Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Well, I asked for the time when no one was here. I do ask for the additional 2 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. To continue the chain of thought, like the issue on campaign contributions, the DOD authorization bill was stymied on the excuse of ``procedural'' considerations involving ``don't ask, don't tell,' when many Republicans had voted to repeal it on prior occasions. This country is still governed by ``we the people,'' but the only people who count are the ones who vote. If mainstream Republicans had been as active tea party Republicans in the Utah, Alaska, and Delaware primaries, I believe Bennett, Murkowski, and Castle would have won. That would have given heart to other Republican Senators that their records would be judged by a sufficiently large base to give them a fighting chance to survive. Politics is routinely described as the art of the possible or the art of compromise. The viability of the two-party system is predicated on advocacy of differing approaches to governance which ultimately seeks middle ground or compromise. That is virtually always indispensible to reach a supermajority of 60. When one party insists on ideological purity, compromise is thwarted and the two-party system fails to function. People with grievances are the most anxious to shake up the system. The Congress needs to deal with issues such as the deficit, the national debt, and the intrusiveness of government. The tea party people who attended townhall meetings in August of 2009, like mine in Lebanon, were not Astro Turf, but citizens making important points. But they did not represent all of America or, in my opinion, even a majority of Republicans. Pundits are saying this November our Nation will be at the crossroads. I believe it is more like a clover leaf. If activated and motivated to vote, mainstream voters can steer America to sensible centrism. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for their forbearance. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to urge support for legislation I am introducing today to amend Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin by any organization, program or activity that receives federal financial assistance, including colleges and universities. If recipients fail to comply, the federal agency providing the assistance may terminate funding, and organizations risk losing their eligibility for future funding. The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, OCR, is tasked with enforcing Title VI as it applies to colleges and universities. OCR, however, believes that it does not have jurisdiction over complaints based solely on religion as opposed to race, color, or national origin. This means that when a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Sikh is harassed or discriminated against for being a Jew, a Muslim, or a Sikh, OCR must first determine whether the harassment or discrimination is a result of the student's religion or a result of her race, color, or national origin. In most cases involving such discrimination, the perpetrator himself probably wouldn't even know if his hatred stems from prejudice based on religion or prejudice based on race, color, or national origin. Yet, before acting to protect these students, OCR has to determine the motive behind the perpetrator's actions. This wastes valuable time and allows the discrimination to continue pending the determination. Furthermore, it sets a dangerous example to require OCR to make such a determination and then in essence say the harassment and discrimination is okay provided it was based on religion and not on race, color, or national origin. Many people are not aware that Title VI does not explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion. This is because discrimination on the basis of religion is prohibited in virtually every other civil rights law and has become such a fundamental principle of our country that we just assume the protection exists. For example, titles other than Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibit religious discrimination in other contexts. In 1941, President Roosevelt issued an executive order prohibiting discrimination in the Federal Government and in the defense industry on grounds of ``race, creed, color, or national origin.'' The Civil Rights Act of 1957 established the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to investigate discrimination on the basis of ``color, race, religion, or national origin.'' The Civil Rights Act of 1964 itself included numerous prohibitions on religious discrimination, just not in Title VI. For example, Title VII of the 1964 Act prohibits discrimination in employment. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 governing housing, continued to prohibit discrimination on the basis of ``race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.'' When it comes to education, the 1964 Act provides two mechanisms that address religious discrimination. First, the Attorney General is given limited authorization to sue public colleges that deny admission on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in a way that limits educational desegregation. Second, the Attorney General is authorized to intervene in certain pending equal protection cases claiming discrimination ``on account of race, color, religion, sex or national origin'' if the case is of sufficient public importance. However, the Justice Department may not institute such actions on its own, and no federal agency is authorized to investigate run-of-the-mill religious discrimination cases at educational institutions or cases in which the victim has been unable to initiate litigation. Why was religious discrimination left out of Title VI? Key members of Congress wanted to make sure that religiously affiliated colleges maintained their ability to discriminate in favor of co-religionists in admissions and extra-curricular activities. The original version of the bill that would become Title VI, drafted by the Department of Justice, did ban religious discrimination in federally assisted programs or activities. However, Emanuel Celler, the House Judiciary Committee Chairman and sponsor of the bill, explained during floor debate that he wanted to permit denominational colleges to engage in certain forms of discrimination in favor of co-religionists. Celler stated that he wanted to ``avoid a good many problems'' relating to funding that ``goes to sectarian schools and universities.'' He explained that ``for these reasons, the subcommittee and, I am sure, the full committee or the majority thereof deemed it wise and proper and expedient--and I emphasize the word `expedient'--to omit the word `religion.' '' Congressman Celler may have been right that eliminating religion made it expedient, but it did not make it correct. Congressman Celler's concerns could have been addressed with some clarifying language that such institutions would still be allowed to favor co-religionists. The bill that I am introducing contains such language. It states that the amendment is not to limit an educational entity with a religious affiliation, mission, or purpose from applying admissions policies, degree criteria, student conduct regulations, student organization regulations, or policies for faculty and staff employment, when these policies relate to the religious affiliation, mission, or purpose of the institution. Furthermore, it does not require educational entities to provide accommodation to any student's religion obligations such as dietary restrictions and school absences. Finally, if the educational entity permits expressive organizations to exist by funding or otherwise recognizing them, the amendment does not require the entity to limit such organizations from exercising their freedom of expressive association by establishing membership or leadership criteria. Therefore, I am proposing an amendment to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The amendment simply provides the same protection against discrimination based on religion that this title already provides for discrimination based on race, color, and national origin.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to urge support for legislation I am introducing today to amend Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin by any organization, program or activity that receives federal financial assistance, including colleges and universities. If recipients fail to comply, the federal agency providing the assistance may terminate funding, and organizations risk losing their eligibility for future funding. The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, OCR, is tasked with enforcing Title VI as it applies to colleges and universities. OCR, however, believes that it does not have jurisdiction over complaints based solely on religion as opposed to race, color, or national origin. This means that when a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Sikh is harassed or discriminated against for being a Jew, a Muslim, or a Sikh, OCR must first determine whether the harassment or discrimination is a result of the student's religion or a result of her race, color, or national origin. In most cases involving such discrimination, the perpetrator himself probably wouldn't even know if his hatred stems from prejudice based on religion or prejudice based on race, color, or national origin. Yet, before acting to protect these students, OCR has to determine the motive behind the perpetrator's actions. This wastes valuable time and allows the discrimination to continue pending the determination. Furthermore, it sets a dangerous example to require OCR to make such a determination and then in essence say the harassment and discrimination is okay provided it was based on religion and not on race, color, or national origin. Many people are not aware that Title VI does not explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion. This is because discrimination on the basis of religion is prohibited in virtually every other civil rights law and has become such a fundamental principle of our country that we just assume the protection exists. For example, titles other than Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibit religious discrimination in other contexts. In 1941, President Roosevelt issued an executive order prohibiting discrimination in the Federal Government and in the defense industry on grounds of ``race, creed, color, or national origin.'' The Civil Rights Act of 1957 established the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to investigate discrimination on the basis of ``color, race, religion, or national origin.'' The Civil Rights Act of 1964 itself included numerous prohibitions on religious discrimination, just not in Title VI. For example, Title VII of the 1964 Act prohibits discrimination in employment. