainly not the sort of institutional integrity which we would look for in an Attorney General. Some Attorneys General have been very diligent. Perhaps the best example is Attorney General Elliot Richardson, who resigned rather than fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox during the administration of President Nixon, and Deputy Attorney General Bill Ruckelshaus followed suit. In today's press, there are reports about the distinguished career of Attorney General Griffin Bell, who just died. One of the hallmarks of Attorney General Bell's career was his willingness to say no to President Carter, who had appointed him. President Carter, it is reported, wanted a certain prosecution brought. Attorney General Bell said that it wasn't an appropriate matter for a criminal prosecution. Attorney General Bell advised President Carter that the way he would get that prosecution brought would be to appoint a compliant Attorney General, that he would resign before he would undertake that prosecution. We have seen, regrettably, with the administration of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, yielding to the Executive will without upholding the rule of law; the hearings conducted by the Judiciary Committee, for which I was ranking member, over the termination of U.S. attorneys; the attitude of Attorney General Gonzales on habeas corpus, testifying that there was no positive grant of habeas corpus in the Constitution, notwithstanding the explicit clause which says habeas corpus may be suspended only in time of rebellion or invasion. So this is a very key and critical appointment. The Attorney General also has enormous responsibilities in advising the President more generally on the scope of Executive authority. Mr. Holder will doubtless be questioned at some length on the issue of the terrorist surveillance program, warrantless wiretaps, and the meaning of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; and where does congressional authority under article I stop on the flat prohibition against wiretaps without warrants, contrasted with the Executive's power as Commander in Chief under article II; and what are the Attorney General designate's views on attorney-client privilege restrictions, a matter which he initiated in 1999 and which has seen further restrictions in the Thompson memorandum and subsequently. Last Congress I introduced legislation to try to deal with that. There is also the reporter's privilege issue, where the Department of Justice has opposed the privilege for reporters where they have been held in contempt. A New York Times reporter was held in jail for some 85 days after the source of the confidential disclosure had been addressed. These are just a few of the issues which we will be looking at in the confirmation hearings of Attorney General Holder. With respect to Mr. Holder, specifically, he has had an outstanding academic and professional record--I acknowledged that early on-- prestigious college and law school, Columbia; a judge of the District of Columbia Superior Court; involved in Department of Justice prosecution teams; and later served as Deputy Attorney General. But aside from these qualifications on Mr. Holder's resume, there is also the issue of character. Sometimes it is more important for the Attorney General to have the stature and the courage to say no instead of to say yes. There are three specific matters which will be inquired into during the course of Mr. Holder's confirmation hearing. The first one involves a highly publicized pardon, the Marc Rich pardon. Mr. Holder testified he was ``not intimately involved'' in the Rich pardon and he assumed that regular procedures were being followed. But when you take a look at some of the details as to what was disclosed in the hearing by the House of Representatives and in the hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chaired 15 months after the pardon, Mr. Holder met privately with Mr. Rich's attorney. According to Mr. Holder's own testimony, he tried to facilitate a meeting between the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York and Rich's attorney. Rich's attorney, Mr. Quinn, testified that Mr. Holder advised him to go straight to the White House rather than through the pardon office, which is the regular procedure. Mr. Quinn produced an e-mail from himself to a colleague with the subject line ``Eric,'' in which he noted that ``he says go straight to the WH, also says timing is good. We should get it in soon.'' That is not conclusive, but these are matters to be inquired into. The pardon attorney was opposed to the pardon, but he never issued a recommendation because he didn't think the pardon was under serious consideration. Then the White House requested Mr. Holder's opinion, and he is quoted as saying that he was ``neutral, leaning towards favorable'' on the pardon. On this case of the record, with the very close connections between Mr. Rich and very sizable contributions to the Clinton library and very sizable contributions to President Clinton's party, these questions inevitably arise and have not been answered satisfactorily. During the course of the hearings, both in the House and in the Senate, where I chaired the full committee hearing, the claim of executive privilege was made. We face a little different situation when we are looking at a confirmation hearing for Attorney General, in terms of the legitimate scope of Senators' inquiry which will be pursued. It ought to be focused on the fact that the charges against Rich were very serious. They involved tax evasion, fraud, trading with the enemy, with Iran. It should also be emphasized that the U.S. attorney who prosecuted the case was opposed to the pardon and, in