Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Coburn, who could not be present, on his behalf, I am objecting.

Mr. SPECTER. Objection.

Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield to me?

Mr. SPECTER. I have waited more than an hour to speak while the quorum call was on, and we couldn't get the quorum call taken off. With all due respect, the real issue, which is on the floor now, is not the amounts of these dollars or the virtue of all of the bills you are blocking, but the real issue is whether----

Mr. SPECTER. The Senator from Alabama spoke at some length without any objection being offered. I will pose a question to you, Senator Coburn, since the majority leader wants to find some way to stop me from speaking. He didn't stop Senator Sessions from speaking. My question to you, Senator----

Mr. SPECTER. My question to you, Senator Coburn----

Mr. SPECTER. The question to the Senator from Oklahoma: Isn't the real issue behind the cloture vote an effort to dislodge the pending legislation on the oil speculation bill? Is it the substance of the legislation which you have opposed and blocked, most of which if not all of which I agree with. But isn't the real point as to what the Senator from Nevada is seeking to do here is to find some way to get off the oil speculators bill?

Mr. SPECTER. My next question to the Senator from Oklahoma is, when the Senator from Nevada rejects the traditional standing of Senators to offer an amendment to any bill at any time--until the past 15 years, majority leaders, both Democrats and Republicans, have adopted this filling the tree to preclude amendments, and the Senator from Nevada says there is insufficient time to take up the amendments. Isn't it true that if the Senate and the House stayed in session during the month of August and did not take the recess, we could take up any number of amendments to give Senators the traditional rights, which had been enjoyed until 1993, when both Democratic and Republican majority leaders have stymied the process by this process of filling the tree?

Mr. SPECTER. My next question to the Senator from Oklahoma is whether Senator Reid was correct when he spoke, on February 28, 2006, as noted in the Congressional Record on the Patriot Act Reauthorization: I am disappointed that he-- Referring to a Senator who wanted to offer an amendment-- has been denied that opportunity by a procedural maneuver known as ``filling the tree.'' This is a very bad practice. It runs against the basic rule of the Senate. The hallmark of the Senate is free speech and open debate. Was the Senator from Nevada correct when he decried and criticized this business of filling the tree to preclude the offering of amendments?

Mr. SPECTER. Was the Senator from Oklahoma aware of the fact that I voted against cloture on the global warming bill, notwithstanding the fact that I think that is an issue that has to be addressed and worked for more than a year with Senator Bingaman, producing the Bingaman- Specter bill, but voted against cloture to advance the bill because I and others wanted to offer amendments to the global warming bill?

Mr. SPECTER. Is the Senator from Oklahoma aware that I have stated for the record my reason for opposing cloture on the oil speculators bill was not that I did not agree with the underlying approach of legislation to deal with the high prices of oil and the high prices of gas at the pump, but I voted against cloture on that bill, opposed putting the majority leader in a position to move for final passage because I had amendments I wished to offer. Was the Senator from Oklahoma aware that I have been pressing to get an amendment, along with Senator Kohl, a bipartisan amendment, to bring OPEC nations under the antitrust laws so they could not meet in a room, lower production, lower supply, and thereby raise the price of oil in the international market?

Mr. SPECTER. Is the Senator from Oklahoma aware that I am the principal author of the legislation to provide for the reporter shield, along with Senator Schumer and Senator Lugar?

Mr. SPECTER. Is the Senator from Oklahoma aware that if that issue goes through the process of the tree filling and cloture is invoked, that legislation will displace the oil speculators bill?

Mr. SPECTER. Is the Senator from Oklahoma aware of the detailed effort I made on the legislation involving global warming coming to the floor several times during the week of June 2, listing a number of amendments which I sought to offer, essentially from the Bingaman- Specter bill, and that I was precluded from offering those amendments because the Senator from Nevada filled the tree?