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 governing housing, continued to prohibit discrimination on the basis of ``race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.'' When it comes to education, the 1964 Act provides two mechanisms that address religious discrimination. First, the Attorney General is given limited authorization to sue public colleges that deny admission on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in a way that limits educational desegregation. Second, the Attorney General is authorized to intervene in certain pending equal protection cases claiming discrimination ``on account of race, color, religion, sex or national origin'' if the case is of sufficient public importance. However, the Justice Department may not institute such actions on its own, and no federal agency is authorized to investigate run-of-the-mill religious discrimination cases at educational institutions or cases in which the victim has been unable to initiate litigation. Why was religious discrimination left out of Title VI? Key members of Congress wanted to make sure that religiously affiliated colleges maintained their ability to discriminate in favor of co-religionists in admissions and extra-curricular activities. The original version of the bill that would become Title VI, drafted by the Department of Justice, did ban religious discrimination in federally assisted programs or activities. However, Emanuel Celler, the House Judiciary Committee Chairman and sponsor of the bill, explained during floor debate that he wanted to permit denominational colleges to engage in certain forms of discrimination in favor of co-religionists. Celler stated that he wanted to ``avoid a good many problems'' relating to funding that ``goes to sectarian schools and universities.'' He explained that ``for these reasons, the subcommittee and, I am sure, the full committee or the majority thereof deemed it wise and proper and expedient--and I emphasize the word `expedient'--to omit the word `religion.' '' Congressman Celler may have been right that eliminating religion made it expedient, but it did not make it correct. Congressman Celler's concerns could have been addressed with some clarifying language that such institutions would still be allowed to favor co-religionists. The bill that I am introducing contains such language. It states that the amendment is not to limit an educational entity with a religious affiliation, mission, or purpose from applying admissions policies, degree criteria, student conduct regulations, student organization regulations, or policies for faculty and staff employment, when these policies relate to the religious affiliation, mission, or purpose of the institution. Furthermore, it does not require educational entities to provide accommodation to any student's religion obligations such as dietary restrictions and school absences. Finally, if the educational entity permits expressive organizations to exist by funding or otherwise recognizing them, the amendment does not require the entity to limit such organizations from exercising their freedom of expressive association by establishing membership or leadership criteria. Therefore, I am proposing an amendment to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The amendment simply provides the same protection against discrimination based on religion that this title already provides for discrimination based on race, color, and national origin.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, yesterday, I filed a report on a trip which I made to China, Vietnam, and Taiwan, but I did not have an opportunity to come to the Senate floor to discuss it. I do so today on a number of the highlights of the trip. In Beijing, we met with the head of the banking department, who is identified in the filed report, to talk about a number of subjects, the centerpiece of which was currency manipulation. We reviewed the tremendous trade imbalance between the United States and China, much of which is occasioned by manipulating their currency. Legislation has been introduced and is pending in the Congress, which I have cosponsored, but it has not gone anyplace. There has been comment made by the Secretary of the Treasury and the President himself about currency manipulation, but it has not done very much to correct a very bad situation. The Chinese have suggested officially that they would be willing to make some modifications, but what they have done so far has been very little. In the conversation with the head Chinese banking official, he didn't give any ground, really. I also discussed with him the issues of subsidies and dumping, which have been rampant, taking away thousands of jobs in the United States. That was the subject of more extended discussion with the No. 2 Chinese official in their equivalent of our Department of Commerce, identified in the written report which I filed yesterday. We have seen some of our successful actions before the International Trade Commission. For example, last year we had a matter involving tires where the International Trade Commission found in favor of the petitioners and imposed duties. We were successful in a case involving tubular pipe. Earlier this week, I was the lead witness--as I had been on the tubular case and on the tire case--on seamless steel before the International Trade Commission. What we have seen with the Chinese practices on subsidies and dumping is a flagrant violation of international trade law. Before the International Trade Commission and I believe on the floor of the Senate, I have characterized it as international banditry. That is clearly tough talk, but I think it is accurate when there are repeated violations of international law. When I discussed these issues with the No. 2 Chinese official in the Department of Commerce, again there was very little give--talking points, sticking with them. When I talked about subsidies, he brought up our practices on farm subsidies. I pointed out the total differences which were involved in those matters. From China, we traveled to Hanoi and there met with a number of officials. There was a very interesting meeting with a historian who was identified in the report filed yesterday. It was fascinating to talk to somebody on the perspective of what the history of Vietnam is. He pointed out that in a few weeks, Hanoi will celebrate its 1,000th anniversary as a city. We pride ourselves on the settlement in Philadelphia--especially Philadelphia but Boston and other American cities. In tenure, it pales into insignificance when you talk about a city which has been in existence for 1,000 years. When I talked to him about Chinese trade practices, he said: Well, they are very difficult. I talked to him about what China is doing in the China Sea, which has been a subject of international notoriety when our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, made comments that those were matters of importance to the United States. What China is doing there is going into the island areas where you have islands long held by Taiwan or by the Philippines or by Vietnam and others, rich in minerals, and asserting control and really acting like the bully they are in that issue, as well as on trade matters. I was fascinated to hear the historian recount 13 invasions by China against Vietnam. Although it is not exactly the same, I wondered and speculated about U.S. action in Vietnam, going into Vietnam to protect Vietnam from the incursion of the Chinese Communists. Vietnam seems to have done very well for itself for centuries. In a context where China has tried to invade them, they have been able to protect themselves. From Vietnam, we traveled to Taiwan and there met with the President of Taiwan and had a very extensive discussion about their economy and their trade practices. I was interested to note that the People's Republic of China, the mainland, and the Republic of China, Taiwan, have signed a trade agreement. They do it through corporations, but they are obviously backed by the state. It appears to me that is almost tantamount to tacit recognition, when mainland China negotiates with Taiwan in that context. When I discussed it with the officials, they all said: No, no, it is not tacit recognition; the People's Republic of China still maintains that there is one China. But some 20 countries have recognized Taiwan as an independent government, and they are moving ahead and have some 15 treaties between the 2 countries. They are working it through on what appears to be a fairly extensive normalization of relations. Although the President of Taiwan was very interested in having the arms sold by the United States, I pressed him on whether it was realistic, really a measure that they could defend themselves, or whether it was symbolic. I did that in the discussions with other officials in Taiwan. It appears to me that we might consider revising our policy on the sale of arms to Taiwan where we have an irritant to mainland China that doesn't really accomplish very much. We recently have sold Taiwan some $4.6 billion worth, which is very substantial, but if the People's Republic of China, mainland China, decided to invade Taiwan, the defenses they have and their request for additional fighter planes, which has not been granted--all of that would not be sufficient to stem the tide. While in Taipei, Taiwan, we visited the 101 building, 101 stories. It was completed a few years ago, and at that time, it was the tallest building in the world. It has since been supplanted. It was quite an experience to be 101 stories above the ground, visiting the towers. As is known, when a building is that tall, it sways. But they have three enormous balls--I do not have the precise measurement but perhaps 50 feet in diameter. One of the balls is at the apex of the building, right at the top, with huge springs, so that when the building sways, the ball and the springs keep it in an upright position. I have been in some tall buildings in the United States and felt the sway, but this is remarkable. We were told there are three enormous balls in the building. I wish to supplement the written statement filed yesterday with a supplement, an addendum to the written statement. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. In the absence of any other Senator on the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, It has been my custom to make a report to the Congress, my constituents, and the general public when I return from a trip. I have sought recognition to speak about foreign travel I made to Beijing, Hanoi and Taipei from August 6, 2010, to August 16, 2010. We departed Dulles International Airport on United Airlines on Friday morning, August 6 en route to Beijing, China. This was my sixth visit to China, with the most recent taking place in 2006. On Sunday, August 8, we had a meeting with Mr. William Farris, Managing Counsel for Google. Mr. Farris had previously served as general counsel for the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, which was created by congressional statute in 2001 to oversee human rights and the rule of law. Especially with his background in these critical issues, Mr. Farris offered his views on the potential for unfettered access to the internet in China, the recent cyber attack against Google, and an overview of the Chinese business environment. Although Google initially censored its search engine in China, I was pleased that it has decided to offer a reroute through Hong Kong servers in order to provide uncensored access. China continues to put pressure on international firms over the nature of content produced. The Chinese government maintains a block on many U.S. Websites, including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. The pressure that the Chinese government places on firms has already led to the departure of major foreign ventures. Go Daddy, a leading U.S. Web site registration firm, has recently left the Chinese market. Increasing freedom will facilitate economic growth and attract investment. In my fiscal year 2011 appropriations request letter to the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee on the Senate Appropriations Committee, I urged the provision $50 million from the democracy fund to promote widespread, secure Internet use by individuals residing in countries with Internet monitoring, censorship, and control. This is a low-cost method of allowing people, especially those living under repressive regimes, to access all-source, unfiltered information. This capability enables freedom of thought, expression, and the unimpeded flow of ideas and information. One group, the Global Internet Freedom Consortium--an alliance of several organizations specializing in anti-censorship technologies--has submitted several important proposals. This group has been particularly effective in China, neutralizing the Chinese government's ``Golden Shield'' and ``Green Dam'' barriers. As I wrote in my July 7, 2009, op-ed in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: The United States must fight fire with fire in finding ways to breach these cyberwalls, which dictatorships use to control their people and keep themselves in power. Tearing down these walls can match the effect of what happened when the Berlin Wall was torn down. No one understands this better than the dictator states. The Internet has proven to be one of the most powerful tools for cultivating nascent democracies. American companies who have abetted repressive regimes by censoring information should reexamine their relationships and ways of doing businesses. That afternoon, we met with Ambassador Jon F. Huntsman Jr. and his wife, Mrs. Mary Kaye Huntsman, at the Ambassador's residence. I have known Ambassador Huntsman since his days as Deputy U.S. Trade Representative in the George W. Bush administration as well as the Governor of Utah. Ambassador Huntsman, fluent in Mandarin, brought unique skills to this post, gleaned from studying China for much of his life, serving as a missionary in the Republic of China, and extensive business experience. We discussed different dynamics of the U.S.-China relationship, including international trade, regional security, and human rights. On Monday, August 9, we began the day with a country team briefing from the U.S. Embassy in China. The briefing was led by Robert Goldberg, the Deputy Chief of Mission, and included Christopher Adams, Minister Counselor for Trade Affairs at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Aubrey Carlson, Political Minister Counselor, MaryKay Carlson, Acting Consul General, David Dollar, U.S. Treasury Economic and Financial Emissary to China, Robert Forden, Acting Economic Minister Counselor, Bradley Gehrke, Defense Attache, Randal Phillips, Minister Counselor for Plans and Programs, and William Zarit, Minister Counselor for Commercial Affairs from the Department of Commerce. Following the Country Team Briefing, I met John Klena, Julie Schneider, Andriana Wiegand, Sanford Dawson, Frank Joseph, Msg. Simon Price, Msg. Michael Fernald, Msg. Kenneth Hayles, and Megan Kellogg, fellow Pennsylvanians who admirably serve the U.S. through our Embassy in Beijing. Although the U.S. has many shared interests with China, it is important that we do not shy away from issues of potential conflict. I pushed for the need to gain leverage in our relationship with the Chinese in order to get them to change their behavior. I posed the question whether congressional action on trade issues and other disagreements with China would be helpful in pursuing U.S. policy aims. The country team indicated that congressional engagement helps China understand different stakeholders in the U.S. system. One other way to engage the Chinese is to coordinate with other countries and the business community to apply unified pressure against China on specific trade issues. An area of concern is China's commitment to reducing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, especially with regard to Iran and North Korea. Although China initially resisted a new round of sanctions against Iran this year, China seems to have been compliant with United Nations Security Council resolutions. China has significant energy and banking investments in Iran, and is reluctant to undermine its own interests. Iran has a history of using deceptive financial practices to circumvent U.N. sanctions, and it is important that all nations block banking relations with Iranian financial institutions if those transactions could facilitate Iranian nuclear proliferation. I made the point that an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear weapons facilities could harm China's energy supply, and that China might not have considered the impact of such an armed conflict on their bilateral relationship with Iran. China is North Korea's most significant economic partner and continues to provide North Korea with food aid. In 2009, trade between China and North Korea surpassed $2.7 billion. In 2009, North Korean exports to China rose by 4.3 percent to $793 million. China needs to be more willing to collaborate with the U.S. and international partners on urging North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program and destabilizing rhetoric. According to the U.S. Mission, engagement with North Korea is the best bilateral working relationship we have with China. A recurring issue during my visit to the region was territorial disputes in Southeast Asia. One especially problematic area is the South China Sea, which stretches from Singapore and the Strait of Malacca to the Strait of Taiwan. This waterway includes over 200 small islands, the majority of which are uninhabitable but rich in such natural resources as oil and natural gas. Although projections for energy reserves in the South China Sea vary, a 1994 U.S. Geological Survey approximated that there were 28 billion barrels of oil. Because there has not been any exploratory drilling in the area, estimates for energy reserves in two of the particularly resource-rich island chains, the Spratly Islands and Paracel Islands, are unknown. According to the Energy Information Administration at the Department of Energy, oil consumption in Asia is estimated to rise by over 2.7 percent per year to nearly 29.8 million barrels per day in 2030. Given the strategic importance of the South China Sea, many of its proximate nations have competing claims for territory. Although the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has not determined specific territorial delineations, it has offered guidelines for the resolution of competing claims through negotiation between nations. China submitted a map to the United Nations Security Council that depicted China's claim to over 80 percent of the South China Sea. The map includes a U-shaped line, connected by ``9 dots,'' granting China access to portions of the shores of Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines. This year, China began referring to this disputed waterway as a ``core national interest,'' similar language used to describe Tibet and Taiwan. China currently occupies several of the Spratly Islands. Vietnam has also claimed the Spratly Islands, occupying a small portion of the chain, as well as the Paracel Islands, despite ceding the latter to China after being forcibly removed by the Chinese military in 1974. China claims a wide-ranging exclusive economic zone, EEZ, an area of a sea zone for which a nation owns rights for use of marine resources including fishing and subterranean energy stores, in the South China Sea, despite the fact that Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam all have proximate coastal areas and competing claims for sovereignty. An EEZ, as described in the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, is permitted for certain waterways given their proximity to the coast of a country and other geographic factors. The South China Sea is host to over one-third of global maritime commerce, as well as more than 50 percent of Northeast Asia's energy supplies. U.S. forces also use the South China Sea to support the war in Afghanistan. China's naval aggression is troubling. China has developed its naval power to an unprecedented extent in recent years. Not only has China provoked U.S. military and aircraft in the South China Sea, but its defense budget has grown by 10 percent per decade, only slowing to 7.5 percent in 2010. China's naval modernization began in the 1990s, integrating such components as anti-ship ballistic missiles, submarines, new weapons acquisition, and surface ships into their forces. China has been known to use the force of its navy to resolve disputes, in opposition to U.N. treatises and internationally accepted norms. Increased Chinese aggression is also evident in the Yellow Sea. In the wake of a March 26, 2010, North Korean sinking of a South Korean ship, killing 46 sailors, the U.S. and South Korea announced, on July 6, 2010, plans to hold war games. In a July 8, 2010, press report, China came out against any foreign warships or planes participating in military activities in the Yellow Sea or adjacent areas and ultimately hosted its own war games on the same day that the U.S. and South Korea did. The Chinese military conducted a drill of unmanned drone aircraft in coastal areas to test radar and electromagnetic interference. The Yellow Sea is international waters--all nations should have access. Another contentious issue is the manufacturing of counterfeit products. In 2009, China was the source of 79 percent of the total value of all counterfeit products seized by U.S. Customs, totaling over $260 million. Chinese products also accounted for over 90 percent of all intellectual property rights-related seizures. The Business Software Alliance, an information technology industry group, has projected that 80 percent of software used in China has been pirated in violation of international copyright infringement laws, an improvement from 90 percent in 2004. As a growing power, China should make a greater effort to abide by international conventions and respect intellectual property rights. In fact, China stands to greatly benefit from fostering a business environment that