Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina that would create a point of order against consideration of any legislation that contains an earmark. I have stated in the past that I think earmark reform is a very good idea. I supported the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which was signed into the law last year and for the first time brought transparency into the earmark process. Additionally, I have fully supported the steps that have been taken to have greater transparency. I think to have legislation that brings light into the process is entirely appropriate. I am concerned, however, that this amendment would cede Congress's authority to participate in the appropriations process to the executive branch. Article I, section 8 provides the Congress, not the Executive branch, with the power of the purse. As stated by the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, ``this debate is not about the level of Federal spending, the size of the deficit, or the national debt. This debate is about who decides how Federal dollars are spent and where.'' Congressional participation in the appropriations process is a fundamental constitutional issue and should not be readily yielded. Additionally, I submit that Members of the House and Senate are intimately knowledgeable about the legitimate needs of their districts. It is important to recognize that members of Congress represent the constituents of their State, and there are a great many issues where Members of the House and Senate know more about their districts and States than the remote bureaucrats in Washington. It is important to note the earmark allocation is a very small percent of the budget. Recognizing this fact, I was willing to make the tough decision to cut all of the earmarks in the appropriations bill when I was chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee because there was insufficient funding available for healthcare, LIHEAP, and education. For these reasons, I will oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina, but I look forward to working with my colleagues in the future on reforms that will increase transparency in the appropriations process.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, my amendment would reduce the alternative minimum tax rate from 28 to 24 percent. When the tax increase was enacted in 1993, it raised the rates and that has caught many more people in the snare, because the alternative minimum tax was not indexed for inflation. I provided for no offset, because this tax was never intended to capture the millions of people to whom it now applies. Originally, it was intended to apply to a very small number of people. So, as a matter of equity, we ought not to have an offset when the tax was not intended to apply at all. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to offer a resolution to designate March 25, 2008, as National Cerebral Palsy Awareness Day. Cerebral palsy is a group of chronic, neurological disorders that appear in infancy or early childhood and permanently affect body movement and muscle coordination necessary to maintain balance and posture. Cerebral palsy is caused by damage to one or more specific areas of the brain, usually occurring during fetal development; before, during or shortly after birth; or during infancy. The top two risk factors for the disorders are premature births and multiple births, and despite the introductions of modern prenatal testing, improved obstetric care, and newborn intensive care technologies, the rate of incidence has increased in the United States. These disorders are not caused by problems in the muscles or nerves but, instead, faulty development or damage to motor areas in the brain. Cerebral palsy currently affects children at a rate of 1 in 278 and an estimated 800,000 Americans. The majority of children who have cerebral palsy are born with it, rather than developing the disorder over time; however, it may not be detected for months or years. Over seventy-five percent of individuals with cerebral palsy also have one or more additional developmental disability including epilepsy, intellectual disability, autism and visual impairments or blindness. The disorders are not progressive and non-communicable. Currently, there is no cure for cerebral palsy. There are treatments, however, which can serve to alleviate some of the symptoms. Treatments now include physical and occupational therapy; speech therapy; drugs to control seizures, relax muscle spasms, and alleviate pain; surgery to correct anatomical abnormalities or release tight muscles; braces and other orthotic devices; wheelchairs and rolling walkers; and communication aids such as computers with attached voice synthesizers. It is essential that more research be conducted on ways in which to prevent and treat cerebral palsy. As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I led the effort to double funding for the National Institutes of Health, NIH. Funding for the NIH has increased from $11.3 billion in fiscal year 1995 to $29.2 billion in fiscal year 2008. In 2007, the NIH provided $16 million for cerebral palsy research, which is a $4.5 million increase over 2000, when the NIH provided $11.5 million. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, recently conducted a study on the prevalence rates of cerebral palsy across the nation and found the rates to be much higher than originally expected. This report will help the CDC to provide a more comprehensive picture of cerebral palsy and advance efforts to provide better services for these children. Raising awareness of cerebral palsy is integral in the fight against this debilitating condition. I encourage my colleagues to work with Senator Casey and me to designate March 25, 2008 as ``National Cerebral Palsy Awareness Day.''

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Fine.

Mr. SPECTER. Fifteen minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from North Dakota for permitting me to intervene for 10 minutes. I had been on the list, but previous speakers ended, I believe earlier than anticipated, so we have worked out the scheduling on that basis.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to offer two amendments, one amendment which will add $2.1 billion for the National Institutes of Health, and the same amendment which will increase the funding on LIHEAP. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senators Harkin, Snowe, Collins, Casey, Kennedy, Dole, Mikulski, Clinton, Levin, Sununu, Dodd, Inouye, Brown, Menendez, Stabenow, Coleman, Kerry, Durbin, Stevens, Smith, Bingaman, Cochran, Cardin, and Rockefeller. The funding for the National Institutes of Health is grossly insufficient. For a period of time, in the range of 1999 through 2003, funding for the National Institutes of Health has been increased very materially, with the increase on an annual basis rising as high in the year 2003 to $3.77 billion. That increase in funding has produced remarkable results in scientific advances in many lines. The cancer rate has declined 2 percent for the last 2 years. The increase in treatment for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, autism, and heart disease, has shown remarkable achievements. And with a budget of $3.1 trillion, I suggest it is totally insufficient to have a budget for the National Institutes of Health which would be projected at $29.2 billion. In 1970, President Nixon declared war on cancer, and had that war been prosecuted with the same intensity as other wars, I wouldn't have gotten Hodgkin's. My good friend, Judge Edward R. Becker, Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, would not have died prematurely of prostate cancer. My Chief of Staff, Carey Lackman, a beautiful young woman of 48, would not have died from breast cancer. On a daily basis, I have people come to see me from all over the United States who are urging increased funding on these very important lines: autism, prostate cancer, breast cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, scleroderma, and heart disease. And with the capacity in the United States to have cures for these ailments with sufficient funding, I believe this should be a much higher priority than it is at the present time. These ailments are curable. As a footnote, one day we will recognize the availability of Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research has enormous potential--enormous potential--to conquer these maladies. If these embryonic stem cells were to be used to create life, there is no doubt that would have a higher call. But there is also no doubt that with some 400,000 of these embryonic stem cells in storage, if they are not going to be used for that purpose, it is a matter of either using them or losing them. This amendment also adds one billion to the funding for low-income energy assistance for the people who are facing enormous increases in costs. The escalating price of oil has produced a very heavy drain, especially on our senior citizens, with so many faced with the prospect of either heating or eating. So this amendment will add materially to that very important fund. A second amendment which I am offering would repeal the 1993 increase of the alternative minimum tax. The alternative minimum tax was expanded in 1993 when the tax rate was increased from 24 percent to 26 percent for taxable income under $175,000 and from 24 percent to 28 percent for taxable income that exceeds $175,000, without those limits being indexed for inflation. The AMT now has the potential for capturing some 23 million people, 20 million more than anticipated when it was increased in 1993. There may be an amendment offered to eliminate the AMT permanently, and I would be prepared to support that, but in the absence of such an amendment, I believe it would be useful to propose this cure. This differs from another amendment which may be offered on the AMT which would seek to have an offset. I believe that an offset is not appropriate, because this AMT was never intended to catch this number of people. So when you have a tax which was not intended to reach some 23 million people, it ought to be eliminated; it ought to be not effectuated without having an offset. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my prepared statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I again thank my distinguished colleague from North Dakota, the chairman of the Budget Committee, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to comment on the passage of the Second Chance Act. I thank my colleagues Senators Brownback, Biden, and Leahy, who are original cosponsors of this bill, for their tireless advocacy for this long-needed legislation and my other colleagues for their support of the bill, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent. Each year, as many as 700,000 offenders will be released from prison or jail. Unfortunately, approximately two-thirds of those individuals will be rearrested within 3 years of their release. The consequences of such high recidivism rates are disastrous for our Nation. Each year, approximately 1.5 million Americans become victims of violent crime. The total pecuniary and non-pecuniary cost of crime has been estimated to be as much as $2 trillion annually--or 17 percent of the gross domestic product. Much of this cost comes directly out of taxpayers' pockets--the cost of keeping a prisoner in jail is as high as $30,000 per year. The cumulative cost to the Federal Government is approximately $60 billion annually. High crime and recidivism rates have also proven cyclical in nature: with 2.3 million of offenders in prison and jail, nearly 2 million American children spend part of the year without their parent--a factor known to put those children at risk of later committing crimes themselves. The likelihood that a prisoner will leave prison or jail, return to their family and community, obtain a job, and lead a productive and law-abiding life increases dramatically with increasing levels of education, job training, and substance abuse treatment. Yet, a few basic statistics demonstrate just how ill-equipped the 650,000 prisoners who will return to our neighborhoods and communities are to accomplish these basic objectives. Seventy percent of ex-offenders operate at the lowest levels of literacy. The majority struggle with drug and alcohol addiction--as many as 70 percent of prisoners were regular drug users prior to being convicted. Nearly 60 percent of ex- offenders will be unemployed a year after they are released from prison. The Second Chance Act will help break this dangerous cycle of recidivism. The bill will encourage realistic rehabilitation by providing prisoners who seek to turn their lives around with the education, literacy training, job training, employment assistance and substance abuse treatment they need to do so. The Second Chance Act will also enhance the proven-effective prison mentoring programs through which church members and community members provide individualized mentoring to prisoners who want to turn their lives around. The Second Chance Act draws on the experiences of many governmental, community, and non-profit organizations that are operating successful reentry programs around the country. For example, Pennsylvania's Community Orientation and Reintegration project, the Boston Reentry Initiative, and the Kansas Reentry Program have shepherded the way toward achieving lasting reductions in recidivism rates through innovative approaches to job training and education, family reunification, and public safety. The Second Chance Act that will be signed by the President represents the tireless efforts of a tremendous bipartisan coalition from both houses of Congress. I am particularly thankful for the leadership of Senator Brownback, Senator Biden, and Senator Leahy who have worked with me for years to negotiate the bill's final language. As a result of these negotiations, the grant programs in the bill are focused and streamlined, and provide for the kind of accountability we need to ensure that the programs operated under the bill meet their goal of achieving real reductions in recidivism rates. I am pleased that the bill has the support of over 200 organizations from both ends of the ideological spectrum and is supported by the Department of Justice and the Department of Labor. I thank my colleagues for their support of this important legislation. The Second Chance Act takes an important step toward closing the revolving doors of our prisons and keeping our neighborhoods and communities safe. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to speak on the State Foreign Investment Improvement Act, which I am cosponsoring with Senator Leahy. This bill will make permanent the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program, an innovative and successful program which has been in existence for 15 years. Under this program, State and local governments, and private entities, are able to apply to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service for ``regional center'' status which enables them to attract the job-creating dollars of immigrant investor visa holders. The immigrant investor visa--known as the EB-5 visa--was created in 1990 and grants lawful permanent residency to individuals willing to invest at least $1 million in an enterprise that directly employs at least 10 legal workers in the United States. In certain rural or high- unemployment areas, however, the dollar amount is reduced to at least $500,000, though the job-creation requirements remain the same. In 1992, to stimulate interest in these immigrant investor visas, Congress created the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program. By investing in the designated ``regional centers'' instead of creating their own enterprises or partnerships, immigrant investors can meet the job- creation requirements of their visas more easily, since they need only show the indirect creation of 10 jobs through a ``regional center.'' Otherwise, an immigrant investor would have to show that his or her investment directly created the jobs. The Immigrant Investor Pilot Program has proven to be an attractive option for potential immigrant investors, being chosen by an estimated 75 percent to 80 percent of all immigrant investors since its inception. Indeed, in my home state of Pennsylvania, the two regional centers--one in western Pennsylvania and one in Philadelphia--have generated millions of dollars in foreign investment. However, this program is set to expire at the end of the 2008 fiscal year. The Immigrant Investor Pilot Program has thus become a vital component of the immigrant investor visa, a category of visa whose benefits are difficult to overstate. The Government Accountability Office estimates that immigrant investors were responsible for over $1 billion in job-creating investments between 1992 and mid-2004. These investments have aided enterprises as diverse as the growth of dairy and meat-packing industries in South Dakota and improvements to the shipyard in Philadelphia. However, the most important contribution of the immigrant investor visa has been the creation of jobs within the United States. And in this aim, the immigrant investor visa has been very successful, creating jobs in the thousands. In addition to preserving the current successful status quo of the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program by making it permanent, this bill makes minor improvements to the immigrant investor visa application procedure. It establishes an application fee for entities seeking designation as a ``regional center'' under the Pilot Program, and it provides premium processing fees for immigrant investor applications. Both of these fees will enable the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service to devote more resources to adjudicating these applications rapidly. Finally, this bill allows for concurrent filing of the immigrant investor petition and application for adjustment to lawful permanent resident, thereby providing for a shorter processing time for ``regional center'' applicants. Last November, the Wall Street Journal stated that the immigrant investor visa is ``pumping millions of dollars from foreign investors into dilapidated inner cities and employment-starved rural areas across the U.S.'' At a time when Congress is weighing how it will address economic instability, it would be unwise to neglect such an economically beneficial program. Accordingly, I am pleased to co- sponsor this piece of legislation with Senator Leahy and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to speak on the State Foreign Investment Improvement Act, which I am cosponsoring with Senator Leahy. This bill will make permanent the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program, an innovative and successful program which has been in existence for 15 years. Under this program, State and local governments, and private entities, are able to apply to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service for ``regional center'' status which enables them to attract the job-creating dollars of immigrant investor visa holders. The immigrant investor visa--known as the EB-5 visa--was created in 1990 and grants lawful permanent residency to individuals willing to invest at least $1 million in an enterprise that directly employs at least 10 legal workers in the United States. In certain rural or high- unemployment areas, however, the dollar amount is reduced to at least $500,000, though the job-creation requirements remain the same. In 1992, to stimulate interest in these immigrant investor visas, Congress created the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program. By investing in the designated ``regional centers'' instead of creating their own enterprises or partnerships, immigrant investors can meet the job- creation requirements of their visas more easily, since they need only show the indirect creation of 10 jobs through a ``regional center.'' Otherwise, an immigrant investor would have to show that his or her investment directly created the jobs. The Immigrant Investor Pilot Program has proven to be an attractive option for potential immigrant investors, being chosen by an estimated 75 percent to 80 percent of all immigrant investors since its