Mr. SPECTER. Was the Senator from Oklahoma aware of that when the Senator from Nevada thwarted the proceedings under the FAA bill, that there were key issues to be decided, such as modernizing air control to move to satellite, to provide for greater safety, and the processing of that bill was thwarted because the tree was filled and, again, a motion for cloture was denied because Senators were not given an opportunity to offer amendments?

Mr. SPECTER. Was the Senator from Oklahoma aware that I had two important amendments relating to air control over my State, southeastern Pennsylvania, actually over Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, that I had an amendment which dealt with the scheduling, where there were enormous delays on takeoffs and landings because they were overbooked, and that the efforts to change the law on that were thwarted by the procedures adopted by the Senator from Nevada?

Mr. SPECTER. Was the Senator from Oklahoma aware that a number of Senators were on the floor for about an hour today and could not get recognition and had to wait because a quorum call was on and that the Senator from Nevada saw to it that the unanimous consent to take off the quorum was denied?

Mr. SPECTER. Is the Senator from Oklahoma aware that there is a determination by this Senator, and I think by more than 40 other Senators on this side of the aisle, to fight these procedural moves come hell or high water, and no matter what legislation the Senator from Nevada offers, if it is legislation similar to the shield bill that I have worked on for a long time, I think it is very necessary, that we are going to rebel against the tyranny of what has been established by the majority leader in following a procedure to fill the tree and then blame Republicans who refuse cloture and exercise finger- pointing backward and forward? Is the Senator from Oklahoma aware that I and others are determined to do everything we can to stop this procedure, which has undercut the basic purpose of the Senate?

