Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. A grand bargain which would allocate 1 minute to Senator Schumer, and then all time yielded back?

Mr. SPECTER. Sounds excessive to me, but I will go along. When he finishes his speech, if we are prepared to yield back time, I will consider the proposal for the grand bargain.

Mr. SPECTER. Sealing the grand bargain, I, too, yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. SPECTER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have in the galleries today students from the seventh grade of the Saligman Middle School in the Philadelphia suburbs. I am not permitted under Senate rules to acknowledge their presence, except verbally, but my granddaughter, Silvi Specter, is among a very impressive group of 59 students who left Philadelphia before dawn today to come to the Nation's Capital to see government in operation. I wish I had the opportunity to visit the Senate when I was in the seventh grade. It took me a little longer to get here. I have sensed from this very bright, intelligent group of students that we may produce a Senator or we may produce a President because the sky is the limit if the students apply themselves and work hard. I was explaining, when we took a picture on the steps today, that the Congress of the United States makes the laws for the country. This is basic civics, but it is good to repeat it. The House of Representatives, consisting of 435 Members, is a representative body, one for every approximately 700,000 people in the United States. Each of our 50 States has 2 Senators. We consider legislation, we vote--pass bills by both the House and Senate--and then we get together on a conference. We have an agreement and a conference report is then voted on separately. The measures then go to the President of the United States. We have a fascinating part of the legislative process right now with the issue of the funding of the Iraq war. The Constitution creates the Congress under article I and creates the office of the executive branch, the Presidency, under article II. We have a unique constitutional confrontation. I think it is not an overstatement to say it is of historic proportion--perhaps the most dramatic constitutional confrontation between the article I power of the Congress to appropriate, commonly known as the power of the purse, and the authority of the President under his power as Commander in Chief. The President is insisting on carrying out the program he has in mind with the addition of troops, a surge in Iraq, to try to restore order to that country. I believe had we known Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, we would not have gone into Iraq to start with, but once there, we do not want to leave it in a state of turmoil. So we are trying to work our way through the problems as best we can. The President laid down two markers for the Iraqis in his State of the Union speech: first, that they should secure Baghdad; and second, that they should end sectarian violence. Regrettably, they have done neither. Congress legislated, providing the funding the President asked for but setting dates for withdrawal. The President vetoed that, saying identifying a withdrawal date would be to tell the enemy how long they would have to stay there to outlast us. Now we are looking for some resolution. It is complicated. The House is talking about appropriating half of the $100 billion and having another vote in July. The Senate has yet to formulate a proposal. For certain, by September, when we face the full $500 billion appropriation bill, there is a very difficult time ahead unless we can see light at the end of the tunnel. On the front page of the New York Times today, one of our Members said that in September there will not be support unless we see some significant progress. The metaphor ``light at the end of the tunnel'' perhaps is accurate or perhaps we will not be at that place. Because there is grave concern about radical Islamic fundamentalists with the determination by radical Islamic fundamentalists to destroy our society and to kill us--as they did with the striking events of 9/11--there is a concern if we do not fight the insurgents in Iraq, we will be fighting them in the United States. These are weighty issues and there is a lot of controversy. Speaking for myself, I am still considering what the right course is. I voted against a withdrawal date at this time because there has been a commitment to a surge, 30,000 additional troops. They are not all there yet. Perhaps we will have better results by September. But those are the issues which await a determination. I reference this in terms of the big issue of the day and how it illustrates the functioning of American Government, Congress and the Presidency, and what we have as a constitutional confrontation. I know the time has come to move on to other business. I thank my colleagues and the Chair for permitting me to go beyond the 11 o'clock hour. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Illinois who has spoken in support of the nomination of Judge Frederick J. Kapala to be a U.S. district court judge for the Northern District of Illinois. He has an outstanding academic record--graduating magma cum laude from Marquette University in 1972, where he was Phi Beta Kappa. He obtained his law degree from the University of Illinois, where he was a moot court board member. He has a professional career which is diversified and with extensive judicial experience. From 1970 to 1980, Judge Kapala served our country in the United States Army, on both active and reserve duty. He obtained the rank of Captain before his honorable discharge. Upon graduation from law school, he was assistant State's attorney--that is the prosecuting attorney in Illinois--for 1 year. He then practiced law for 5 years. He has been an associate circuit court judge from 1982 to 1994 and a circuit court judge for 7 years, until 2001. Since 2001, he has been an appellate court justice for the State of Illinois. He has extensive community activities. He was rated by the American Bar Association as unanimously ``well qualified.