inception. Indeed, in my home state of Pennsylvania, the two regional centers--one in western Pennsylvania and one in Philadelphia--have generated millions of dollars in foreign investment. However, this program is set to expire at the end of the 2008 fiscal year. The Immigrant Investor Pilot Program has thus become a vital component of the immigrant investor visa, a category of visa whose benefits are difficult to overstate. The Government Accountability Office estimates that immigrant investors were responsible for over $1 billion in job-creating investments between 1992 and mid-2004. These investments have aided enterprises as diverse as the growth of dairy and meat-packing industries in South Dakota and improvements to the shipyard in Philadelphia. However, the most important contribution of the immigrant investor visa has been the creation of jobs within the United States. And in this aim, the immigrant investor visa has been very successful, creating jobs in the thousands. In addition to preserving the current successful status quo of the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program by making it permanent, this bill makes minor improvements to the immigrant investor visa application procedure. It establishes an application fee for entities seeking designation as a ``regional center'' under the Pilot Program, and it provides premium processing fees for immigrant investor applications. Both of these fees will enable the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service to devote more resources to adjudicating these applications rapidly. Finally, this bill allows for concurrent filing of the immigrant investor petition and application for adjustment to lawful permanent resident, thereby providing for a shorter processing time for ``regional center'' applicants. Last November, the Wall Street Journal stated that the immigrant investor visa is ``pumping millions of dollars from foreign investors into dilapidated inner cities and employment-starved rural areas across the U.S.'' At a time when Congress is weighing how it will address economic instability, it would be unwise to neglect such an economically beneficial program. Accordingly, I am pleased to co- sponsor this piece of legislation with Senator Leahy and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to discuss the Accountability in Immigrant Repatriation Act of 2008, S. 2720. This bill addresses the reality that aliens who have been ordered to be removed from this country are often released back onto U.S. streets due to the refusal of their home countries to repatriate them. Moreover, many of these aliens are criminals who have served time in our Federal, State, and local jails. As of February 11, 2008, eight countries--such as Vietnam, Jamaica, China, India, and Ethiopia--are refusing to repatriate a total of over 139,000 aliens. Over 18,000 of them are convicted criminals who have been released back into U.S. society. Secretary Chertoff testified this week that his counterparts in Europe are facing similar problems repatriating dangerous aliens. We must increase the pressure on foreign countries to take back the aliens that have been ordered deported. The Supreme Court in two cases--Zadvydas v. Davis and Clark v. Martinez--adopted a presumption that it is only reasonable to continue to detain aliens ordered to be deported for up to 6 months. So at the end of that time, if the home country steadfastly refuses to repatriate, we are forced to release them. This is of obvious concern to the citizens of this country, who are put at risk by criminal aliens who are released. In Pennsylvania, there are 700 to 1,000 undocumented criminal aliens that could end up out on our streets if their home countries refuse to take them back when we try to deport them. The recidivism rate among this population is extremely high. Studies show that the average criminal illegal alien was rearrested an estimated six to eight times--most often for drug crimes, robbery and assault, and, to a lesser degree, for murder and sexual offenses. Moreover, not only does refusal to repatriate often put convicted criminals with no right to be here out on the street, but drawn-out repatriation negotiations divert scarce Federal resources away from identifying and deporting other criminal aliens. Therefore, this bill imposes sanctions on countries that refuse to repatriate aliens who have been ordered deported. First, the bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to report to Congress every 90 days on the countries which refuse or inhibit repatriation. The receipt of this report automatically triggers denial of foreign aid as well as suspension of visa issuances to the listed non-cooperative countries. This will send a clear signal to those countries unwilling to take responsibility for their citizens that they will no longer benefit from U.S. largess--in the form of money and visas. It also grants standing to enforce the bill to victims of crimes committed by nonrepatriated criminal aliens. Current law, which gives the administration discretion to deny visas to uncooperative countries, has been sorely underutilized. This bill eliminates such discretion. Section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act directs the State Department not to issue visas to nationals of countries identified by the Attorney General--now the Secretary of Homeland Security--as countries that deny or delay repatriation. Congressional intent was clear, and the remedy was potent when applied against Guyana several years ago. However, the Congressional Research Service has not identified any other instance in which Homeland Security elected to issue the triggering notification to the State Department. On February 15, I wrote letters to the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security as well as to the Attorney General to find out why this authority is seemingly unutilized. On March 4, I reiterated my concerns to Secretary Chertoff in person, when he testified before the Appropriations Subcommittee. He committed to working with us to find ways to extend the 6-month detention in appropriate cases rather than simply releasing all deportable aliens. This is a welcome step--one that will complement the bill I am introducing Foreign relations are complex and there is a need to balance competing interests; however, ensuring the public safety is a Government's primary duty and must be its first priority. Also, we must ensure that prolonged repatriation negotiations do not drain scarce resources. It makes little sense to continue admitting persons if we cannot be sure that their countries will take them back in the event they are ordered removed from this country. Similarly, it makes little sense to continue rewarding such countries with U.S. taxpayer dollars in the form of foreign aid. This bill addresses the problem by imposing sanctions on non- repatriating countries that refuse to cooperate and take responsibility. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the letters I referred to be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to follow the comments made by the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma concerning a group of Senators who met yesterday with a variety of proposals on immigration reform. One of those proposals was mine, S. 2720. This bill seeks to deal with a very serious public safety problem where illegal aliens who have been convicted of crimes of violence are permitted to walk free on the streets of America where their native country will not accept them for deportation. This is the factual situation where the matter arises. A person is charged, for example, with aggravated robbery, serves 10 years in jail, is released from jail on the service of a maximum sentence, then is turned over to authorities from the immigration service for deportation. Then the efforts to deport the individual are not successful because his native country will not take him or her back. Under court rulings, the maximum that person can be held in detention is 180 days. That means after the service of the sentence, after being detained for 180 days, that person is then back on the streets of America where the statistics show a very high degree of recidivism or repeat offenses. The legislation I am introducing would put pressure on native countries to take back for deportation their citizens under circumstances where they now refuse to do so by denying to those countries visas for their people who want to come to visit the United States. There are currently some discretionary provisions on the books which, simply stated, have not worked. This would mandate that procedure. That kind of pressure is calculated to at least ameliorate the situation. The second provision of the bill provides that foreign aid would be conditioned on countries accepting back their native citizens under the circumstances which I have just described. The United States has a tremendous foreign aid program where allocations are made for a variety of what we consider to be in our national interest or in humanitarian interest. Here again we have a potentially effective tool for dealing with countries who refuse to accept back their own citizens where they have been ordered deported by the United States. In analyzing the problem further, no matter what we do under these circumstances, it is not possible to compel all foreign countries to accept their nationals back when they are subject to deportation. We are currently examining the possibilities of having some additional detention. Candidly, it is difficult to structure consistent with constitutional rights, which apply to these individuals, and consistent with due process of law. There are some provisions, for example, when someone is arrested on a charge to be held in preventative detention, where there is reason to believe that individual will flee. So the presumption of innocence still applies, and detention can be held for a relatively brief period of time. We are also looking at some possible alternatives under sexual predators, where some legislation has been passed, where even after the completion of a full sentence there is a form of civil