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am voting against cloture on the LIHEAP bill because the invocation of cloture would displace the bill on oil speculators. I strongly believe the Senate should stay on the oil speculators bill because of the critical importance of that bill in light of the enormously high price of oil and gas at the pump. During my tenure in the Senate, no one has been more supportive of LIHEAP than I. I have consistently taken the lead as chairman of the LHHS Subcommittee to increase Federal funding for LIHEAP. The Senate will have an opportunity to act on the Sanders bill in this session to increase LIHEAP.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to commend Serbian authorities for apprehending former Republika Srpska president Radovan Karadzic. Earlier this month we marked the 13th anniversary of the genocide at Srebrenica. The arrest this week of Radovan Karadzic, in connection with that crime, shows that it is never too late to seek justice for the terrible crimes committed during the 1992-95 war in Bosnia. Over a decade after being indicted for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ICTY, at The Hague, Radovan Karadzic was arrested on Monday, July 21, outside Belgrade. Radovan Karadzic's arrest represents a significant breakthrough for international jurisprudence. Serge Brammertz, prosecutor of the war crimes tribunal in The Hague, said, ``This is a very important day for the victims who have waited for this arrest for over a decade.'' ``It is also an important day for international justice because it clearly demonstrates that nobody is beyond the reach of the law and that sooner or later all fugitives will be brought to justice.'' Richard Holbrooke, who brokered the Dayton Accords in 1995 which ended the war in Bosnia, said, ``This is a historic event.'' ``Of the three most evil men of the Balkans, Milosevic, Karadzic and Mladic, I thought Karadzic was the worst. The reason was that Karadzic was a real racist believer. Karadzic really enjoyed ordering the killing of Muslims. . . . Richard Dicker, director of Human Rights Watch's International Justice Program, said, ``Radovan Karadzic personified impunity for more than a decade, but his efforts to run the clock on justice have failed.'' ``This arrest offers hope to the victims of the horrific crimes that occurred here. We welcome this long-overdue arrest and look forward to his fair trial in The Hague.'' I commend the Serbian Government for the resolve it has demonstrated in arresting Mr. Karadzic. I think it is vital that Mr. Karadzic be transferred to The Hague in due course, and that the search for Republika Srpska military commander General Ratko Mladic continue. It is vital that the international community, including the United States, continue to support efforts to bring justice for these crimes, not just in The Hague, but also at the local level in Bosnia, where lack of resources and other obstacles mean that many victims continue to wait for justice for the crimes committed against them. To that end, local war crimes trials for thousands of other suspected perpetrators from the Bosnia atrocities must receive support to overcome the challenges they face in order to seal any remaining impunity gaps in Bosnia. To echo a statement I made on the Senate floor on February 11, 1998, it is my sense that if the war crimes tribunal at The Hague is successful, if we can bring the rule of law into the international arena, we may have the most important institutional change in international relations of the past century.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this is an unusual day in the Senate. I have been in this body for a while. I have never seen the floor so crowded. I have sought, since early morning, to find a little floor time and have waited more than an hour at the present time, past the time I was scheduled to speak. I am glad to listen. I am beginning, on my consideration of the pending legislation, the energy speculation bill, to note what is happening on the Senate floor. There has been a lot of talk, a lot of talk in the Senate for the last 4 days, and really no action--only one vote on Tuesday morning on a procedural matter to invoke cloture to proceed to the consideration of the bill. What has happened? We have been talking a great deal but not considering anything which would advance an energy policy for the United States. We are engaged in a process which is a little difficult to understand, but I think it is important for the American people to know what is happening. A procedure has been utilized recently--the past couple of decades--where the majority leader exercises his rights as leader to take a procedural step which precludes anybody from offering amendments to the bill. This is an opportunity. The Senate Chamber is empty, which it is frequently, certainly past 7 o'clock on a Thursday evening, but it is very hard to convey this information so that people would understand why no action is being taken in the Senate. There is no doubt that it is a do- nothing Senate and has been for some time as a result of political gridlock. That is why the ratings of the Senate have plummeted. We have a situation which really started to percolate back in 1992, and it has been a practice of both Democrats and Republicans. Customarily--really invariably--when there is political blame in this body, it is attributable to both political parties. You can divide it right down the center aisle, and it is evenly split. But this procedure to preclude amendments is of fairly recent origin. In the 101st Congress of 1989 to 1990, where Senator Mitchell was the leader, he did not use this procedure on any