protects innovation. A 10- percent drop in pirated software since 2004 corresponded to the addition of 220,000 jobs in China's legitimate information technology sector. Additionally, companies such as Apple, could be more willing to introduce new ventures to Chinese markets with assurances that their products would be protected. Because Chinese companies preemptively registered both the iPad trademark and design patent, Apple has delayed market entry of the iPad in China. We departed the Embassy for a meeting with the Governor of the People's Bank of China, Zhou Xiaochuan. Many of the economic issues in the relationship between the U.S. and China have persisted for years. Although Chinese officials have met with Secretary Geithner and former Secretaries of the Treasury, the U.S. should continue to develop a frank dialogue with the Chinese. The U.S. Embassy counts 49 formal dialogues with the Chinese regarding financial and economic cooperation, although the Chinese count 60. At the meeting, I pressed the issue of China's currency manipulation. Governor Zhou mentioned that the Chinese economy is transitioning, noting that workers' wages have increased by 20 percent and that China is allowing for increased private sector growth. Although the Chinese economy grew at 7.7 percent in 2009, Governor Zhou expected China's export growth rate to slow over the next 3 to 5 years. I objected that 5 years would be too long to wait as the U.S. is losing jobs, especially in industries such as steel and rubber. I argued that Congress is contemplating legislating on the currency issue to rectify imbalances. Governor Zhou discussed how economic uncertainty has made the Chinese government more careful about economic policy changes and that China has economic challenges of its own, including a 10-percent unemployment rate. I retorted that the U.S. unemployment rate is currently at 9.6 percent. I informed Governor Zhou about how Chinese subsidies and dumping are unfairly harming the steel and tire industries. According to the most recent data issued by the Foreign Trade Division of the U.S. Census, the annual trade deficit with China stands at $93.3 million as of May 2010. Employment in American manufacturing has plummeted at the same time that Chinese imports and U.S. trade deficits have set records. The trade deficit with China is the largest imbalance ever recorded between two countries, in part because of China's deliberate undervaluing of its currency. I brought up two cases I recently argued before the International Trade Commission, ITC, for which the ITC found that Chinese tire imports had disrupted the U.S. tire industry. In December of 2009, I urged the ITC to charge China with dumping of tubular steel and to impose sanctions. I argued that the lost jobs, reduced hours, and plant shutdowns constituted a ``severe and intolerable harm.'' By the spring of 2009, 6 of 11 high grade tubular steel plants in the country, including mills in Koppel and Ambridge, PA, were idle as a result of Chinese imports. While the Koppel and Ambridge plants are back operating at minimum capacity, overall industry operating capacity dropped from 68.5 percent in 2006 to 17.6 percent in 2009. During the same period, China's market share of high grade tubular steel rose from 15 to 37 percent. The ITC determined that the steel industry was materially injured or threatened with material injury, and the Commerce Department issued an AD duty order on imports ranging from 29.94 to 99.14 percent. I emphasized to Governor Zhou that it is unacceptable for China to continue to dump goods on the American economy. He mentioned that China understands the pressure on the Pennsylvania industries. He said that certain shifts are inevitable and suggested that the U.S. seek settlement from the World Trade Organization, WTO. The U.S. has filed eight cases at the WTO for trade violations. We settled four cases and won four of them. I pressed that the WTO takes too long and that the damage from unfair trade practices is done before there is time for a resolution. Following our meeting with the People's Bank of China, we departed for a meeting with Vice Minister of Commerce Wang Chao. We discussed the benefit of enhancing the U.S.-China relationship by targeting areas of mutual interest. I argued that the current trade relationship between the U.S. and China has an unfair impact on the U.S. steel and rubber industries. I also pressed the issue of ITC violations and Chinese subsidizing and dumping goods. The U.S. is the largest export destination of China, and China is the third largest export destination for the U.S. There are 58,000 U.S. companies present in China. I told the Minister that both China and the U.S. should review subsidies in a manner where everything is placed on the table. Our last meeting in Beijing was at Tsinghua University, host of the Temple University Rule of Law Program in China. On this visit, I met with Wang Zhenmin, dean of the Law School and John Smagula, director of Asian Programs at Temple University Beasley School of Law. Since 1999, Temple has educated 1,024 legal professionals. Seventy-nine percent of these participants have been from the public sector, including 370 judges, 151 prosecutors, 88 government officials, 152 law professors, and 47 Non-Governmental Organization legal staff. On this visit, I addressed students in the master's in law program. The students included: Judges Jiang Minsong, Su Tuan, Wang Didi, Wang Xiaoqin, Wei Xigui, Xie Aimei, Yang Lingping, and Zhou Junsheng; Prosecutors Feng Guanhua, Lin Bowen, Lu Xiaomei, Tang Shengjia, and Yang Li; Chinese Officials Li Sheng, Ma Ning, Pang Lei, Xiang Hang, and Yang Kefei; Law Professors Abulimiti Ameina, Lu Yao, and Zheng Yanpu; and from the private sector, Dimitrova Deniza, Fan Ping, Guo Qiushi, Kuang Lu, Lang Zhuo, Tan Jiacai, Wang Hong, Wang Xin, Xu Changrong, Zhang Hairong, Zhang Xianzhong, Zhang Yitong, and Zhu Wenting. The group asked me numerous questions on topics ranging from Justice Kagan, my battles with cancer, my legislation that would televise Supreme Court deliberations, and health care reform. The students were eager to discuss the benefits of the Temple University Program in China and how the school continues to play an important role in bridging U.S.-Chinese relations and cultivating the development of law. This trip to China was especially meaningful for me because my last visit in August 2006 was on a CODEL led by my friend, the late Senator Ted Stevens. The Nation has lost an icon of statesmanship and a stalwart public servant. Senator Stevens was an exemplary leader in the U.S. Senate, a champion for military and defense issues, a proud veteran, and friend of mine. His work on behalf of all Alaskans was unparalleled in the U.S. Senate, and his passion for this country will be forever remembered. Joan and I are deeply saddened by this news and offer our most sincere condolences to Catherine and the Stevens family. I want to note that Senator Stevens was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for flying support missions for the 14th Air Force, also known as the Flying Tigers, during World War II. The Flying Tigers, the First American Volunteer Group of the Chinese Air Force, were organized before the U.S. officially entered World War II, designed to fight against Japanese forces. In 1942, the division was officially inducted into the U.S. Air Force. On Tuesday, August 10, we departed Beijing on Vietnam Airlines for Hanoi, Vietnam. This was my second visit to Vietnam. We were met at the airport by Ambassador Michael Michalak and Control Officer Michael Goldman. On Wednesday, August 11, we departed for the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi to receive a country team briefing. This briefing, led by Ambassador Michalak, was staffed by Mike Goldman, Acting Political Counselor, Patrick Reardon, Defense Attache, Justin Taylor, from the Foreign Agricultural Service, Michael Foster, Acting USAID Country Director, Eric Frater, the Environment, Science, Technology, and Health Officer, Yashue Pai, from the Foreign Commercial Service, Vivian Chao, PEPFAR Country Director, Lloyd Neighbors, Public Affairs Officer, Bruce Struminger, Center for Disease Control Country Director, Jessica Webster, Economic Counselor, and Robert Frazier, Management Counselor and Acting Deputy Chief of Mission. I also appreciate the efforts of Nicole Johnson, Michael Orona, Tim Liston, and Matt Mathews. At the briefing, we discussed the need to promote education in Vietnam, address climate change in a global way, and deepen trust between the U.S. and Vietnam. Military exchanges could assist the latter aim. The U.S. Embassy is actively involved in locating and returning the remains of U.S. soldiers who were missing in action during the Vietnam war, as well as managing funding appropriated by Congress to clean up Agent Orange. The continued presence of Agent Orange in Vietnam continues to present grave health threats to the Vietnamese. The Vietnamese government requested that the U.S. focus its remediation efforts on Da Nang Airport. USAID has estimated that at least $24 million is needed to complete this remediation project. I have supported U.S. funding for remediation of dioxin contaminants, one of the harmful components of Agent Orange, including $15 million in fiscal year 2010 funding. The fiscal year 2010 amount was $3 million higher than the fiscal year 2009 amount. The U.S. currently contributes over $154 million a year in total aid to Vietnam, with $102 million allocated to the health sector--largely for the President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, and avian influenza. HIV/AIDS continues to pose a serious threat to the Vietnamese. In the 111th Congress, I voted to appropriate $48 billion for international HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria programs through fiscal year 2013, including $30 billion for PEPFAR. In my fiscal year 2011 appropriations request letter to the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee on the Senate Appropriations Committee, I asked for $1.75 billion for the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria worldwide. Another issue in Vietnam is the continued presence of unexploded ordinance. Since the end of the Vietnam war in 1974, more than 40,000 Vietnamese have been killed from contact with unexploded ordinance and another 64,000 people have been injured. According to Vietnam's Ministry of Defense, over 16 million acres of Vietnam are still contaminated by 350,000 to 800,000 tons of unexploded ordinance, with over 3 million landmines in addition to unexploded bombs. From 2000 to 2009, Vietnam has received more than $37 million in U.S. assistance for de-mining, mine risk education, survivors' assistance, and landmine impact studies. At the current pace of clearance, it will take 300 years and more than $10 billion to clear Vietnam of leftover unexploded ordinance. This year, the U.S. and Vietnam celebrate the 15th anniversary of diplomatic relations. Fifteen