commitment. We are examining the ramifications of that kind of legislation to be sure it comports with due process and with constitutional protections. Amendments Nos. 4094 and 4097 While I have the floor, I will comment about the vote we just had on the Vitter amendment and the vote we had yesterday on the Cornyn amendment. Both amendments raise similar issues. The amendment offered by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, would bar attorneys general from retaining outside counsel on a contingency fee basis. The amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, would impose costs on State attorneys general who lose cases brought under the pending legislation. Both amendments have similar elements. I believe the underlying reason Senator Cornyn has advocated for his amendment is not sufficient for such a broad legislative change. Senator Cornyn's amendment arises from a case in Texas where the attorney general went to Federal prison for corruption when hiring a friend on a contingency fee basis. It may be that the Senator from Texas has a valid point. He served as the attorney general for the State of Texas and has considerable experience in the field. I have had some experience as a prosecuting attorney myself with similar kinds of discretion. It is my view that before we undertake such a fundamental change in procedure, there ought to be some extensive consideration and deliberation. The Senate is, by reputation, the world's greatest deliberative body. For those who may inadvertently be watching on C-SPAN, a short statement of the legislative process is in order. The way we function on legislation is that a Member has an idea and puts it in a bill and files it. The bill is then referred to a committee. In this case, legislation involving courts and attorneys would be referred to the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee holds hearings and hears from witnesses who are experienced in the field: attorneys general, defense lawyers, lawyers who have been retained by attorneys general, judges, and scholars. We listen at length, and we ask the witnesses questions. Unfortunately, you can't see all of those hearings live because they are preempted. However, maybe you can see it on rerun on C-SPAN 3. But those are hearings which provide some basis for a judgment as to what should be done in the Senate. The amendment offered by the Senator from Texas was not referred to committee. I think it is a matter which ought to be considered and analyzed. Under Senate procedure, any Senator may offer an amendment to the bill which he or she chooses. There is a brief time for argument-- it could not have been more than several hours yesterday. I was involved in other matters and could not come to the floor. Following debate, a vote is called. The first time many of us in this body consider the issue is when we are en route from our offices to the Chamber to vote. For those of you who watch C-SPAN2, you will notice that in the course of a 15-minute vote--which is extended by custom to 20 minutes, and sometimes beyond--most of the Senators do not arrive here until late in the process. Those watching will notice a big huddle by each desk. You may wonder, what is going on? Well, what is going on is that the Senator walks in the Chamber and takes a look at a yellow or white pad with a one-paragraph description of the bill or amendment. There is some hasty discussion, sometimes by the proponent of the bill and sometimes by the opponent of the bill. There is hardly what you call deliberation and not what you have when the legislative process is followed. When the legislative process is followed the bill is introduced. Following introduction, there are hearings on the bill and there is what we call a markup. For example, at the Judiciary Committee markup, there have to be at least 10 of 19 members present in order to vote the bill out of committee. At the markup there is an opportunity for discussion, analysis, and even modification of the bill. After consideration by the committee, the bill comes to the Senate floor with a committee report. The committee report describes the bill. Senators have a chance to read the committee report or, to be more candid, staff has a chance to read the committee report. It is not physically possible to read all the committee reports and all the materials that come across a Senator's desk--it just cannot be done. But at least you have a staffer who writes you a memorandum highlighting the essential points and have a chance to question the staffer. You then come to the floor on the debate with some notice about what the debate is about. It seems to me on matters of importance that we ought to go through full Senate procedure. It is my view that Congress has to be very careful in what we do by way of mandates to the States. We also need to be careful when telling the States how to run their business and by telling attorneys general what is best for their State. There are some offices of attorneys general in the United States which are not elaborately staffed. When I was DA of Philadelphia, I had 170 attorneys. I don't know how many attorneys general have limited staffs, nor do I understand their workload or their backlog. There is no reason for me to get involved in the business of state attorneys general. State attorneys general are elected by the people of their State or appointed under State constitutional provisions. It is up to them to make a decision as to how they run their offices. As a basic matter of federalism, we should leave it up to the state attorneys general. We ought to consider the most serious problems of national import. We cannot get into the details of all the State attorneys general offices. The Senator from Texas talks about creative ways for lawyers to structure contingency fee agreements. Perhaps the amendment of the Senator from Texas would be improved if the attorney general had to go to court to get judicial approval to hire outside counsel on a contingency fee basis. At this time, the attorney general would inform the court of his office's resources and his reasons for needing to enter into a contingency fee contract. This would allow the matter to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Now, moving to the amendment by the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter. There is an effort to have the losing party pay for the costs of litigation and costs of reasonable attorneys' fees. It is designed-- as the brief one paragraph said--to avoid frivolous lawsuits. I think it is a very good idea to avoid frivolous lawsuits. The existing rules in Federal court provide for the handling of frivolous lawsuits by imposing costs on the losing party. Following a motion by the party who is being sued, the judge determines whether to dismiss the case under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Senator Vitter wants to impose a blanket rule, where in every case, the loser pays. It may be that the United States ought to go to the British system, which is a ``loser pays'' system. However, that would be a very drastic change in our court procedure. It is even possible that we ought to go to a ``loser pays'' system in the conditions contemplated under the pending legislation. But that would be a very material change if we were to make that sort of a shift at this time. Again, we ought to be following the regular Senate procedures. Let Senator Vitter introduce the bill. Let it be referred to the Judiciary Committee. There will be hearings and thorough analysis. Following hearings, there will be a markup and the bill will come to the floor with a committee report. The appropriate deliberation would take place. If Senator Vitter's amendment were to be adopted, perhaps it ought to be modified on a discretionary basis. The court could impose costs on the losing party if the judge determines that the case is frivolous. You might have a meritorious case with a very close question. That is what we do in America with our differences of views between parties. Different sides are presented in court and a determination is made. There is a necessity for a lot of room. The Senate wisely defeated both of these amendments. On their surface, there is a great deal to commend Senator Cornyn's amendment to eliminate contingency fee arrangements. There is the situation where the Texas State Attorney General went to jail for corruption. Of course, it is more than contingency fees in that case. People who read an abbreviated statement in the newspapers might think the Senate made a mistake in rejecting the Cornyn amendment. We need to examine the issue closer. Here again, on the surface, you might think the amendment by Senator Vitter has merit to impose costs on the losing party. After all, if they lost, why shouldn't they pay for it? But you have to go beyond that and examine the issue further. I am prepared to consider both amendments. I am prepared to consider the ideas of my colleagues in the Senate. But I want to do that in the course of the legislative process, where we follow regular order: a bill is introduced, goes to committee, the committee has hearings, the committee hears witnesses, the committee sits down with a majority of its members, and the bill comes to the floor with a committee report. I know the votes have already been cast on the amendments I have spoken about, but I thought it might be useful to take the floor and give the public a fuller understanding of what we do in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I pay tribute to a very distinguished staffer in my office, Christopher K. Bradish, who serves as my legislative assistant for defense and foreign affairs issues. Recently, the National Guard Association of the United States recognized Christopher's extraordinary work by presenting him with the Patrick Henry Award--the civilian counterpart to the National Guard Association of the United States Distinguished Service Medal. Created in 1989, the Patrick Henry Award provides recognition to local officials and civic leaders, who in a position of great responsibility distinguished themselves with outstanding and exceptional service to the