occasion. But by the 103rd Congress, 1993 to 1994, Senator Mitchell employed it on nine occasions. Then it was picked up in the Republican tenure of Senator Lott in the 106th Congress, in 1999 to 2000, when Senator Lott used it nine times. Then, in the 109th Congress, 2005 to 2006, Senator Frist, the majority leader, used it nine times. In this Congress, the 110th, 2007 and partly through 2008, Senator Reid has used it 13 times. What does this mean so that it can be understood by the American people who have such a vital interest in having the Senate function? Let me illustrate it with a bill on climate change which was called up in June of this year. As soon as the bill was called up, Senator Reid exercised his rights as leader to get first recognition. In the Senate, Senators are recognized in terms of who first seeks recognition, but in case of a tie it goes to the leader. He then offers an amendment and then another amendment so that procedurally no other of the 99 Senators can offer any amendment. The global warming bill was a very important bill. There has been a demand to deal with this issue which poses great threats to our environment. There was legislation pending, legislation which Senator Bingaman and I had introduced, the Bingaman-Specter bill, legislation introduced by Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner on a very complex subject. Early in the week of June 2, I came to the floor and spoke about some amendments which I wanted to offer. I wanted to offer an amendment on emission caps. I wanted to offer another amendment on cost-containment safety valve--a price cap. I wanted to offer a third amendment on energy-intensive manufacturing competitiveness and a fourth amendment on steel process gas emissions. Of course, that was only one Senator, at the beginning of what I wanted to have considered. But I was foreclosed from offering any of those amendments by the procedure which Senator Reid used to fill the tree. Then Senator Reid moved for what is called cloture; that means to cut off debate in order to proceed to final passage of the bill. I wanted to consider the global warming issue, but I certainly was not about to agree to cutting off debate and proceeding to final passage before I or others had had an opportunity to offer amendments. Now, what happens as a result? The result is that Republicans complain about what Senator Reid has done on precluding amendments, and Senator Reid complains about it being another Republican filibuster in response to the Republican's inability to offer amendments. So there is finger-pointing. That is what we are really good at these days. And the American people do not understand anything except that nothing is being done. Now, we have had consideration this week on a bill called the energy speculation bill. We all wonder why the cost of oil has gone through the roof, causing gasoline prices of more than $4 a gallon. There is no doubt about the anguish and difficulties that the American people are suffering as a result of these costs, of these prices. And there is concern about the speculators who may be involved. Maybe they are. There are some indicators that part of the problem is caused by speculation. Well, we haven't dealt with the issue in a logical, factual way; that is, for Senators to come to the floor and address the substance of the bill which is pending or offer amendments to modify the bill which is pending. Now, Senator Reid, the majority leader, has followed the same course of action. He has filed cloture. We are going to have a cloture vote tomorrow. It takes 60 votes for cloture to cut off debate. It will not happen. When the motion for cloture fails, Senator Reid is going to go to his podium over there, and he is going to blast the Republicans for shutting down the bill at a time when the American people need relief, at a time when the American people need a decision as to what the speculators are doing. I want to offer an amendment on bringing OPEC within our antitrust laws; something that I have been pushing for years. Right now, the OPEC combine has an exemption under our antitrust laws. The OPEC nations get into a room, they decide how much the production is going to be, they limit supply, and the price of oil goes up. They have what is called sovereign immunity. Well, they ought not to have it. The Congress of the United States has the authority to change that. We can bring them within our antitrust laws so that the Attorney General can take action against them. They are subject to jurisdiction in the United States because they do business here, and they have a lot of assets here. If we brought OPEC within our antitrust laws, you would see a change in their policy. They have argued for a long time--Saudi Arabia--that they cannot have any greater production. But about a month ago, when there were some signs of change in our consumption of oil, some fear that their preeminent position in their monopoly was in some jeopardy, somehow they increased their production. If they increase their production, if the supply goes up, prices will come down--the inexorable law of supply and demand, one of the few laws that works. So here we are, with an enormously serious problem with what is happening with the issue of oil prices and gasoline prices, and here we have a bill on the floor which addresses an issue of grave concern to the American people, and my hands are tied. My hands are tied with 99 other Senators because procedurally we are blocked. Then the next move is going to be to invoke cloture. It is not going to be invoked. Debate is not going to be cut off; 60 votes will not be received. Then the majority leader will remove the bill from