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, a summary of Judge Kapala's curriculum vitae be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. My sense from prior confirmation proceedings and votes in the Senate is that Judge Kapala will receive a strong vote, probably unanimous. Immigration Reform In the remaining time, I will discuss what we are doing on the immigration bill because there have been so many inquiries. We all know the history of the immigration legislation from the 109th Congress. The Judiciary Committee reported out a bill. It came to the floor of the Senate, with many amendments, and it was passed with substantial bipartisan support. The House of Representatives had a very different configuration on the bill. They were concerned only with the border security, contrasted with the Senate bill, which was a comprehensive bill. We have had numerous meetings in an effort to structure a consensus bill in the course of the last many weeks. For many weeks, we met on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday from 4 o'clock to 6 o'clock, with as many as a dozen Republican Senators present, with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Commerce present. We have had substantial White House involvement reflecting the President's statement that he wants a comprehensive immigration reform bill. We have spent many hours on extended meetings with Democrats. There were half a dozen Democrats attending these meetings and a rather unique process illustrated last week where we met for 2\1/2\ hours with a dozen Senators being present. It is pretty hard to keep a dozen Senators sitting in one room at one time going over a great many ideas. We have come to an agreement on what we have called a ``grand bargain,'' which is the outline of an immigration bill. There is no doubt that we need to protect our borders and we have legislated for fencing. We want to provide fencing to protect the major metropolitan areas, and we can't have a fence for the entire length of the border. We have proposed and are prepared to enact legislation which would provide for 6,000 additional Border Patrol agents to bring the number to 12,000. We are proposing very strong employer sanctions. We do not want employment in the United States to be a magnet for illegal immigration, and it is now technically possible to have foolproof identification. It can be costly and we are still working through the details, but there is no doubt we want to secure the border and stop illegal immigration as the first item. We are talking about triggers so that we don't move ahead to dealing with the 11 million undocumented immigrants or dealing with a temporary worker program until we have solved the problem of securing the border and providing for identification so that there is a basis for using tough sanctions on the employers. But you can't do that unless they have a fair opportunity to know who is legal and who is illegal. We are rejecting the idea of amnesty for the 11 million undocumented immigrants. They are going to have to earn being on the citizenship path at the end. It will be required that they pay taxes, have community roots, have a substantial period of employment, and that they learn English. We are going to do our best to deport those who have criminal records. There is a real security risk with some of the undocumented immigrants who have criminal records and where they do commit crimes. It is a practical impossibility to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants. We are trying to structure a temporary worker program which is temporary, coming only for the purpose of filling needs and then returning to their in native countries. We are looking at a system so that if there are U.S. citizens, people in this country who can take the jobs, they will have the first choice. The majority leader has stated publicly his intention to proceed under rule XIV and file a bill this week--perhaps tomorrow, and it will be listed for floor debate next Monday. There is a lot of concern among Republicans about proceeding in that way with concern that the bill that was reported out of committee does not have widespread support and the bill that passed the Senate does not have widespread support. And that there is a disinclination how it will go. Nobody knows for sure, but there is a disinclination to support a motion to proceed, raising the possibility that there may be a filibuster there. There is a concern in many quarters that we need more time. We have been proceeding diligently with very extended meetings. I have to confess there has been a fair amount of wheel spinning, but that we are not ready to proceed next Monday on the 14th to take up the bill the last 2 weeks before Memorial Day, as the leader has scheduled. I can understand the majority leader's concern about moving ahead and holding our feet to the fire to try to produce a bill but we are still working on it. Staff worked over the weekend. There was a meeting at the White House on Sunday. I had an extended discussion yesterday with Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy met with one of the Secretaries, and we are working at top speed. It will certainly be preferable if we can come up with a bill that would not have to have S. 2611, which passed the Senate last year or the chairman's mark or the bill that came out of Judiciary. I have been asked about this every time I step into the corridor, so I thought it would be useful to give this brief summary, without impacting on Senator Leahy's time. I will note that some Democratic time on the judicial nomination was taken up by Senator Durbin earlier. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Frederick Joseph Kapala, Northern District of Illinois Judge Frederick Joseph Kapala was first nominated on December 6, 2006. He was renominated on January 9, 2007. A hearing was held on his nomination on March 13, 2007, and he was unanimously reported out of the Judiciary Committee on April 25, 2007. Judge Kapala has truly outstanding academic and professional qualifications. He received his B.A. magma cum laude, in 1972 from Marquette University where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and Pi Gamma Mu (social science honors). He received his J.D. from the University of Illinois College of Law in 1976. During law school, he participated in Moot Court and served as a member of the Moot Court Board. From 1970 to 1980, Judge Kapala served our country in the United States Army, on both active and reserve duty. He obtained the rank of Captain before his honorable discharge. After graduation from law school, Judge Kapala served for one year as an Assistant State's Attorney in the County of Winnebago, Illinois before joining the law firm of Pedderson, Menzimer, Conde, Stoner and Killoren in 1977. He practiced both litigation and transactional law with that firm until 1982. Between 1981 and 1982, he also served part time as a Special Assistant Attorney General in the Illinois Attorney General's Office, prosecuting consumer fraud cases. As a practitioner, Judge Kapala tried over 100 cases to verdict. In 1982, Judge Kapala was first appointed to the state court bench as an Associate Circuit Court Judge for the 17th Judicial Circuit, a state trial court. While serving in this office, he was presiding judge of the juvenile court in Winnebago County from 1989 until 1991. In 1994, Judge Kapala was first elected a full Circuit Court Judge in the same circuit, and since then, he has been re-elected twice. During his tenure in this capacity, Judge Kapala was appointed as the presiding judge of the criminal court division in Winnebago County from 1995 until 2001. In 2001, he was assigned to serve as a Judge of the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District. The ABA unanimously rated Mr. Kapala as ``Well Qualified.''

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Would the Senator yield for a question? My office has also been in contact with FDA on this issue of bioequivalence for a life-saving antibiotic because leading infectious disease experts in my state have expressed concern that FDA did not take appropriate steps to establish this new standard for demonstrating bioequivalence. I would like to work with my colleagues on this important issue as well.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, the Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act is an important step toward protecting American consumers and patients and ensuring the safety of prescription drugs. To increase the safety and efficacy of prescription drug approval, I will offer an amendment to establish the National Centers of Pharmaceutical Innovation. These Centers, in consultation with the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, Commissioner, will modernize medical product development and enhance product safety. I am very concerned about long delays and the safety of bringing new drugs to patients. The FDA has been faced with the withdrawal of prescription drugs from the market due to concerns about increased health risks. This situation illustrates the difficulty in achieving the right balance in investigating new drugs that, while intended to help patients, can also come with very serious risks. Furthermore, such incidents could lead to the erosion of public confidence in the safety of medicines developed by drug companies. Drug companies spend enormous sums of money to test potential new candidate medicines. Not only is the process of developing and testing a new drug costly, it is lengthy as well. As a result of delays in the clinical trials process, there are fewer drug discoveries each passing year, ultimately hindering our Nation's competitiveness in this field. According to Ernst R. Berndt, Ph.D., Adrian H. B. Gottschalk, S.M., Matthew W. Strobeck, Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, Sloan School of Management, ``scientific advances and enhanced [research and development] efforts, the number of average annual new drug applications, NDAs, and new biologic license applications, BLAs, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been smaller after 2000 than in the mid-1990s. Moreover, recent estimates suggest the average costs of bringing a new medicine to market have increased sharply to between $800 million and $1.7 billion, with the lower estimate being 2\1/2\ times higher than similar inflation-adjusted estimates published a dozen years earlier.'' Clearly, there is great need to improve the methods and science that are used to approve prescription drugs. I am further concerned that new technologies, including genomics, proteomics, and bioinformatics are not being fully incorporated into the drug approval process. Using these new technologies as part of the clinical drug approval process has the potential to substantially reduce costs and the time needed to develop and test new drugs. Additionally, we must improve the workforce available to pharmaceutical companies, which is not well trained in the modern tools needed for sophisticated drug development. The FDA does not have a structured research program to bridge this knowledge and workforce gap and has few extramural research activities in place to tap the expertise available in our Nation's university health programs. This amendment will establish the National Centers for Pharmaceutical Innovation to improve the development and testing of new drugs so that they make it to market more quickly and remain there. Up to five centers will be operated by universities in partnership with the FDA to develop methods to utilize new technology to improve the drug approval system. They will also expand the quality and number of professionals trained to work in this field. The centers will introduce new technologies to improve the manufacture of pharmaceutical and biotechnology products. I believe these centers can provide a significant part of the solution to this complex problem. These centers will be established from qualified universities that have graduate training programs with extensive experience in the development and evaluation of medicines; and proficiencies in pharmaceutical and biotechnology science and engineering. It is the expectation that the work completed by these centers and the FDA would lead to an increased number of drugs brought to market by industry, at a decreased cost. Another effect will be an enormous gain to the public's health, while decreasing the chance of unintentional harm and costs of medical care. The National Centers for Pharmaceutical Innovation hold a promising solution to the problems in drug discovery and safety facing our Nation today. I encourage my colleagues to support this important amendment. Overturning DSHEA