years ago, bilateral trade was $451 million annually, an amount dwarfed by the $15.4 billion traded in 2009. The U.S. and Vietnam have come very far in overcoming historical animosities, exemplified through joint military exercises held on August 11, 2010. Vietnam currently holds the rotating Chair of ASEAN and the ASEAN Regional Forum, increasing its leadership role in the region. Since adopting a series of economic reforms in 1986, Vietnam has been steadily liberalizing its economy. Vietnam was admitted to the World Trade Organization in 2007. This economic transition has led to a steep decline in the poverty rate, which dropped from 58 percent of the population in 1993 to below 30 percent in 2003. The partnership between Vietnam and the U.S. continues to grow. In 2009 the U.S. imported $12.2 billion from Vietnam and exported $3 billion. With regard to territorial disputes in the South China Sea, in recent months, China has escalated its rhetoric, harassed Vietnamese fishing boats, and objected to potential cooperation between Western energy companies and the Vietnamese government to harness resources. Using the guidelines for EEZs, Vietnam claims sovereignty over all of the Spratly and Paracel Islands. In 2002, Vietnam, along with other ASEAN countries, signed the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea. The parties of this declaration agreed to settle the territorial disputes in the South China Sea through negotiation and the development of peaceful solutions rather than military force. Accordingly, Vietnam resolved a dispute with Cambodia over the Gulf of Thailand through a 2006 resource-sharing pact. In 1992, Vietnam and Malaysia signed a Joint Development Areas agreement. In 1997, Vietnam and Thailand signed an agreement delineating their respective sea boundaries. Despite all of these agreements, China has not been willing to pursue peaceful arrangements, instead relying on coercion and bullying. Supported by the leadership of Secretary Clinton, a coalition of Southeast Asian nations, at the recent ASEAN Regional Security Forum, publicly challenged Chinese sovereignty over many areas of the South China Sea, seeking a regional solution as opposed to a series of bilateral agreements. On August 11, we participated in a working lunch hosted by the National Assembly Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ngo Quan Xuan. We discussed the importance of the U.S.-Vietnam economic relationship, Agent Orange remediation, as well as the prospect of Chinese regional hegemony. The Chairman also mentioned that there are 13,000 Vietnamese students studying in the U.S.--this student exchange is particularly important given the need for trained doctors and lawyers in Vietnam and for fostering ties between the U.S. and Vietnam among the next generation of leaders. I explained to him how a lack of progress on human rights threatens progress of many areas of the U.S.-Vietnam relationship, including arms sales. The next day, we met with Duong Trung Quoc, a member of the Vietnamese Assembly. He is one of the few non-Communist members in the Assembly and shared his views on prospects for liberalizing Vietnam and the future of the Vietnamese political and economic systems. He is a historian and journalist by trade. We spoke at great length about the history of Vietnam and how historical interactions have shaped current regional tensions and security concerns. On Friday, August 13, we departed Hanoi for Taipei, Taiwan on China Airways. This was my fourth visit to Taiwan, with the most recent one taking place in 2001. After being received at the airport by officials from the Taiwanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the American Institute in Taiwan, we were escorted to a meeting with President Ma Ying-jeou. President Ma was born in Hong Kong and received his undergraduate education from the National Taiwan University. He then received graduate degrees from New York University and Harvard University. President Ma served as mayor of Taipei before being elected President in 2008. The U.S. and the Republic of China enjoy close ties. President Ma offered his views on North Korean aggression and China's role in the region. I pressed him on the steel industry, tariffs in both our countries, importing American beef to Taiwan, and ways of enhancing the bilateral economic relationship. The U.S. exported over $18.5 billion to Taiwan, while it imported $28.4 billion. Taiwan is currently the 11th largest export market for U.S. goods and the U.S. is currently Taiwan's third largest trade partner. The bilateral Trade and Investment Framework Agreement, TIFA, a process designed to enhance economic cooperation and resolve disputes, guides U.S.-Taiwan trade relations. We spoke about the recent Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, ECFA, between Taiwan and China, signed on June 29, 2010. The EFCA was preceded by the first direct flight between Taipei and Shanghai, which departed on June 14, 2010, increasing the ease of travel between China and Taiwan. The ECFA will remove tariffs on 539 Taiwanese products and 267 Chinese goods over the next 3 years. This deal permits Taiwan to seek free trade agreements with other nations in the region, and talks with Singapore are currently underway. Because Taiwan would struggle economically without the Chinese market, some are wary that Taiwan is becoming too dependent on the Chinese. We discussed U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. The Taiwanese Relations Act, TRA, of 1979 calls for the U.S. to supply Taiwan with capabilities for self-defense and creates unofficial representation in Taiwan through the American Institute in Taiwan. The TRA names U.S. policy as being oriented towards resisting coercion of the unofficial U.S.-Taiwan relations. Although the U.S. must provide for the sale of arms to Taiwan, the TRA does not specify the types of armaments, requiring only that Taiwan should be able to maintain ``sufficient'' defensive capabilities. Under the purview of the TRA, the U.S., on August 25, 2008, announced its intent to sell 60 Harpoon missiles, worth approximately $89.8 million, to Taiwan. On October 3, 2008, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of the possible foreign military sale of six different types of defense articles and equipment, which could have totaled a maximum of approximately $6.4 billion. After increasingly tense relations between the U.S. and China, President Obama decided to defer the arms deal until 2011. Taiwan will still be able to purchase minor parts and upgrades. We discussed the Taiwanese request, submitted in November 2009, to upgrade F-16A/D fighters which were initially sold to Taiwan in 1992. The Taiwanese request noted that the upgrades would render the fleet parallel to the new F-16C/D fighters, reducing the need for a substitute fleet. American contractors have estimated that this retrofit would take approximately 6 years to complete. On August 15, we attended a working lunch hosted by Dr. Lyushun Shen, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. The meeting was attended by Benny T. Hu, Chairman of CDIB BioScience Venture Management, Maj. Gen. Mike Tsai-Mai Tien of the Republic of China Air Force Academy, Mrs. Tien, Lawrence S. Liu, Senior Vice President of China Development Financial Holdings, Johnson S. Chiang, Section Chief of the Department of North American Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ms. Grace Ya-hung Lin, Assistant to Deputy Minister Shen, Eric Madison, Deputy Director of the American Institute in Taiwan, Ms. Judy Kuo, Deputy Chief from the Economic Section at the American Institute in Taiwan, and Ms. Astrid Ai-yun Chen, Officer, Department of North American Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. On Monday, August 16, we met with Wang Jin-pyng, president of the Legislative Yuan, before departing for Taipei International Airport. We flew on Eva Airlines from Taipei to Newark, NJ, for 16 hours leaving on August 16 and arriving on August 16 crossing the international date line. I would like to recognize Major Lance Burnett and Dan Eisenberg of my staff for their support of this CODEL.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce the Stem Cell Research Advancement Act of 2010 on behalf of Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein, and myself. Some 21 days ago, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in an opinion by Chief Judge Lamberth, the expenditures made by the National Institutes of Health for embryonic stem cell research under an Executive order issued by President Obama on March 9, 2009, was overturned under a declaration that the Executive order violated the Dickey-Wicker amendment enacted by Congress. Even though on its face it is pretty clear-cut that the embryonic stem cell research was not precluded by that amendment, that has had the effect of tying up very important ongoing research. For example, some $546 million has already been spent on human embryonic stem cell research and some very noteworthy progress has been made. For example, the Food and Drug Administration has approved a clinical trial for patients with spinal cord injury, and human embryonic stem cell research has been successfully used to develop new therapeutic drugs for a number of diseases including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and muscular dystrophy, and those are just a couple of the illustrations. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has stayed the lower court's order until September 20, but there is very substantial doubt as what the future will be. Meanwhile, although the district court order has been stayed, there is great uncertainty in the research community as to what will happen. This research is vital for moving against the maladies of our society. The background on this issue is that in November of 1998, the disclosure was made about the potential for embryonic stem cell research. At the time I chaired the appropriations subcommittee which funded Health and Human Services. It seemed to me that was a tremendous opportunity and I scheduled a hearing within a few days, held on December 2 of 1998. Since that time, there have been some 20 hearings. As we all know, the funding for the National Institutes of Health has had a tremendous increase. When I joined the committee after my election in 1980, the funding was $3.6 billion. When I became chairman of the committee in the mid-1990s, the funding was $12 billion. With the concurrence of the then-ranking member, Senator Harkin, we took the lead in increasing funding from some $12 billion to $30 billion. Regrettably, with budget constraints, the funding did not keep pace, starting in the year 2003. But in the stimulus package there was an additional $10 billion added which has reawakened a whole generation of research scientists, with that $10 billion providing funding for some 15,000 grants. The results for health have been really overwhelming. Here are a few illustrations. In the 1950s, cardiovascular disease caused half of the United States deaths. Today, the rate for coronary heart disease is more than 60 percent lower. Over the past 25 years, the 5-year survival rate for prostate cancer has increased from 69 percent to almost 99 percent for diagnosed patients. For childhood cancers, the 5-year survival rate has improved markedly over the past 3 decades, from less than 50 percent before the 1970s to 80 percent today. Those are only illustrative statistics. The opportunities for embryonic stem cell research are overwhelming. The Specter-Harkin bill was passed by the Senate in 2006 by a vote of 63 to 37, a very healthy margin for an issue which has raised some controversy. The House of Representatives passed the legislation but regrettably President Bush vetoed it in 2006, and the effort to override the veto in the House failed. There was a vote of 235 to 193, short of the two-thirds necessary to override the veto. But that shows enormous Congressional support. Then President Obama issued the Executive order that Federal funds could be used on embryonic stem cell research on lines where the embryo had been donated. This is in line with the policy adopted by President Bush in August of 2001, when he allowed the use of quite a number of stem cell lines where the embryos had been donated. Later it was found there were only 21 lines, and those were insufficient, which has led to the effort for legislation and then led to President Obama's Executive order. The fact is, there are some 400,000 of these embryos which are frozen and which will ultimately be discarded. So it is use them for medical research to save lives or throw them away. Some have contended that we are destroying lives but the reality is they will not be utilized. In response to the issue as to whether there might be adoption of these embryos, the subcommittee took the lead in appropriating substantial funds, which is more than $4 million a year, actually $4.2 million, but relatively few people have come forward for its use on adopting the embryos to turn them into life. If these embryos could be turned into human life I would not under any circumstance advocate scientific research on these embryos--if they could produce life. But they cannot. The facts are plain. The adoption line has been in effect now since 2002. Only a few hundred have been adopted. President Bush invited the ``snowflake'' children to the White House during his tenure, about 150 of them. Now we have a situation where the court has intervened, even though more than a year and a half had elapsed since President Obama issued the Executive order, a clear indication of congressional intent not to deal with it or not to overturn it. I think it is a fair legal analysis that the order issued by the district court is not a sound order. Some indication of that is found in the fact that the circuit court stayed the order--not conclusive, but when they stay an order it looks as though they are not favorably inclined toward it. But who knows what the circuit court will do? Who knows what the Supreme Court of the United States, with their ideological bent, would do? This has become a theological issue in part, very emotional, with people arguing that it is akin to abortion. Of course it is nowhere near that kind. It seems to me Congress ought to act. That is why on the first order of business after we convened here this afternoon, our first day back and our first hour in the Senate session, I am introducing this legislation. I have discussed it with sponsors on the House side and I think we are in a position to move rapidly. Certainly the previous vote of 63 to 37 in 2006 shows substantial support in this body, and the 235-to-193 vote to override President Bush's veto shows the same in the House of Representatives. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort so this important scientific research may be continued. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my printed statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce the Stem Cell Research Advancement Act of 2010 on behalf of Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein, and myself. Some 21 days ago, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in an opinion by Chief Judge Lamberth, the expenditures made by the National Institutes of Health for embryonic stem cell research under an Executive order issued by President Obama on March 9, 2009, was overturned under a declaration that the Executive order violated the Dickey-Wicker amendment enacted by Congress. Even though on its face it is pretty clear-cut that the embryonic stem cell research was not precluded by that amendment, that has had the effect of tying up very important ongoing research. For example, some $546 million has already been spent on human embryonic stem cell research and some very noteworthy progress has been made. For example, the Food and Drug Administration has approved a clinical trial for patients with spinal cord injury, and human embryonic stem cell research has been successfully used to develop new therapeutic drugs for a number of diseases including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and muscular dystrophy, and those are just a couple of the illustrations. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has stayed the lower court's order until September 20, but there is very substantial doubt as what the future will be. Meanwhile, although the district court order has been stayed, there is great uncertainty in the research community as to what will happen. This research is vital for moving against the maladies of our society. The background on this issue is that in November of 1998, the disclosure was made about the potential for embryonic stem cell research. At the time I chaired the appropriations subcommittee which funded Health and Human Services. It seemed to me that was a tremendous opportunity and I scheduled a hearing within a few days, held on December 2 of 1998. Since that time, there have been some 20 hearings. As we all know, the funding for the National Institutes of Health has had a tremendous increase. When I joined the committee after my election in 1980, the funding was $3.6 billion. When I became chairman of the committee in the mid-1990s, the funding was $12 billion. With the concurrence of the then-ranking member, Senator Harkin, we took the lead in increasing funding from some $12 billion to $30 billion. Regrettably, with budget constraints, the funding did not keep pace, starting in the year 2003. But in the stimulus package there was an additional $10 billion added which has reawakened a whole generation of research scientists, with that $10 billion providing funding for some 15,000 grants. The results for health have been really overwhelming. Here are a few illustrations. In the 1950s, cardiovascular disease caused half of the United States deaths. Today, the rate for coronary heart disease is more than 60 percent lower. Over the past 25 years, the 5-year survival rate for prostate cancer has increased from 69 percent to almost 99 percent for diagnosed patients. For childhood cancers, the 5-year survival rate has improved markedly over the past 3 decades, from less than 50 percent before the 1970s to 80 percent today. Those are only illustrative statistics. The opportunities for embryonic stem cell research are overwhelming. The Specter-Harkin bill was passed by the Senate in 2006 by a vote of 63 to 37, a very healthy margin for an issue which has raised some controversy. The House of Representatives passed the legislation but regrettably President Bush vetoed it in 2006, and the effort to override the veto in the House failed. There was a vote of 235 to 193, short of the two-thirds necessary to override the veto. But that shows enormous Congressional support. Then President Obama issued the Executive order that Federal funds could be used on embryonic stem cell research on lines where the embryo had been donated. This is in line with the policy adopted by President Bush in August of 2001, when he allowed the use of quite a number of stem cell lines where the embryos had been donated. Later it was found there were only 21 lines, and those were insufficient, which has led to the effort for legislation and then led to President Obama's Executive order. The fact is, there are some 400,000 of these embryos which are frozen and which will ultimately be discarded. So it is use them for medical research to save lives or throw them away. Some have contended that we are destroying lives but the reality is they will not be utilized. In response to the issue as to whether there might be adoption of these embryos, the subcommittee took the lead in appropriating substantial funds, which is more than $4 million a year, actually $4.2 million, but relatively few people have come forward for its use on adopting the embryos to turn them into life. If these embryos could be turned into human life I would not under any circumstance advocate scientific research on these embryos--if they could produce life. But they cannot. The facts are plain. The adoption line has been in effect now since 2002. Only a few hundred have been adopted. President Bush invited the ``snowflake'' children to the White House during his tenure, about 150 of them. Now we have a situation where the court has intervened, even though more than a year and a half had elapsed since President Obama issued the Executive order, a clear indication of congressional intent not to deal with it or not to overturn it. I think it is a fair legal analysis that the order issued by the district court is not a sound order. Some indication of that is found in the fact that the circuit court stayed the order--not conclusive, but when they stay an order it looks as though they are not favorably inclined toward it. But who knows what the circuit court will do? Who knows what the Supreme Court of the United States, with their ideological bent, would do? This has become a theological issue in part, very emotional, with people arguing that it is akin to abortion. Of course it is nowhere near that kind. It seems to me Congress ought to act. That is why on the first order of business after we convened here this afternoon, our first day back and our first hour in the Senate session, I am introducing this legislation. I have discussed it with sponsors on the House side and I think we are in a position to move rapidly. Certainly the previous vote of 63 to 37 in 2006 shows substantial support in this body, and the 235-to-193 vote to override President Bush's veto shows the same in the House of Representatives. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort so this important scientific research may be continued. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my printed statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``For-Profit Schools: The Student Recruitment Experience'' on August 4, 2010. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m. in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Impeachment Trial Committee on the Articles Against Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 4, at 1 p.m.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight and the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 4, 2010, at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Office Building.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower and the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 4, 2010, at 10 a.m.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 4, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Social Security Disability Fraud: Case Studies in Federal Employees and Commercial Drivers Licenses.''