the floor, and he is going to blame Republicans for obstructing, and the American people are not going to have any opportunity to understand what went on, except for the few who were watching on C-SPAN. I made this speech during the consideration of the global warming bill. There was not a word in the newspapers about it. Why? Well, it is too complicated. It is too arcane. It is too ``inside the beltway.'' But until the American people understand it and send a message to Washington that they are not going to tolerate it, we are going to have to continue to have this gridlock. When the shoe was on the other foot and Republicans controlled the Senate, during the time when Senator Frist was the majority leader, he invoked this procedure on nine occasions. Senator Reid and the Democrats were very unhappy about it, as well as Senator Durbin and Senator Dodd. This is what Senator Dodd had to say about it: This chamber historically is the place where debate occurs. And what Senator Dodd is referring to is that the Senate, unlike the House of Representatives, Senators have been able to offer any amendment on any subject at any time. And that is one of the great beauties about the Senate because any one of us can bring up an issue and call the attention of the American people to it, and with sufficient public backing, sufficient newspaper coverage, radio, TV, a little broader than C-SPAN2, there can be some action. But that has been foreclosed. Senator Dodd was very emphatic about it back on May 11, 2006, when the Republican leader, Senator First, had filled the tree. Senator Dodd had this to say: To basically lock out any amendments that might be offered to this proposal runs contrary to the very essence of this body. When the amendment tree has been entirely filled-- He called it filling the tree when the procedure is used-- when the amendment tree has been entirely filled, obviously we are dealing with a process that ought not to be. The Senate ought to be a place where we can offer amendments, have healthy debate over a reasonable time, and then come to closure on the subject matter. Well, what did Senator Reid have to say about this subject on March 2, 2006, when we were debating the PATRIOT Act? Senator Reid said: Do not fill the tree. That is a bad way, in my opinion, to run this Senate. What did Senator Reid have to say about the subject on February 28, 2006, on the PATRIOT Act reauthorization, speaking about filling the tree. This is a very bad practice. It runs against the basic nature of the Senate. The hallmark of the Senate is free speech and open debate. What did Senator Durbin have to say about it, the assistant majority leader for the Democrats, on May 11, 2006, when the Republican majority leader had filled the tree and precluded amendments? The Republican majority brings a bill to the Senate, fills the tree so no amendments can be offered, and then files cloture which stops debate; we cannot offer amendments. So Senator Durbin outlines it as I did: The Republican majority leader fills the tree and then files cloture. Well, cloture was not adopted, and then these important issues are not considered and the American people wonder what is going on. Well, I have taken a little longer to explain the subject, but it is very hard to get it across. I am going to keep trying. I have acted within the Senate to try to get the rule changed. A year and a half ago, I filed a rule amendment to try to get the rule changed. On February 15, 2007, I introduced S. Res. 83, and so far, I have not been able to get an answer from the chairman of the Rules Committee about what action she intends to take. I might say to my colleague from Washington that I have been waiting an hour. I have limited time. But I am always a little wary when I see a colleague waiting. But there are some other subjects I want to talk about, so I want to give you some advance notice. May the record show that Senator Murray has graciously given me a hand signal, sort of like the Patriots used in the Jets game, a hand signal, understanding that I am going to talk a little more. I will try to be brief, but there are some subjects I do want to address. Iran I am very encouraged by what the administration has done as noted in the Washington Post within the past few days. The President has sent his first high-level emissary to sit down with Iran and has agreed for the first time to set a time horizon for withdrawing troops from Iraq and has authorized the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, to join the North Korean diplomats at the Six Party talks about ending that country's nuclear weapons program. I would urge the President, in the course of these talks, to exercise flexibility in the dealings with Iran. There is no doubt that on the international scene the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon is the most serious international threat there is in the world today. No doubt about that. It is intolerable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon when its President talks about wiping Israel off the face of the Earth. And when Iran flouts international law by supporting international terrorists, no doubt about the threat that would pose. It has been my urging of the administration that the United States not impose a precondition on the talks. The object of the talks is to stop Iran from continuing to process nuclear weapons and to abandon their effort to get nuclear weapons. They should stop their activities on processing uranium. It seems to me where the object of the talks is to stop Iran from processing nuclear materials, that ought not to be a precondition of the talks. It is very difficult to go to a sovereign nation, it