fact, refused to meet with Mr. Rich. The second issue which requires a hearing on the issue of character and the determination as to whether Mr. Holder was yielding to the President to give him or the Vice President a conclusion they wanted to hear was the issue of the appointment of an independent counsel on the allegations that Vice President Gore engaged in fundraising from the White House in violation of Federal law. Mr. Holder, in his capacity as Deputy Attorney General, was advising Attorney General Reno. Attorney General Reno came to the conclusion that independent counsel ought not to be appointed. The House of Representatives committee filed this report: . . . the failure of the Attorney General to follow the law and appoint an independent counsel for the entire campaign finance investigation has been the subject of two sets of Committee hearings. FBI Director Louis Freeh and the Attorney General's hand-picked Chief Prosecutor, Charles LaBella, wrote lengthy memos to the Attorney General advising her that she must appoint an Independent Counsel under the mandatory section of the Independent Counsel Statute. . . . That mandatory section does not leave it to the discretion of the Attorney General, but the Attorney General declined to appoint independent counsel. In hearings conducted before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, which I chaired, Attorney General Reno was questioned extensively on the evidence, which showed that hard money was being discussed as the matter of fundraising to be undertaken by Vice President Gore. Attorney General Reno did not consider a very critical piece of evidence written by a man named Strauss who had attended the meetings. The Strauss memo contained the notation of a certain percentage of hard money and a certain percentage of soft money. Attorney General Reno did not consider that because, as she testified, it did not refresh the recollection of Mr. Strauss. Well, there are a number of exceptions to the hearsay rule. One is when a piece of paper is reviewed by a witness and it refreshes his prior recollection, and another is when the witness testifies that the notes were made contemporaneously with the discussion and it constitutes prior recollection recorded, which is an exception to the hearsay rule and the witness does not have to remember what had occurred. That critical piece of evidence was not considered by Attorney General Reno. So here again are issues which are appropriate for inquiry on the character issue. On the issue of whether Mr. Holder will exercise sufficient independence, Vice President Gore sought to explain to the FBI that he was out of the room a good bit of the time of the discussion because, as he had put it, he had consumed a lot of iced tea on that occasion. Well, these are matters which the independent counsel statute was designed to deal with, to conduct a further investigation, to consider all of the ramifications, and not to show favoritism because the subject of an investigation happened to be the Vice President of the United States. Mr. Holder's role in advising the Attorney General on that matter, his role as Deputy Attorney General, is an appropriate matter for inquiry. The third issue to be inquired into involves the hearings on the so- called FALN organization, the Armed Forces of Puerto Rican Nationalists. The FALN was an organization linked to over 150 bombings, threats, kidnappings, and other events which resulted in the deaths of at least six people and the injuries of many more between 1974 and 1983. Four of the persons who received clemency were convicted of involvement in the $7 million armed robbery of a Wells Fargo office. In the face of this kind of conduct, and in the face of a report by the pardon attorney in the Department of Justice, the actions of Deputy Attorney General Holder were very extensive in what eventuated in the granting of clemency. The Department of Justice sent the matter back for another evaluation, apparently dissatisfied with the recommendation of the pardon attorney that the clemency application ought to be denied. On this second occasion, according to press accounts, the submission by the pardon attorney ``made no specific recommendation'' regarding clemency, but it did reflect that the FBI and two U.S. attorneys' offices opposed clemency. Notwithstanding that record, clemency was granted. It is an appropriate matter for inquiry to see specifically what role Mr. Holder played. Senator Hatch, who was the chairman of the committee at that time, had this to say about the conclusion: President Clinton, who up to this point had only commuted three sentences . . . offered clemency to 16 members of FALN. This to me, and really almost every Member of Congress, was shocking. Senator Leahy joined in the criticism of the grant and raised the question about the failure of the Department of Justice to contact the victims. The matter came before the Senate, which rejected and criticized the grant of the clemency by a vote of 95 to 2. All of these matters relate to judgment and relate to whether Mr. Holder had the kind of resoluteness displayed by Attorney General Griffin Bell or Attorney General Elliot Richardson to say no to his superior. In raising these concerns, I am raising questions. I will approach these hearings next week--a week from Thursday--with an open mind to give Mr. Holder an opportunity to explain his conduct and his actions and to see if, on the totality of the record, he displays the requisite character and judgment and can justify the actions in these sorts of matters which would warrant the confidence of the Judiciary Committee, really representing the confidence of the American people. After our experience with Attorney General Gonzales, and given the experience of other Attorneys General in the past and the very critical role which they play in upholding the rule of law, these are the sorts of issues which ought to be aired. Mr. Holder ought to have his day in court, so to speak--the hearing before the Judiciary Committee--to see if he can state the case which would warrant his confirmation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a detailed statement be printed in the Record at this point in full. What I have tried to do is to summarize a more detailed statement.