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on August 4, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Government Preparedness and Response to a Terrorist Attack Using Weapons of Mass Distruction.''

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on August 4, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. in room 328A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I wish to speak to a resolution honoring the National Council for International Visitors, NCIV, on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. The United States has the responsibility of protecting its citizens by ensuring peace, and I believe that citizen diplomacy as practiced by the NCIV is a crucial tool to achieving that end. With the goal of promoting ``excellence in civilian diplomacy,'' the NCIV promotes the idea that individual citizens have the right and responsibility to promote peaceful and cooperative foreign relations. NCIV champions the belief that ``citizen diplomacy has the power to shape American perceptions of foreign cultures and international perceptions of the United States, effectively shattering stereotypes, illuminating differences, underscoring common human values, and developing the web of human connections needed to achieve more peaceful relations between nations.'' In a partnership with the Department of State, the NCIV cosponsors the International Visitor Leadership Program, IVLP, which brings distinguished foreign leaders to the United States for short-term professional programs. Since 1961, the NCIV has organized people-to- people exchanges for more than 190,000 foreign leaders participating in the IVLP, and of these participants, 285 went on to lead their respective countries. The IVLP's distinguished alumni include Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher, Anwar Sadat, Indira Gandhi, and Nicolas Sarkozy, among others. Throughout my tenure in the Senate, I have sought to engage leaders of friendly and adversarial nations alike, as I recognize the potential for dialogue to yield positive results where few prospects for progress were at first seen. Refusing to negotiate with adversarial countries exacerbates relations with these nations, and the resulting mutual lack of understanding strengthens anti-American sentiments. It is my personal experience that meeting with leaders whose policies are in conflict with those of the United States can yield positive results. I cite my interactions with former President Hafiz al-Asad of Syria, President Fidel Castro of Cuba, and President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela as examples. Achievements resulting in some small part from this personal diplomacy included expansion of emigration rights in Syria and cooperation with Cuba and Venezuela on counter-narcotics policy. By investing in diplomacy, the United States can foster international relationships that facilitate peaceful resolutions to conflict. The NCIV promotes these relationships on an individual basis, ``[bridging] cultures and [building] mutually beneficial relationships through international exchanges.'' I nominated the NCIV network of citizen diplomats for the 2001 Nobel Prize believing they ``have done . . . the best work for fraternity between nations.'' On the occasion of the NCIV's 50th anniversary, I hope that my colleagues join me in honoring their work.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I congratulate and honor George Austin Hay on his recent retirement as a multimedia specialist for the U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT. As a former resident of, and originally from, Johnstown, PA, Mr. Hay's 37 years with the Federal Highway Administration capped an extraordinary career of 55 years of public service with the Federal Government. He has distinguished himself as a truly dedicated public servant. Mr. Hay joined the Department of Defense in 1955 as a motion picture producer and casting director at the Department's Army Pictorial Center in Astoria, New York--the most expansive government film facility and, at that time, the fourth largest studio and sound stage in the world. There he produced Army training films, Government documentaries, and Defense Department short subjects. While employed at the Department of Defense, Mr. Hay had the privilege of working with some of Hollywood's best, including Paul Newman, Edward R. Murrow, Ed Asner, Henry Fonda, Gene Hackman, Dick Cavett, and Ronald Reagan, all of whom Mr. Hay hired for military training films. He also developed a friendship with Walter Cronkite. In 1973, Mr. Hay was called to Washington to fill the shoes of the retiring chief of the Federal Highway Administration's photographic section. While at the Federal Highway Administration, Mr. Hay produced his crowning achievement in film: ``Highways of History.'' This film narrative depicts the history of transportation in the United States. The film has been shown on television and has been distributed to high schools and universities with an estimation of more than 1 million viewers over the last 30 years. As a multimedia specialist, Mr. Hay was involved with an extensive photo and illustration search program. He has researched information to describe hundreds of selected images showing excellence in highway design, outstanding bridge structures, and multimodal transportation. Mr. Hay was also responsible for historical exhibits, and was widely known for his wealth of knowledge about the Federal Highway Administration's history, as well as the history of America's roadways. As an integral part of the publishing and visual communications team, he has written numerous fascinating articles that chronicle the development of our modern transportation system. In his spare time, Mr. Hay has also appeared as an extra in more than 100 movies. His film credits include walking beside Cary Grant in the Alfred Hitchcock masterpiece, ``North by Northwest.'' Today, Mr. Hay continues to act as an extra, averaging two films per year. Throughout his career, Mr. Hay's outstanding efforts have enhanced DOT's public image by bringing positive transportation messages to citizens across the Nation. His multimedia products have depicted significant historical events and garnered widespread attention, as well as notable commendations. His fascinating articles, films, and exhibits have chronicled the development of our modern transportation system. His work demonstrates an extraordinary ability to harness knowledge about DOT's history, as well as the history of America's transportation system. Mr. Hay has provided an invaluable service for many years, and his achievements will have a lasting legacy.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to introduce the Safe Highway Markings Act of 2010, a bill that would establish minimum standards limiting the amounts of arsenic and lead contained in glass beads for reflective pavement markings. This bill will help protect surface and ground water from contamination and protect the health and safety of highway workers. Each year, approximately 500 million pounds of glass beads are applied to create reflective markings on roads in the United States. The source materials for the manufacturing of these glass beads can vary widely. While most engineered glass beads use environmentally- friendly materials such as recycled flat glass, some of the glass beads contain arsenic, lead and other heavy metals. As the glass degrades from the pounding of traffic, snow plows, trucks and weather, toxic materials can leach out of the glass and mix into the ground and surface water. In addition, workers who apply the glass beads with high concentrations of heavy metals are at risk for exposure. In response to environmental and health issues, several states have adopted regulations that require the use of environmentally-friendly, non-toxic glass materials. In particular, California, Iowa, Maine, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington and Wyoming have established procurement standards for the quality of glass beads used in highways markings in their States. Several other States are currently reviewing proposals. Additionally, the European Union, China, Australia, and several Canadian provinces have also set standards limiting heavy metal concentration. It makes no sense to continue this piecemeal approach; it is time for a national standard. This legislation establishes a minimum standard for engineered glass beads used in reflective markings. The legislation ensures that States receiving Federal funds adhere to the Environmental Protection Agency's methods and standards for engineered glass beads, specifically that the beads may contain no more than 200 parts per million of arsenic. Similar legislation has been introduced in the House and I look forward to advancing this important legislation in the Senate. As such, I urge my colleagues to support this bill that will help safeguard the lives of highway workers and help keep public roads free of high levels of arsenic and lead.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to introduce the Safe Highway Markings Act of 2010, a bill that would establish minimum standards limiting the amounts of arsenic and lead contained in glass beads for reflective pavement markings. This bill will help protect surface and ground water from contamination and protect the health and safety of highway workers. Each year, approximately 500 million pounds of glass beads are applied to create reflective markings on roads in the United States. The source materials for the manufacturing of these glass beads can vary widely. While most engineered glass beads use environmentally- friendly materials such as recycled flat glass, some of the glass beads contain arsenic, lead and other heavy metals. As the glass degrades from the pounding of traffic, snow plows, trucks and weather, toxic materials can leach out of the glass and mix into the ground and surface water. In addition, workers who apply the glass beads with high concentrations of heavy metals are at risk for exposure. In response to environmental and health issues, several states have adopted regulations that require the use of environmentally-friendly, non-toxic glass materials. In particular, California, Iowa, Maine, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington and Wyoming have established procurement standards for the quality of glass beads used in highways markings in their States. Several other States are currently reviewing proposals. Additionally, the European Union, China, Australia, and several Canadian provinces have also set standards limiting heavy metal concentration. It makes no sense to continue this piecemeal approach; it is time for a national standard. This legislation establishes a minimum standard for engineered glass beads used in reflective markings. The legislation ensures that States receiving Federal funds adhere to the Environmental Protection Agency's methods and standards for engineered glass beads, specifically that the beads may contain no more than 200 parts per million of arsenic. Similar legislation has been introduced in the House and I look forward to advancing this important legislation in the Senate. As such, I urge my colleagues to support this bill that will help safeguard the lives of highway workers and help keep public roads free of high levels of arsenic and lead.