seems to me, and say: Before we begin the talks, we want you to have a freeze on processing nuclear materials, which is the object of our talks. We have to approach anybody in any situation with a certain amount of dignity, with a certain amount of understanding about the other person's position, if we are to find some way to solve the problem. The administration talks about a freeze for freeze, but the freezes are very different. The freeze demanded by Iran is for them to stop a process which they have been engaged in, which they have asserted they have a right to as a sovereign nation. We don't like what they are doing. If they become a sufficient threat under the U.N. charter, article 51, there are circumstances where the threat is sufficiently imminent to take preemptive action. We all hope we never get to that stage. But until you have that situation, they are a sovereign nation, and they are engaging in activities which sovereign nations do. The freeze we are offering is a freeze to not impose sanctions to take negative action against Iran. It is the projection of the six powers, led by the United States, that we have suggestions to make to Iran on a package of economic, political, a variety of incentives to stop Iran from processing nuclear material. It seems to me the best way to get on with it is to start to discuss with Iran what we have to offer specifically, to see if what we have to offer will be sufficient on the talks or to engage in the discussions and in the negotiations. We do know that notwithstanding the grave difficulties in dealing with North Korea, that when the United States was willing to engage in bilateral talks with North Korea, we made some progress. We thought the North Korean leadership was impossible, but we were able to work through it. Similarly, in dealing with Libya and Qadhafi, we were able to work out an arrangement where Libya, Qadhafi, stopped the development of nuclear weapons. Qadhafi is the greatest terrorist in the history of the world; with very heavy competition, the greatest terrorist in the history of the world. He blew up Pan Am 103. It was proved that he did it. He made reparations to the passengers. He blew up a discotheque in Germany, killed American soldiers. Yet through discussions, through talks, he has been brought back into the so-called family of nations. Libya has a seat on the Security Council. It is hard for me, frankly, to understand how we have gone that far with Libya, but that goes to show how far we can go. As these talks proceed, it would be my hope the United States would show flexibility. When the Secretary of State talks about their having 2 weeks to respond, I don't think that is the way negotiators deal in putting on time limits. Iran responded, apparently, according to the media reports, with a long written statement which was not understandable. But they have quite a number of points which they want to make. I have had the opportunity, and have discussed this on the Senate floor at some length, of having a number of discussions with the current Iranian Ambassador to the U.N. and the previous two Ambassadors. There are people from Iran whom you can talk to in a sensible way. But a demand on a precondition that they stop processing nuclear material, which is the object of the talks, seems to me to be totally counterproductive. I have raised these issues at some considerable length over the course of the past year and a half, going back to an appropriations hearing on February 27, 2007, when Secretary of State Rice was before the committee, posing the issue with her as to why the precondition. I had an extensive discussion with her, similarly, with Secretary of Defense Gates, in hearings before the Department of Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. It is worth noting that when Secretary of Defense Gates was on the Commission evaluating United States-Iranian relations, he was a party to recommending discussions with Iran. These discussions, these lines of questioning and responses are lengthy. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is one further subject I wish to discuss. This will be not relatively brief, but brief. That is a discussion which is pending between Syria and Israel with Turkey acting as an intermediary. It would be my hope and suggestion to the President that he extend the flexibility which he is now showing as to Iran and North Korea and Iraq to assist in the Israeli-Syrian negotiations. The United States was instrumental in negotiations back in 1995, when Prime Minister Rabin almost came to terms with Syria on the Golan Heights. It is a very difficult subject that I don't believe anybody should tell Israel or suggest to Israel or in any way pressure Israel as to what to do about the Golan Heights. It is a decision Israel has to make for itself on their security. But it is a different world than it was in 1967, when Israel took the Golan Heights. Now we have a world of rockets, and security matters are entirely different. Again, the United States participated extensively in the Syrian- Israeli talks in the year 2000. I have made many trips to Syria since 1984. I got to know President Hafez al-Asad and traveled to the Middle East extensively and recommended to a number of Israeli Prime Ministers the desirability of my view--at least in one man's opinion--to have the negotiations. Right now there is a unique opportunity which could impact on Lebanon. Syria is opening an embassy in Lebanon, treating Lebanon as a sovereign nation which is quite a shift. Syria has enormous influence on Hezbollah. It is a very complex subject in Lebanon, with Hezbollah having significant power in the government, a veto in their