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to comment on the cloture vote and to give my reasons for voting in support of cloture. Before I do, however, I wish to comment about where the responsibility lies for failure to invoke cloture to move this bill forward, and my hope that we would avoid fingerpointing and trying to assess blame, each on the other side, as has become the pattern in this body during the course of the last 2 years of the 110th Congress and beyond. The Senator from Illinois said there were not sufficient votes on the Republican side of the aisle. Well, there were sufficient votes on the Republican side of the aisle, had they been joined with sufficient votes on the Democratic side of the aisle. There were 10 Republican Senators who voted to invoke cloture: Senator Bond, Senator Brownback, Senator Collins, Senator Lugar, Senator Voinovich, Senator Warner, Senator Dole, Senator Domenici, Senator Snowe, and myself. There are 51 Senators on the other side of the aisle. Had those 51 Senators--or 50 of them joined with the 10 Republican Senators, cloture would have been invoked. But it would be my hope that we would leave this evening without partisan blame and still seek some way to get the kind of economic assistance that would enable the Big Three to continue to operate. The issue that we face has enormous potential adverse economic consequences. I will read from a portion of a statement I had prepared in a little different direction, but this portion of the statement I had prepared specifies the scope of the economic problem, which is potentially present if the three big automobile manufacturers do not stay in business. A failure of the automakers could have a cataclysmic impact on the broader economy. The Big Three employ 240,000 workers directly and, more broadly, the U.S. auto industry represents almost 4 percent of the gross domestic product and impacts 1 out of every 10 U.S. jobs in some form, directly or indirectly. These jobs are at part suppliers, dealerships, banks, and many other lines. According to the Center for Automotive Research, 3 million jobs would be lost if the Big Three were to fail. They estimated that the Government could stand to lose up to $156 billion over 3 years in terms of reductions in Social Security receipts, personal income taxes paid, and an increase in transfer payments. According to the Anderson Economic Group, if at least two of the three were to file for bankruptcy, it would cost the taxpayers up to four times the amount of the proposed bridge loans in the form of lost income and tax revenue resulting from the massive employment losses. They estimate that more than 1.8 million auto- related jobs would be lost in the first year, and there would be nearly $70 billion less in Federal and State tax revenue over a 2-year period. Credit and related markets would be further disrupted, more U.S. manufacturing would move overseas, and foreign automakers would gain an even greater advantage. According to the Economic Policy Institute, a bankruptcy of one or more of the Big Three would result in losses of up to 3.3 million jobs. The U.S. trade deficit could rise by at least $110 billion per year as imported vehicles displace domestic brands, increasing the trade deficit by 16 percent and putting additional downward pressure on the U.S. dollar and living standards. An increase in Government payments and tax losses alone would exceed $150 billion in the first 3 years following bankruptcy. I recite that in some detail to articulate the scope of the potential devastating impact if the three major auto manufacturers in the United States are unsuccessful. In voting to invoke cloture, I think it should be understood that I was not voting in favor of the House bill. I think the House bill needed vast improvement. But had we taken up the bill, that would have given us an opportunity to offer amendments, to debate, and to function as the world's greatest deliberative body. The House bill, in my judgment, didn't give sufficient authority to the so-called car czar. The House bill added to it, beyond what was agreed to by the Democrats in the Senate and the White House, a provision which would have terminated the litigation brought by the automotive industry against the State of California on the issue of toxic emissions. I do not know who would have prevailed in that suit, but I think there ought not to be congressional action to get off that litigation. That is a matter for the courts. Under our well-established doctrine of separation of powers, that should have been in the bill. At any rate, had the Senate taken up the bill, which is what the cloture motion meant--people may be watching on C-SPAN 2 and don't understand all of the arcane Senate talk, but a cloture motion is a motion to cut off debate on a motion to proceed. It simply means that the Senate will proceed to consider the issue as formulated in the House bill, as formulated in the vehicle laid down by the majority leader, and then the Senate has the opportunity to offer amendments and to debate. We have been in session, as the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, since 