Armed Forces of the United States, the National Guard, or the National Guard Association of the United States. To fully comprehend the magnitude of this honor, it is important to note the criteria for the selection of the Patrick Henry Award. Superior performance of normal duty alone does not justify award of this honor. An individual must have provided exceptionally strong support for the National Guard such that the readiness and the future of the National Guard must have been positively impacted. Christopher has provided a tremendous service to our Nation's military, as the United States continues to wage a war on terrorism in this post-9/11 era. Additionally, he has demonstrated a remarkable amount of enthusiasm for ensuring that the Armed Forces and National Guard have the readiness capabilities to defend our country. The assistance he has provided the National Guard will not be easily matched; however, for Christopher this level of dedication is par for the course. I applaud the National Guard Association of the United States for recognizing Christopher's behind-the-scenes work to increase National Guard funding and champion projects of special interest to the Guard. Christopher also strives to provide the legislative tools necessary to give soldiers and airmen the best support available. He has worked hard on these issues--each time jumping in feet first, soaking up knowledge, and moving legislation forward in this often complicated process. I urge my colleagues to join me today in commending Christopher K. Bradish for his receipt of the Patrick Henry Award and his leadership on behalf of the Armed Forces of the United States, the National Guard, and the National Guard Association of the United States.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Before the Senator from Illinois leaves the floor, I had come to the floor to talk about the confirmation of judges, but while the Senator from Illinois is still on the floor and has spoken on a subject he and I have been working on for some time, I would appreciate it if he would wait just a few minutes while I engage him in some dialog and debate and try to deal with the issue on which we have been working.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois has proposed legislation that would authorize bankruptcy courts to reduce the principal value of mortgages--so-called ``cram down''. I have introduced legislation that would authorize bankruptcy courts to reduce the interest rates on variable rate mortgages. I have taken the position I have because I believe giving bankruptcy courts the authority the Senator from Illinois has advocated for would have a serious, disruptive effect, discouraging lenders from loaning money for home mortgages. I am not alone in that view. Congress expressed that view when it expressly barred bankruptcy courts from modifying mortgages. Justice Stevens noted this in Nobleman v. American Savings, when he said the following: At first blush, it seems somewhat strange that the Bankruptcy Code should provide less protection to an individual's interest in retaining possession of his or her home than of other assets. The anomaly is, however, explained by the legislative history indicating that favorable treatment of residential mortgages was intended to encourage the flow of capital into the home lending market. That is to say, in essence, that if bankruptcy courts could modify mortgages, lenders would issue fewer mortgages in the future, a serious disadvantage to Americans who want to buy homes down the road. It is this concern that led me to introduce legislation that would allow bankruptcy courts to modify mortgages in a very limited way. My bill focuses on the problem by allowing bankruptcy judges to modify interest rates on mortgages where the rate has increased dramatically. The number of these types of mortgages has increased substantially in recent years. In 2001, adjustable rate mortgages accounted for 16 percent of all home loans. By 2006, this share had increased to 45 percent. The Senator from Illinois has characterized my legislation in somewhat uncomplimentary terms, to put it mildly. He said: Specter's language is worse than useless. It's counterproductive. It creates the image of action and response and it does nothing. Worse than useless. That is very tough talk, but let's examine what the facts are. The facts are that the rate of delinquency and foreclosure on adjustable rate mortgages has been very considerable, in contrast with what has happened on fixed rate mortgages. As payments on adjustable rate mortgages have reset, many homeowners have had their monthly payment increase substantially. On average, a $1,200 monthly mortgage payment has increased by $250 to $300. Among homeowners with subprime adjustable rate mortgages, the percentage that was either 90 days past due or in foreclosure has more than doubled from 6.5 percent in the second quarter of 2006 to 15.6 percent in the third quarter of 2007. The percentage of homeowners with prime adjustable rate mortgages who are either 90 days past due or in foreclosure has more than tripled, from less than 1 percent in the second quarter of 2006 to 3.12 percent in the third quarter of 2007. Contrast this with delinquencies and foreclosures among homeowners with fixed rate mortgages. The percentage of homeowners with fixed rate mortgages who are either 90 days past due or in foreclosure has increased only slightly from 5.72 percent in the second quarter of 2006 to 6.61 percent in the third quarter of 2007. Similarly, among homeowners with prime fixed rate mortgages, the percentage who are either 90 days past due or in foreclosure has only increased from .63 percent to .83 percent. The point of all this is that adjustable rate mortgages have created an enormous problem for many homeowners. But that has not occurred where there are fixed rate mortgages. So it hardly seems to me that Arlen Specter's language is ``worse than useless.'' It hardly seems that my proposal is counterproductive or that it creates the image of action and response but does nothing. The fact is, it attacks the very core of the serious we face today problem. On one point the Senator from Illinois and I agree--we have a very serious problem. I wish to see this Senate address it. The fact is we could use some constructive work around here. May the Record show the Senator from Illinois nods in agreement. So we have quite a few points here that are not totally Arlen Specter useless.

Mr. SPECTER. I don't mind the presumption if the Senator will use his microphone.

Mr. SPECTER. I will finish in less time than the Senator from Illinois used when he said he was about to finish. I only wish to say that I hope we will take it up in the Judiciary Committee this week and report it out of Committee, which is what ought to be done before it comes to the floor. Then perhaps we will have more time for an extended debate. I will be glad to hear the response from the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had been advised that I would have 30 minutes in morning business. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the conclusive response to the argument by the Senator from Illinois is that my bill allows the court to reduce the principal on a mortgage--a so-called cram down--if the bank agrees and if it is indicated by the facts. What the Senator from Illinois failed to note is that my bill gives full leeway to bankruptcy courts to adjust interest rates--which the Senator from Illinois has already acknowledged is the real problem. Under current law, the court does not have the power to reduce the principal on a mortgage. So I added the provision that if the lender were in agreement, and if it makes sense in many cases this option will cost less than foreclosing--then extend the authority to court to make that adjustment. Mr. President, how much time remains of the 30 minutes?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. The current presidential race provides the Senate with a unique opportunity to come to grips with the confirmation process of Federal judges and to make some very fundamental commitments and very fundamental changes to our process. We are in the midst of a Presidential campaign, and I think it is fair to say the outcome is uncertain. It has fluctuated tremendously on both nomination pictures. But, this is a time, with the outcome uncertain, when neither side of the aisle would know who will gain an advantage; we would not know whose ox was being gored. It is a time, starting in the next Congress--if we can't act now, and my fundamental plea is that we act at the present time--we ought not to wait 11 months, until January 20, 2009. This is a unique time to tackle the problem for the future. On April 1, 2004, I offered S. Res. 327, and I now offer the substance of that resolution again. The whereas clauses of the resolution recited a distressing array of facts similar to what we have at the present time, with filibusters by the Democrats and with the retaliatory prospect of changing the filibuster rule. The resolution called for establishing a timetable for hearings of nominees for district courts and courts of appeal and the Supreme Court to occur within 30 days after the names of such nominees have been submitted to the Senate by the President and then to establish a timetable for action by the full committee within 30 days after the hearings and for reporting out nominees to the full Senate. And then to have a timetable for the full Senate to act within 90 days, with a provision for reasonable extension of times, upon agreement of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking member or the majority leader and the minority leader to extend the time. This resolution would establish procedures which would guarantee that the confirmation of judges would go back to the good old days, where you took a look at the person's academic credentials, you took a look at the person's professional background, you interviewed the individual, you had an FBI background check, and the person didn't have to pass some ideological purity test. Or, the individual did not have to pass a test such as what Judge