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to address the subject of televising the Supreme Court of the United States. Legislation is pending on the Senate docket which was voted out of the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 13 to 6, and it is particularly appropriate to consider this issue at a time when we are examining the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court. We have seen, in a series of nomination proceedings, the grave difficulties of getting answers from nominees as to their philosophy or ideology, and that is particularly important when the Supreme Court has become an ideological battleground. There is a great deal of lip service to the proposition that the courts interpret the Constitution and interpret legislation as opposed to making law, but the reality is that on the cutting edge of the decisions made by the Supreme Court, the decisions are based on ideology. Therefore, for the Senate to discharge its constitutional duty on advise and consent--on the consent facet, to have an idea of where nominees stand--there is an adjunct to that consideration; that is, to find a way to have the nominees follow the testimony they give. We have found that in notable cases--the most recent of which is Citizens United--two of the Justices made a 180 degree about-face. Both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito testified extensively about reliance upon Congress for factfinding under the obvious proposition that Congress has the ability to hear witnesses and make factual determinations. Chief Justice Roberts was explicit in his testimony that when the Court takes over the factfinding function, that it is legislation which is coming from the Court decisions. Similarly, those two Justices were emphatic on their view of stare decisis, and there was a 180-degree about-face in Citizens United on precedent which lasted for 100 years, and now corporations may engage in political advertising. So the issue is one of trying to deal with some level of accountability. The principle of judicial independence is the bulwark of our Republic. It is the rule of law which distinguishes the United States from most of the other countries of the world. The independence of the judiciary is assured by the fact they serve for life or good behavior. The suggestion that the Court be televised is in no way an infringement upon judicial independence. We are not suggesting how the Justices should decide cases, we are saying to the Justices that the public ought to know what is going on. Recent public opinion polls show that 63 percent of the American people favor televising the Supreme Court. When the other 37 percent was informed that the Supreme Court Chamber only holds a couple hundred people and that when someone arrives there they can only stay for 3 minutes, that number in favor of televising the Court rose to 85 percent. The highest tribunal in Great Britain is televised. The highest tribunal in Canada is televised. Many State supreme courts are televised. The press--the print media have an absolute right to be present in the proceedings under Supreme Court decision. So why not the Supreme Court? This comes into sharp focus on the factor that there has been an erosion of congressional authority by what the Supreme Court has done. In the course of the past two decades--really, 15 years--the Congress has lost a considerable amount of its authority--some taken by the Court and some taken by the executive branch. The Court has taken greater authority. In 1995, with the decision of United States v. Lopez, on the issue of caring guns into a school yard, for 60 years there had been no challenge to the authority of Congress under the commerce clause. That followed the legislation declared invalid under the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s and led to the move to pack the Court. But since that time, the commerce clause has been respected. The case of United States v. Morrison, involving legislation protecting women against violence, was another case diminishing the power of Congress. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court declared that act unconstitutional because of Congress's ``method of reasoning.'' One may wonder what the method of reasoning is in the Supreme Court Chamber, a short distance beyond the pillars of the Senate. What happens when a nominee leaves the confirmation proceedings and walks across Constitution Avenue? Do they have some different method of reasoning? The fact is, there has been a reduction in the authority of the Congress. The Court has further taken authority from the Congress in a series of decisions interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act. Two cases--Alabama v. Garrett and Tennessee v. Lane--came to opposite results with 5-to-4 decisions. In the case of Tennessee v. Lane, the Americans with Disabilities Act was upheld when a paraplegic sued because he couldn't gain access to a courtroom because there was no elevator. With a shift in the vote of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in Alabama v. Garrett, the section of the Americans with Disabilities Act was declared unconstitutional dealing with employment. In the case of Alabama v. Garrett, the Court applied a test called congruence and proportionality. Up until the case of City of Boerne in 1997, the standard had been a rational basis. But a new standard was articulated--congruence and proportionality--which is impossible to understand. Justice Scalia correctly asserted that it was a ``flabby test,'' designed to give the court flexibility to engage in judicial legislation. When nominee Elena Kagan was asked which standard she would apply, the rational basis test or the congruence and proportionality test, she declined to answer. That certainly fell within the ambit of Ms. Kagan's now famous 1995 Law Review article, where she chastised Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer for stonewalling in their nomination hearings, and also the Senate for not getting information to help in discharging our duty to consent to Supreme Court nominations. One approach with television would be to hold some level of accountability when the public understands what is going on. Louis Brandeis, before he came to the Supreme Court, in a famous article in 1913 advocated that the sunlight was the best disinfectant and publicity was to deal with social ills. Stuart Taylor, noted commentator on the Supreme Court, said the only way to have the Court stop taking away power from the Congress and from the executive branch is by infuriating the public. To infuriate the public, the public has to be informed, and television would be a significant step forward.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. It has been my custom to make a report to the Congress and my constituents and the general public when I return from a trip, which I did on July 11, having started on July 3, and having visited the Czech Republic, Israel, Syria, and Croatia. I will ask at the conclusion of my comments the full text of my prepared statement be printed in the Record. A few supplementary comments about my visits to Israel and Syria: The Mideast peace process is of enormous importance, not only to that region but to U.S. national security interests and to the interest of peace in the world. The Palestinian track seems to be stuck with the controversies over the neighborhoods, also referred to as the settlements. But the administration is hard at work through special envoy former Senator George Mitchell moving ahead on that line. I believe the time is ripe now for movement on the Israel-Syria track. I say that based on the conversations I had with Israeli and Syrian officials. I was invited to come to Damascus. I have been to Syria on many occasions in the past, starting in 1984. I have been there some 19 times. This was the first time that I received a specific invitation from President Bashar al-Assad to come there. I believe that is an indication, which President Assad is very open about, of his interest in having peace talks with Israel without preconditions. He immediately follows that with a statement that Syria has a right to the Golan Heights. But it is no surprise that this is being asserted from the Syrian point of view. Only Israel should decide for itself whether it wishes to trade the Golan for other national security interests, for concerns about Hezbollah and Hamas and the link with Iran--whatever effect there may be with the Iranian-Syrian relationship and the stabilization of Lebanon. But it is a different world today than it was in 1967 in an era of rockets, so the security interests are very different. The Israelis and the Syrians came very close to a peace agreement in 1995 and again in the year 2000. Turkey had been brokering talks between Israel and Syria, but the Turkish envoys have withdrawn after the so-called flotilla incident, asking Israel for an apology. Since none is forthcoming, the Turks are not brokering that issue. So it seems to me with the role the United States played, the very active role of former President Clinton--with U.S. participation I believe the prospects are good and there could be a treaty there. Israel has significant potential gains--to stop the shelling by Hamas from the south and the threat and potential shelling from Hezbollah from the north, and also the relationship between Syria and Iran. President Assad said to me that Iran supports Syria, but Syria does not support Iran. With the recent action by Syria in changing the veiling requirement, it is an indication that Syria is pursuing being a secular state with significant differences from the practices in Iran. If it should become the national interest of Syria to side with the West, that is a potential which ought to be explored. It is not going to happen overnight, but it is something worth thinking about and worth considering. I now ask unanimous consent that the full text of my prepared statement be printed in the Record.

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