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to sustain the budget point of order because the underlying amendment, which would split the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, is not yet ripe for consideration by this body. The issue is a very complicated one as to what will happen with the Ninth Circuit. It is admittedly too large at the present time, but we have a lot of analysis to do as to which States ought to be in which divisions. It is an issue which the Judiciary Committee has wrestled with for some time. We took it up in the 109th Congress. The two confirmations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito took a great deal of time, as did the PATRIOT Act, and our bankruptcy legislation and class action reform, the confirmation process generally. I know Senator Leahy, as chairman, plans to take up this issue as soon as we can do so. We are not ripe for action. When we finish the next vote, we will be taking up final passage on the Court Security Act. I urge my colleagues to pass this important legislation. There is no doubt that there is a real threat to judges. We have seen violence right in the courtroom. We have seen violence against family members of Federal judges. We have seen the extraordinary situation that in April of 2005, cookies with rat poison were mailed to each of the nine Supreme Court Justices, also to FBI Director Robert Mueller, and others in the Federal establishment. The core legislation was introduced during the 109th Congress in November 7, 2005. It passed unanimously. We need to pass it now to make some very important changes to provide for the security of our Federal judges. I see the arrival of the Senator from California who has raised a budget point of order. I know we plan to vote imminently.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I voted for cloture to cut off debate on the motion to proceed because I think that the Senate should proceed to give full consideration to the proposed legislation which would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies under Medicare Part D coverage. In the past, I have favored such proposals because of the argument that the Secretary's bargaining power would result in lower negotiated prices. In light of the conclusion by the Congressional Budget Office in a letter dated April 10, 2007 from Director Peter R. Orszag to Chairman Max Baucus that the new authority to the Secretary ``would have a negligible effect on federal spending because we anticipate that under the bill the Secretary would lack the leverage to negotiate prices across the broad range of covered Part D drugs that are more favorable than those obtained by PDPs [prescription drug plans] under current law,'' I have reviewed the negotiation process under existing laws. The underlying facts are that the pharmacy benefit managers who negotiate prices for the prescription drug plans represent substantially more people than the Secretary would under Part D. For example, Medco represents 62 million people, Caremark represents 80 million and Wellpoint represents 30 million, contrasted to the 29 million people covered under Medicare Part D. Accordingly, it may be that the pharmacy benefit managers have even greater leverage than the Secretary would if the Secretary were authorized to negotiate prices. That is not certain because the negotiations between the pharmacy benefit managers and the pharmaceutical companies are conducted on a confidential basis, so that it is not known with certainty that the lowest prices are obtained or that the cost savings are all passed on to the prescription drug plans. The latest Congressional Budget Office estimate for Part D costs is $388 billion below the original estimates, for the 10-year period from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2016. That suggests the current system is working well. Extended Senate floor deliberation would provide an opportunity to debate these issues and obtain greater detail on the facts. One of the additional arguments favoring giving the Secretary power to negotiate was the analogy to the savings achieved through the negotiating power of the Department of Veterans Affairs. In analyzing the VA's bargaining power, it must be noted that the Veterans Department represents 4.4 million veterans, a much smaller number than represented by the pharmacy benefit managers. It is also important to note that among brand-name drugs listed on the 300 most popular drugs for seniors, only 42 percent are available to the VA plan because the pharmaceutical companies declined to provide some of the drugs because of their unwillingness to meet the price determined unilaterally by the VA. On the other hand, it is estimated that PDPs under Medicare Part D have access to 97 percent of the brandname drugs among the most favored 300 drugs. The Medicare Part D beneficiaries have an opportunity to select the prescription drug plans that best meet their prescription drug needs, with the opportunity to select a new plan on an annual basis. Notwithstanding these factors, there may be answers and compelling arguments in support of the proposed legislation to give the Secretary negotiating authorities. A full debate by the Senate on these important issues would pose the opportunity to resolve these complicated questions and come to a reasoned judgment. The Senate will doubtless revisit this issue in the future. In the interim, I intend to inquire further and consider these issues in greater depth to determine what policies would best serve the interests of the beneficiaries of Medicare Part D.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I concur with the statements by the chairman. We introduced court security during the 109th Congress after we had the brutal murders of the family of a Federal judge in Chicago. We have continuing problems. Rat poison was mailed to each of the nine Justices on the Supreme Court. There is no doubt that there is an urgent need for additional court security, in light of the attacks on the judges. The independence of our judiciary is fundamental in our society for the rule of law. This bill passed by unanimous consent last December, but, unfortunately, it was not taken up by the House. We ought to consider it expeditiously, and I urge my colleagues to vote to invoke cloture. Cloture Motion