3 o'clock on Monday. We were here a good part of Monday, all day Tuesday, all day Wednesday, and it is now 11:36 p.m. eastern time on Thursday. The first time we came to the floor to have a discussion on this matter was a short time ago. The deliberations were carried on behind closed doors. Well, deliberations ought to be carried on behind closed doors to try to work through and find compromises and have free-wheeling discussion. But it would be appropriate, it seems to me, for the Senate to come to the floor and talk about what has been decided. The discussion started on the Senate floor a little after 9 o'clock and came to a conclusion a little more than an hour later. At 10:45, we had the motion to invoke cloture--that is, to cut off debate. We pride ourselves in the Senate as being the world's greatest deliberative body. Well, why not deliberate--deliberate in public? There is nobody in the galleries at the present time, but why not deliberate in public? We are now carried on C-SPAN 2, on television across the country, and across the world perhaps. So people can see what we are doing, and they can see what the considerations are. The Senator from Illinois made a statement that it was required under the proposal of the Republicans to have the concessions made on wages within a little more than 90 days in March. The Senator from Tennessee, who has been applauded in this body for the outstanding work he has done, said any time during the year 2009. Well, had the two Senators been on the floor and been discussing the matter, perhaps we would know exactly what went on behind those closed doors, what the arrangement was. I compliment my colleagues for the hard work that went into the efforts to try to reach a compromise. They did work hard. But it seems to me that we all ought to be working harder. We have more time. As the Senator from Tennessee outlined the situation, we were very close, as he put it, with three words separating the parties. Perhaps if we debated the issue, somebody would have changed a position a little. Senator Corker was correct that there didn't need to be a very big change. Also, when you make the arguments in public, you are under a little more scrutiny than making them in a back room behind closed doors where very few people can hear what you are saying, a few people can evaluate what you are saying, and there is little room for criticism, as opposed to making it on the floor of the Senate where everybody can see and hear what you are doing and you have to stand behind what you are doing. Or perhaps the parties who could not come to an agreement by tomorrow morning overnight would change their positions. It seems to me that there would be nothing to be lost by invoking cloture and by debating the matter further and by seeing if we can't come to some compromise and some adjustment. There is simply too much involved as the facts that I have cited earlier in this brief statement reflect on the potential economic destruction and losses. I concur with the Senator from Illinois about the hardship on the workers and the loss of salary and the loss of opportunity to support their families and pay tuition and monthly payments on the mortgage, et cetera, et cetera. No doubt about that. It is my view that we have a duty to go beyond the cloture vote and to take up the matter. I have not given up hope that something may yet be done. The President had backed--and I think still would--the bill that was submitted for consideration--the House bill--absent the issue with respect to the litigation, and perhaps there will be a way yet to find these bridge loans. Certainly, the amount of money involved, while not unsubstantial, is not enormous compared to the other bailouts that have occurred, compared to the total amount which the Congress authorized-- the $700 billion figure. In supporting the legislation which Senators Levin, Stabenow, Bond, Voinovich, Brown, and I had proposed back on November 20, that was an effort to try to have some deliberation. I was not committed to that bill. I am certainly not committed to any of the proposals that have yet been offered. But it would have been my hope that in the course of the debate and discussion, and an opportunity by others and myself to offer amendments, that we could have worked the will of the Senate to find our way through to move ahead on a short-term basis, a plan could be constructed that was realistically calculated to succeed. I am not in favor of throwing good money after bad. I believe philosophically as a matter of public policy that the Government ought not to pick winners and losers. That ought to be the decision of the market. The Government ought to intervene on economic aid or bailout only where the consequences are potentially so disastrous that they would deviate from that principle. As we conclude this situation, I think this Senate could have done considerably better. I know many of us will continue to work with the administration and with the parties involved. I convened on December 2 a meeting in Philadelphia with high-ranking executives from Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, and labor leaders in Pennsylvania, the United Auto Workers, the AFL-CIO statewide, and the Philadelphia Labor Council; and auto dealers and suppliers and economists and bankers came together to describe the scope of the problem. We had a meeting in the Lehigh Valley to grapple with the issue. Certainly, the impact on my State as a microcosm reflects the tremendous potential impact on the Nation as a whole. So we need to continue to work to do our best to find some answer administratively to avoid the potential disastrous consequences which I have enumerated. I yield the floor.