Parliament. Syria has considerable influence with Hamas. If the circumstances were right, there is a great opportunity to separate Syria from Iran, a great opportunity to get some assistance with Syria on some major problems. It is unknowable whether that can happen. But I do believe dialog is the way. It would be my hope the President would show he still has muscle. He is going to be in the White House for 6 months. What he has done with respect to North Korea and Iran and Iraq shows he is not taking his last 6 months with a view that there are things he can accomplish. I refer to an extensive article I have written on this subject which summarizes a good many of my activities and views in the Washington Quarterly for 2006-2007. I thank my colleague from Washington for her patience, if, in fact, she has been patient. It is always difficult with Senators having the right to speak. But it took me more than an hour to get the floor after waiting most of the day. As usual, Senator Murray is gracious and nodding in the affirmative. I thank her and the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak today on the introduction of the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008, which I am sponsoring with Senator Leahy. The United States has always placed a high value on creativity and innovation. As a result, we rank number 1 for innovation in the World Economic Forum's Global Competition Report. Yet, the U.S. does not even make it into the ``top 20'' countries when it comes to the protection of intellectual property. When you consider that intellectual property contributes over $5 trillion annually to our national economy, this is not acceptable. If we want to profit from our intellectual property, then we must protect it. Counterfeiting and piracy, though, are on the rise. Counterfeiting, which at one time involved mainly ``knocking off' products in the high end and luxury goods markets, is now much more pervasive. According to FBI, Interpol, World Customs Organization and International Chamber of Commerce estimates, roughly 7-8 percent of world trade every year is in counterfeit goods. That is the equivalent of as much as $512 billion in global lost sales. Of that amount, U.S. companies annually lose between $200 billion and $250 billion in sales. Counterfeiting, piracy, and the theft of intellectual property, are not victimless crimes. Exporters face unfair competition abroad. Non- exporters face counterfeit imports at home. Businesses face legal, health and safety risks from the threat of counterfeit goods entering their supply chains. Consumers, too, face serious health and safety risks. For every legitimate product on the market, one can find a counterfeit version, being passed off as the same quality at a fraction of the cost. Counterfeit products run the gamut from low end products such as razor blades, shampoos, batteries, and cigarettes to more specialized products like auto and plane parts. Although these products may look real, they are not subjected to the same quality protocols as their legitimate counterparts and a consumer--be they knowing or not-- uses the product at their own risk. Counterfeit products that are substandard goods have been the subject of public recalls and seizures in industries ranging from food products both human and pet consumables, pharmaceuticals both lifestyle and life-saving drugs, aircraft or automobile parts, toys and baby furniture, and building and manufacturing components. The potential for harm is very serious. Every day, our newspapers are filled with stories of the damage that counterfeit products have caused. Further, each counterfeit item that is manufactured overseas and distributed in the United States costs American workers their jobs. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, overall intellectual property theft costs 750,000 U.S. jobs a year. These are losses that directly impact each and every person listening to my voice by inhibiting the growth of the American economy. Although private industry is more vigilant than ever in pursuing infringers civilly and devoting enormous amounts of human and financial capital to combat violations of their intellectual property rights, the U.S. Government must do its part to protect one of our Nation's most valuable assets. Building on the work of the House with the Prioritizing Resources and Organization of Intellectual Property Act of 2007, better known as the PRO-IP Act, and Senators Bayh and Voinovich with the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Act, Senators Leahy and I have crafted a comprehensive intellectual property that responds to that need. This bill will provide the current and future administrations with the additional tools it needs to combat intellectual property theft by, amongst other things: Giving the Attorney General the authority, in lieu of a criminal action, to pursue a civil action for intellectual property infringement and collect damages and profits resulting from infringement; enhancing the civil and criminal penalties for intellectual property violations in order to deter new criminal organizations from entering into ``the business'' of counterfeiting and piracy; elevating the intergovernmental coordination of intellectual property enforcement efforts; and authorizing funding for State and local governments for pursuing intellectual property related investigations. Alan Greenspan stated in ``The Age of Turbulence'' that, ``Arguably, the single most important economic decision our lawmakers and courts will face in the next twenty-five years is to clarify the rules of intellectual property.'' Great legislation does not happen overnight--nor should it. When considering any reforms to something as valuable as our intellectual property assets--whether it is reforms to our Nations patents, trademarks, or more relevantly to this group, copyright laws--we must act cautiously and with a careful understanding of the effects that any such changes will have on the interested industries. That said, I believe that we can work together in the few remaining days that is left in this Congress in not just a bipartisan but a nonpartisan manner to pass and send this bill to the President this Congress.