Southwick was subjected to on this floor for months and months and months. It was particularly egregious in the case of Judge Southwick. Judge Southwick was a distinguished Mississippi State appellate court judge. He was nominated for the Fifth Circuit, and he had an extraordinary record, more than 10 years on the State court bench--more than 70 opinions. Objections were raised to two lines in two concurring opinions. Judge Southwick left the bench and went to Iraq and served for months in the Judge Advocate General's Corps. He was interviewed by many people of the Senate, and his confirmation hung on a thread until a courageous Senator from the other side of the aisle crossed party lines and led the way to get a few votes from the Democrats. You don't have to be a profile in courage to support a judge such as Judge Southwick, and you don't have to be a profile in courage to support a nominee such as Rod Rosenstein or Peter Keisler or Robert Conrad or the others who were enumerated in my letter--some 10 circuit court judges and 18 district court judges. I wish to quote a very respectable authority in my concluding comment. A man who has served in the Senate since he was elected from Vermont in 1974, twice chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and this is what the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, had to say on October 5, 2000. This year, the Judiciary Committee reported only three nominees to the Court of Appeals all year. This is the last year of President Clinton's administration. We denied a committee vote to two outstanding nominees who succeeded in getting hearings. I hope we can look again and ask ourselves objectively, without any partisanship: Can we not do better on judges? This is Senator Leahy. Going on. I quoted Governor George Bush-- He was in the campaign process at that time in the 2000 election. Senator Leahy says: I quoted Governor George Bush on the floor a couple of days ago. I said I agreed with him. On nominations he said we should vote them up or down within 60 days. If you don't want the person, vote against them. The Republican Party should have no fear of that. They have the majority in this body. They could vote against them if they want, but have the vote. Either vote for them or vote against them. Don't leave people such as Helene White and Bonnie Campbell, people such as this, just hanging forever without even getting a rollcall vote. That is wrong. It is not a responsible way and besmirches the Senate, this body, that I love so much. Senator Leahy, you were right on October 5, 2000, and you are right on March 3, 2008. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Washington, DC, February 29, 2008. Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Patrick: I write in the hope that you and I can work out an accommodation on the confirmation of federal judges without our respective caucuses coming to an impasse. Without going into an elaborate history on the confirmation of federal judges, the essence of the situation is that 15 circuit judges and 57 district court judges were confirmed in the last two years of President Clinton's Administration, compared to 6 circuit court and 34 district court judges for President Bush in 2007-2008. That means there must be confirmations or at least up-or-down votes on 9 additional circuit and 23 district court judges to equal President Clinton's record. President Bush is even farther behind President Clinton in total confirmations when contrasting their entire terms, since President Clinton confirmed 65 circuit court and 305 district court judges while President Bush has so far confirmed only 57 circuit and 237 district court judges. In addition, thus far in the 110th Congress, only 5 of President Bush's circuit court nominees have been granted hearings. By this date in President Clinton's final two years in office, the Committee had held hearings for 10 circuit court nominees. Until the hearing for Ms. Catharina Haynes on February 21, 2008, we had not had a circuit court hearing since September 25, 2007, some 5 months ago. While there have been many hotly contested issues in the Senate in recent years, the most bitter controversies have involved federal judicial nominations. In 2005, the battle over judges reached a high point, or low point, with the Republican caucus threatening to employ the ``nuclear option'' to combat the Democrats' filibusters. In my judgment, in the past twenty years, there has been a great deal of blame split evenly between both sides. As the record shows, I dissented from the Republican caucus's position by casting key votes in favor of several circuit court nominees, including controversial nominees such as Judge Marsha Berzon, who was confirmed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 9, 2000, Judge Timothy Dyk, who was confirmed to the Federal Circuit on May 24, 2000, Judge Richard Paez, who was confirmed to the Ninth Circuit on March 9, 2000, and Judge H. Lee Sarokin, who was confirmed to the Third Circuit on October 4, 1994. Similarly, I supported President Clinton's nomination of Judge Gerard Lynch, who was confirmed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York by a vote of 63-36 on May 24, 2000. I also supported other controversial non-judicial confirmations such as Lani Guinier to be Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the justice Department and the subsequent nomination of Bill Lann Lee for the same position. Now I believe that my caucus is correct in insisting on up- or-down votes on nominees with extraordinary records, including several who are nominated to fill seats deemed judicial emergencies. A listing of these nominees with their superb qualifications proves the point: Circuit Court Nominees Nominee: Peter D. Keisler, of MD, to the D.C. Circuit: Pending over 600 days. Nominated: June 29, 2006 Hearing August 1, 2006; Renominated January 8, 2007. ABA Rating: Unanimous Well Qualified. Education: B.A., magna cum laude, Yale University, 1981; J.D., Yale Law School, 1985; Notes/Comments Editor, Yale Law Journal. Career Highlights: Law Clerk, Judge Robert H. Bork, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals; Law Clerk, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, U.S. Supreme Court; Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Department of Justice; Acting Attorney General, United States Department of Justice (DOJ). Editorials in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post have called for confirmation of Mr. Keisler calling him a ``moderate conservative'' and ``highly qualified nominee'' who ``certainly warrants confirmation. Nominee: Robert Conrad, of NC, to the 4th Circuit (Judicial Emergency); Pending over 220 days. Nominated: July 17, 2007. ABA Rating: Unanimous Well Qualified. Education: B.A., magna cum laude, Clemson University, 1980; J.D., University of Virginia. 1983. Career Highlights: U.S. Attorney, Western District of N.C.; District Judge, District Court for the Western District of N.C.; Chief Judge, Western District of N.C. An editorial in The Charlotte Observer stated that it is ``outrageous'' that the Judiciary Committee has not held a hearing for Judge Conrad, calling him a ``well-qualified judge who only three years ago received unanimous Senate confirmation'' and who ``was appointed by Democratic Attorney General Janet Reno to head the Justice Department's Campaign Finance Task Force.'' Nominee: Steve A. Matthews, of SC, to the 4th Circuit; Pending over 170 days. Nominated: September 6, 2007. ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Qualified, Minority Not Qualified. Education: B.A., University of South Carolina, 1977; J.D., Yale Law School, 1980. Career Highlights: Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, DOJ; Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy. DOJ; Managing Director, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. Nominee: Catharina Haynes, of TX, to the 5th Circuit (Judicial Emergency); Pending over 220 days. Nominated: July 17, 2007; Hearing February 21, 2008. ABA Rating: Unanimous Well Qualified. Education: B.S., with highest honors, first in her class, Florida Institute of Technology, 1983; J.D., with distinction, order of the coif, Emory University School of Law. 1986. Career Highlights: Partner, Baker Botts, LLP; Judge, State of Texas, Dallas County, 191st District Court, Dallas, TX; Partner, Baker Botts, LLP. Nominee: Rod Rosenstein, of MD, to the 4th Circuit (Judicial Emergency); Pending over 100 days. Nominated: November 15, 2007. ABA Rating: Unanimous Well Qualified. Education: B.S., summa cum laude, University of Pennsylvania, 1986; J.D., cum laude, Harvard Law School, 1989. Career Highlights: Law Clerk, Judge Douglas Ginsburg, D.C. Circuit; Special Assistant to the Assistant Attorney General, (Criminal Division, DOJ; Associate Independent Counsel, Office of the Independent Counsel; Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division, DOJ; U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland. Two editorials in the Washington Post urged Senate confirmation of Mr. Rosenstein and one stated ``blocking Mr. Rosenstein's confirmation hearing . . . would elevate ideology and ego above substance and merit, and it would unfairly penalize a man who people on both sides of this question agree is well qualified for a judgeship.'' Nominee: Stephen Murphy, of MI, to the 6th Circuit (Judicial Emergency); Pending over 1100 days. Nominated: February 17, 2005; Renominated June 28, 2006; Renominated March 19, 2007. ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Well Qualified, Minority Qualified. Education: B.S., Marquette University, 1984; J.D., St. Louis University, 1987. Career Highlights: Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office for the E.D. of Michigan; Attorney, General Motors; U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Michigan. Nominee: Raymond Kethledge, of MI, to the 6th Circuit (Judicial Emergency); Pending over 600 days. Nominated: June 28, 2006; Renominated March 19, 2007. ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Well Qualified, Minority Qualified. Education: B.A., University of Michigan, 1989; J.D., University of Michigan Law School, 1993. Career Highlights: Law Clerk, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, U.S. Supreme Court; Counsel, Senator Spencer Abraham, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee; Partner, Bush Seyferth Kethledge & Paige. Nominee: William Smith, of RI, to the 1st Circuit (Judicial Emergency); Pending over 80 days. Nominated: December 7, 2007. ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Well Qualified, Minority Qualified. Education: B.A., Georgetown University Law Center, 1982. Career Highlights: Counsel/Partner, Edwards & Angell, LLP; Staff Director, Senator Lincoln Chafee; District Judge, District of Rhode Island. Nominee: Shalom Stone, of NJ, to the 3rd Circuit (Judicial Emergency); Pending over 220 days. Nominated: July 18, 2007. ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Qualified, Minority Well Qualified. Education: B.A., magna cum laude, Yeshiva College; J.D., cum laude, New York University School of Law. Career Highlights: Associate, Sills, Cummis, Tischman, Epstein & Gross; Member, Walder Hayden & Brogan, P.A. Nominee: Gene Pratter, of PA, to the 3rd Circuit; Pending over 100 days. Nominated: November 15, 2007. ABA Rating: Unanimous Well Qualified. Education: A.B., Stanford University, 1971; J.D., University of Pennsylvania Law School, 1975. Career Highlights: Partner, Duane Morris, LLP, District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. District Court Nominees Nominee: Thomas A. Farr, of NC, to the Eastern District of North Carolina (Judicial Emergency). Nominated: December 7, 2006. ABA Rating: Unanimous Well Qualified. Education: B.A., summa cum laude, co-salutatorian, Hillsdale College, 1976; J.D., Emory University School of Law, 1979; L.L.M., Georgetown University School of Law, 1982. Career Highlights: Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources; Staff Attorney, Office of Personnel Management; Law Clerk, Judge Frank W. Bullock, Jr., U.S. District Court for the M.D. of NC; Adjunct Professor, Campbell University School of Law. Nominee: James R. Hall, to the Southern District of Georgia (Judicial Emergency). Nominated: March 19, 2007; Hearing Feb. 12, 2008; Scheduled for markup Feb. 28, 2008. ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Well Qualified, Minority Qualified. Education: B.A., Augusta College, 1979; J.D., University of Georgia Law School, 1982. Career Highlights: Partner, Avrett & Hall; Corporate Vice President & General Counsel, Bankers First Corporation; 22nd District State Senator, Georgia State Senate; Partner, Warrick, Tritt, Stebbins & Hall. Nominee: Gustavus Adolphus Puryear, of TN, to the Middle District of Tennessee. Nominated: June 13, 2007; Hearing February 12, 2008. ABA Rating: Unanimously Qualified. Education: B.A., with highest honors, Emory University, 1990; J.D., with honors, University of North Carolina School of Law, 1993. Career Highlights: Law Clerk, Judge Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale, Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir.; Legislative Director, Office of U.S. Senator Bill Frist; Executive VP, General Counsel & Secretary, Corrections Corporation of America. Nominee: Brian Stacy Miller, of AR, to the Eastern District of Arkansas. Nominated: October 16, 2007; Hearing February 12, 2008; Markup February 28, 2008. ABA Rating: Unanimously Well Qualified. Education: B.S., with honors, University of Central Arkansas, 1992; J.D., Vanderbilt Law School, 1995. Career Highlights: Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Arkansas Prosecuting Attorney's Office; Judge, Arkansas Court of Appeals (current). Nominee: John A. Mendez, of CA, to the Eastern District of California (Judicial Emergency). Nominated: Sept. 6, 2007; Hearing February 21, 2008. ABA Rating: Substantial majority Well Qualified, minority Qualified. Education: B.A., with distinction, Stanford University, 1977; J.D., Harvard Law School, 1980. Career Highlights: United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office for the N.D. of CA; Shareholder, Somach, Simmons & Dunn; Judge, Sacramento County Superior Court. Nominee: Richard H. Honaker, of WY, to the District of Wyoming. Nominated: June 29, 2006; Hearing February 12, 2008. ABA Rating: Unanimous Well Qualified. Education: B.A., Harvard College, cum laude, 1973; J.D., University of Wyoming College of Law, John J. Bugas Scholarship, 1976. Career Highlights: State Public Defender, State of Wyoming; Member, Wyoming House of Representatives, 1987-1993; Partner, Honaker, Hampton & Newman. Nominee: Lincoln D. Almond, of RI, to the District of Rhode Island. Nominated: November 15, 2007. ABA Rating: Unanimous Well Qualified. Education: B.S., University of Rhode Island, 1985; J.D., with High Honors, University of Connecticut School of Law, 1988; Notes/Comments Editor, Connecticut Law Review. Career Highlights: Law Clerk, Judge Peter C. Dorsey, District Court for the District of Connecticut; Partner, Edwards & Angell, LLP; Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. Nominee: Mark S. Davis, of VA, to the Eastern District of Virginia. Nominated: November 15, 2007. ABA Rating: Unanimous Well Qualified. Education: B.A., University of Virginia, 1984; J.D., Washington and Lee University School of Law, 1988. Career Highlights: Law Clerk, Judge John A. MacKenzie, U.S. District Court for the E.D. of VA; Partner, McGuire Woods LLP; Partner, Carr & Porter, LLC; State Court Judge, Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia. Nominee: David J. Novak, of VA, to the Eastern District of Virginia. Nominated: November 15, 2007. ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Well Qualified, Minority Qualified. Education: B.S., magna cum laude, St. Vincent College, 1983; J.D., Villanova University Law School, 1986. Career Highlights: Assistant District Attorney; Philadelphia District Attorney's Office; Trial Attorney, Criminal Division, DOJ; Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office for the S.D. of Texas; Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office for the E.D. of Virginia. Nominee: William J. Powell, of WV, to the Northern District of West Virginia. Nominated: May 24, 2007. ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Well Qualified, Minority qualified, 1 abstention. Education: B.A., magna cum laude, Salem College, 1982; J.D., West Virginia College of Law, 1985. Career Highlights: Assistant United States Attorney, Southern District of WV; Member, Jackson Kelly, PLLC. Nominee: David R. Dugas, of LA, to the Middle District of Louisiana. Nominated: March 19, 2007. ABA Rating: Unanimously Well Qualified. Education: Cadet, United States Air Force Academy, 1973; J.D., Louisiana State University Law Center, 1978. Career Highlights: Partner, Caffery, Oubre, Dugas & Campbell, L.L.P.; United States Attorney, Middle District of Louisiana (current); Exec. Director, Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force Joint Command Center. Nominee: Stephen N. Limbaugh Jr., of MO, to the Eastern District of Missouri. Nominated: December 6, 2007. ABA Rating: Unanimously Well Qualified. Education: B.A., Southern Methodist University, 1973; J.D., Southern Methodist University School of Law, 1976; Master of Laws in the Judicial Process, UVA School of Law, 1998. Career Highlights: Circuit Judge: 32nd Judicial Circuit of Missouri; Supreme Court Judge, Supreme Court of Missouri; Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Missouri. Nominee: David Gregory Kays, of MO, to the Western District of Missouri. Nominated: Nov. 15, 2007. ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Qualified/Minority Not Qualified. Education: B.S., Southwest Missouri State University, 1985; J.D., University of Arkansas School of Law, 1988. Career Highlights: Prosecutor, Laclede County Prosecuting Attorney's Office; Associate Circuit Judge, Laclede County Circuit Court; Presiding Circuit Court Judge, Twenty-Sixth Judicial District. Nominee: James Edward Rogan, of CA, to the Central District of California (Judicial Emergency). Nominated: January 9, 2007. ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Well Qualified/Minority Qualified. Education: B.A., University of California at Berkeley, 1979; J.D., University of California Los Angeles School of Law, 1983. Career Highlights: Deputy District Attorney, Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office; Judge, Glendale Municipal Court; Member, California State Assembly; Member, United States House of Representatives; Judge, California Superior Court. Nominee: William T. Lawrence, of IN, to the Southern District of Indiana (Judicial Emergency). Nominated: February 15, 2008. ABA Rating: Not yet rated. Education: B.A., Indiana University, 1970; J.D., Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis, 1973. Career Highlights: Public Defender (Part-time), Marion County Superior Court, Criminal Division; Master Commissioner (part-time), Marion County Circuit Court; Judge, Marion County Circuit Court; Magistrate Judge, District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (current). Nominee: G. Murray Snow, of AZ, to the District of Arizona. Nominated: Dec. 11, 2007. ABA Rating: Not yet rated. Education: B.A., magna cum laude, Brigham Young University, 1984; J.D., magna cum laude, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, 1987. Career Highlights: Law Clerk, Judge Stephen H. Anderson, Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals; Member, Meyer, Hendricks, Victor, Osborn & Maledon, P.A.; Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals. Nominee: Glenn T. Suddaby, of NY, to the Northern District of New York. Nominated: December 11, 2007. ABA Rating: Not yet rated. Education: B.A., State University of New York at Plattsburgh, 1980; J.D., Syracuse University College of Law, 1985. Career Highlights: Assistant District Attorney, Onondaga County District Attorney's Office; First Chief Assist, District Attorney, Onondaga County Dist. Attorney's Office; United States Attorney, Northern District of New York. Nominee: Colm Connolly, of DE, to the District of Delaware. Nominated: February 26, 2008. ABA Rating: Not yet rated. Education: B.A., University of Notre Dame; M.Sc., London School of Economics; J.D., Duke University Law School. Career Highlights: Law Clerk, Judge Walter Stapleton, Third Circuit Court of Appeals; Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Delaware; U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Delaware. It is my hope that we can work together to ensure that all of these nominees receive timely hearings and prompt votes in the Committee. In light of my extensive consultation with you in scheduling the hearings for Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, as well as our collaboration on numerous other Committee hearings, I was surprised when you scheduled a hearing for Judge Catharina Haynes on February 21st during the recess. I know you offered to postpone that hearing for a relatively brief period of time, but a formal, written request for a postponement would only have provided more grist for the argument mill on these issues. I was prepared to cancel my previously scheduled work in Pennsylvania to attend the Haynes hearing until Senator John Warner, who was in Washington, agreed to attend. Given the uncertainty of who the next President will be, now would be a good time to change the confirmation process to guarantee prompt action on nominees with up-or-down votes. I again urge you to work for me to establish a schedule for prompt consideration of all currently pending judicial nominees and ensure they receive up-or-down votes in Committee and on the Senate floor. I have shared this letter with the other Republican members of the Committee. Sincerely, Arlen Specter.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, during the past 20 years, we have seen a very serious deterioration in the processes in the Senate on the confirmation of Federal judges. Without a broad sweep of historical reference, I believe it has been a very low point in the confirmation of Federal judges since the beginning of the Republic, but in order to say that with absolute certainty, there would have to be a very intense historical survey undertaken. It is plain that since the last 2 years of President Reagan's administration until the present day, the confirmation process has broken down whenever the White House has been controlled by one party and the Senate controlled by the other party. In the last 2 years of the Reagan administration, the judicial confirmation process broke down. In the 4 years of the administration of President George H. W. Bush, the confirmation process was riveted with partisanship. When Republicans gained control of the Senate starting in January of 1995, during the last 6 years of the administration of President Clinton, the Republican Senate retaliated, and more than retaliated; it exacerbated the problem. Then, when the administration of President George W. Bush came, the Democrats were in control for about a year and a half of that process. Again, the process was stymied. Then it got even worse. Then, even though the Republicans had gained control of the Senate, after the 2002 elections, there were filibusters, which were very destructive to the Senate. Then, there was a very serious challenge to the filibuster rule. The Democrats were filibustering President Bush's nominees and Republicans responded with a so-called constitutional or nuclear option to change the filibuster rule to reduce the number from 60 to 51. During the course of these battles, with one side raising the ante and the other side raising the ante, exacerbating the controversy, I was willing to cross party lines and support the nominees of President Clinton who were qualified. For example, I crossed party lines to support Judge Marsha Berzon who was confirmed to the Ninth Circuit on March 9, 2000, and Judge Timothy Dyk who was confirmed to the Federal Circuit on May 24, 2000. I supported Judge Richard Paez who was confirmed to the Ninth Circuit on March 9, 2000, and Judge H. Lee Sarokin who was confirmed to the Third Circuit on October 4, 1994. Similarly, I supported President Clinton's nomination of Judge Gerard Lynch who was confirmed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 24, 2000. I also supported other controversial, nonjudicial confirmations such as Lani Guinier to be Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department and the subsequent nomination of Bill Lann Lee for the same position. I was willing to cross party lines and support the nominees of the Democratic President. Now, I believe the Republican caucus is correct. In order to determine which caucus is to prevail, I believe the American people are going to have to be informed as to what is going on. It is a picture, which I submit requires correction. Comparing the statistics on the confirmation of President Clinton's nominees versus President Bush's nominees shows a significant disparity. In the last 2 years of President Clinton's term, President Clinton was successful in confirming 15 circuit nominees and 57 district court nominees, while President Bush has been successful in confirming only 6 circuit court nominees and 34 district court nominees. Looking at the total of 8 years, there is, again, a great disparity. In President Clinton's 8 years, 65 circuit judges were confirmed and 305 district judges. During the full two terms up to the present time with President Bush, 57 circuit judges have been confirmed and 237 district court judges have been confirmed. It is not just a matter of statistics, it is a matter of very substantial impact on the public, a very substantial impact on the courts, and a matter of very significant unfairness to the nominees themselves. It is impossible with any other statistical analysis to draw any firm conclusions because the years overlap. Senator Leahy and I have already exchanged extensive, candidly argumentative correspondence, and he has made some points, but a close analysis shows that is not the case. When he cites the confirmations in the year 2007, for example, his figures look good because 13 of the judges were held over from the preceding 109th Congress. So, if those 13 are extracted, it is not the kind of a picture that would show the statistical battle as tilting in his favor. But, I believe it goes much further than the statistics. It goes to what is happening day in and day out in the Federal courts. There recently was extended publicity given to the Exxon Valdez case. The situation first arose in 1989 when 11 million gallons of crude oil were spilled in Alaska. The district court acted on the matter in 1994. The case is just now coming to the Supreme Court of the United States, which heard argument last week. In the interim, some 8,000 plaintiffs have died. In the text of the letter which I have sent to Senator Leahy and which will be included in the Congressional Record, there are the designations of areas where there are judicial emergencies. ``Judicial emergencies'' means that there is an insufficient number of judges to handle the backlog of cases in the courts. That means the people who have gone to court to sue for damages in a personal injury case or to sue for defective automobiles or to sue for negligently formulated medicines are delayed. The adage is well established in our lexicon that justice delayed is justice denied. I shall not elaborate in the limited amount of time I have on the many circuits and district courts where they face judicial emergencies because well-qualified judges have not been confirmed. Here again, I can mention only a few. But one nominee, Peter Keisler, whose nomination to the District of Columbia Circuit Court has been pending in Committee for more than 20 months, is a man who graduated magna cum laude from Yale, then graduated from Yale Law School, and was editor of the Yale Law Journal. Editorials in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post have called for confirmation of Mr. Keisler, calling him a ``moderate conservative'' and a ``highly qualified nominee'' who ``certainly warrants confirmation.'' Robert Conrad, nominated to the Fourth Circuit, is nominated to fill a judicial emergency and has been pending over 220 days. He is rated unanimously well qualified and graduated magna cum laude from Clemson University. An editorial in the Charlotte Observer stated it is ``outrageous'' that the Judiciary Committee has not held a hearing on Judge Conrad, calling him a ``well-qualified judge who only 3 years ago received unanimous Senate confirmation,'' and who ``was appointed by Democratic Attorney General Janet Reno to head the Justice Department's Campaign Task Force.'' He is a former prosecutor and distinguished district court judge who was picked by the Attorney General of the opposite party to head a very important campaign finance task force. Nominee Rod Rosenstein for the Fourth Circuit has been pending for over 100 days. The American Bar Association rated him unanimously well qualified. He graduated from the University of Pennsylvania, summa cum laude and Harvard Law School, cum laude. Two editorials in The Washington Post urged Senate confirmation of Mr. Rosenstein, and one stated: ``Blocking Mr. Rosenstein's confirmation hearing would elevate ideology and ego above substance and merit, and it would unfairly penalize a man who people on both sides of this question agree is well qualified for a judgeship.'' I think that statement by The Washington Post is as good a characterization as you can find. The conduct of the Senate today is elevating ideology and ego above substance. So I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to extend their hands across the aisle, as I did on so many occasions during President Clinton's tenure in office. How much time remains, Mr. President?

Mr. SPECTER. Eight minutes?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to comment about the serious problem in the judicial confirmation process where Federal judges are pawns in political partisanship. I wrote to my distinguished colleague Senator Leahy on February 29, last Friday. I sent him an extensive letter on the subject. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record the full text of that letter at the conclusion of my comments.