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak today on the introduction of the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008, which I am sponsoring with Senator Leahy. The United States has always placed a high value on creativity and innovation. As a result, we rank number 1 for innovation in the World Economic Forum's Global Competition Report. Yet, the U.S. does not even make it into the ``top 20'' countries when it comes to the protection of intellectual property. When you consider that intellectual property contributes over $5 trillion annually to our national economy, this is not acceptable. If we want to profit from our intellectual property, then we must protect it. Counterfeiting and piracy, though, are on the rise. Counterfeiting, which at one time involved mainly ``knocking off' products in the high end and luxury goods markets, is now much more pervasive. According to FBI, Interpol, World Customs Organization and International Chamber of Commerce estimates, roughly 7-8 percent of world trade every year is in counterfeit goods. That is the equivalent of as much as $512 billion in global lost sales. Of that amount, U.S. companies annually lose between $200 billion and $250 billion in sales. Counterfeiting, piracy, and the theft of intellectual property, are not victimless crimes. Exporters face unfair competition abroad. Non- exporters face counterfeit imports at home. Businesses face legal, health and safety risks from the threat of counterfeit goods entering their supply chains. Consumers, too, face serious health and safety risks. For every legitimate product on the market, one can find a counterfeit version, being passed off as the same quality at a fraction of the cost. Counterfeit products run the gamut from low end products such as razor blades, shampoos, batteries, and cigarettes to more specialized products like auto and plane parts. Although these products may look real, they are not subjected to the same quality protocols as their legitimate counterparts and a consumer--be they knowing or not-- uses the product at their own risk. Counterfeit products that are substandard goods have been the subject of public recalls and seizures in industries ranging from food products both human and pet consumables, pharmaceuticals both lifestyle and life-saving drugs, aircraft or automobile parts, toys and baby furniture, and building and manufacturing components. The potential for harm is very serious. Every day, our newspapers are filled with stories of the damage that counterfeit products have caused. Further, each counterfeit item that is manufactured overseas and distributed in the United States costs American workers their jobs. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, overall intellectual property theft costs 750,000 U.S. jobs a year. These are losses that directly impact each and every person listening to my voice by inhibiting the growth of the American economy. Although private industry is more vigilant than ever in pursuing infringers civilly and devoting enormous amounts of human and financial capital to combat violations of their intellectual property rights, the U.S. Government must do its part to protect one of our Nation's most valuable assets. Building on the work of the House with the Prioritizing Resources and Organization of Intellectual Property Act of 2007, better known as the PRO-IP Act, and Senators Bayh and Voinovich with the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Act, Senators Leahy and I have crafted a comprehensive intellectual property that responds to that need. This bill will provide the current and future administrations with the additional tools it needs to combat intellectual property theft by, amongst other things: Giving the Attorney General the authority, in lieu of a criminal action, to pursue a civil action for intellectual property infringement and collect damages and profits resulting from infringement; enhancing the civil and criminal penalties for intellectual property violations in order to deter new criminal organizations from entering into ``the business'' of counterfeiting and piracy; elevating the intergovernmental coordination of intellectual property enforcement efforts; and authorizing funding for State and local governments for pursuing intellectual property related investigations. Alan Greenspan stated in ``The Age of Turbulence'' that, ``Arguably, the single most important economic decision our lawmakers and courts will face in the next twenty-five years is to clarify the rules of intellectual property.'' Great legislation does not happen overnight--nor should it. When considering any reforms to something as valuable as our intellectual property assets--whether it is reforms to our Nations patents, trademarks, or more relevantly to this group, copyright laws--we must act cautiously and with a careful understanding of the effects that any such changes will have on the interested industries. That said, I believe that we can work together in the few remaining days that is left in this Congress in not just a bipartisan but a nonpartisan manner to pass and send this bill to the President this Congress.