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, a great deal of what the Senator from Oklahoma has offered, I agree with; that is, that we ought to live within our means as a society. I have consistently supported constitutional amendments for balanced budgets, to require the Congress to live within its means, like States, cities, and we personally must live within our means. I have supported the line-item veto. I think the transparency for awards, also known as earmarks, will be an improvement of the current system. I agree with what the Senator from Oklahoma has said about the problems created by the national debt and by the deficit. But the sense-of-the-Senate conclusion, I think, goes further than we can, realistically. The last paragraph says: It is the sense of the Senate that Congress has a moral obligation to offset the cost of new government programs, initiatives, and authorizations. When you talk about living within our means and a balanced budget, in the line-item veto, I would agree with that; but when you talk about offsetting the authorizations, that goes to a point that I think goes too far because the legislative process has two steps. One step is the authorization and the second step is the appropriation. It is common practice to have authorizations that will be substantially beyond what an appropriation will be. The real decisive factor is what money is appropriated, what money is spent, not what moneys can be authorized. But in structuring programs and authorizations, it is the common practice to put a figure in that is larger than may be used, but it is there for purposes of contingency, if more should be used, so that the real critical factor is the appropriations process. I cannot agree with what the Senator from Oklahoma seeks to accomplish on tying the hands of the authorizers because of the established practice that I think is appropriate. For that reason, I regrettably cannot support what my colleague has offered, although I think the underlying purpose is very valid.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on so many merits, the support has been overwhelming to allow Federal funds to be used for embryonic stem cell research. There are 400,000 of these embryos which will be discarded. If they can produce life, no one would want to have research done. The fact is we appropriated $2 million and only about 135,000 of those 400,000 embryos have been used. So it is a matter of use them or lose them, pure and simple. The only reason not to advance this research is on the life issue, and that is gone. We have had some of the staunchest pro-life supporters in this Chamber endorsing this bill and this concept. The potential for medical research to cure or ameliorate the worst maladies of our era will be present with the use of embryonic stem cell research. What is involved here is when the people of the United States will demonstrate sufficient political will to insist that the Congress and the White House adopt legislation to use Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. That is the only question. We started this on December 2, 1998, with the first hearing, and we have made a fair amount of progress. It is my hope the President will sign the bill and not veto it, but he has already said he will veto the bill. So with 110 million Americans directly, personally, or indirectly, through families with a stake on their health and on their family's health, it is a question of when America will move to insist the Congress act and, if necessary, override a Presidential veto. It is not a question of if it will be done, it is a question of when. I hope this discussion and the proceedings now will motivate the American people to say to Washington: Get it done.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is it correct that I have 20 minutes allocated at this time?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, Senator Harkin, for his leadership on this very important issue. I thank him for his very generous comments. It is true that he and I have worked together on the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies for more than 20 years. He now chairs the subcommittee, and I am the ranking member. In the past, I have chaired the committee, and he has been the ranking member. We have had very close bipartisan cooperation. As we frequently say, there has been a seamless transfer of the gavel, looking out for the interests of the American people. Senator Harkin accurately notes that when stem cells first burst upon the American scene in November of 1998, our subcommittee moved immediately. It was actually December 2 of 1998. We have since had a total of 20 hearings on this important subject. Today I am speaking for 110 million Americans who suffer directly or indirectly, personally or through their families and loved ones, from debilitating diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and I also speak for myself. In 1970, President Nixon declared war on cancer. Had that war been prosecuted with the same diligence as other wars, my former chief of staff, Carey Lackman, a beautiful young lady of 48, would not have died of breast cancer. One of my very best friends, a very distinguished Federal judge, Chief Judge Edward R. Becker, would not have died of prostate cancer. All of us know people who have been stricken by cancer, who have been incapacitated with Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, who have been victims of heart disease, or many other maladies. We now have an opportunity, with the breakthrough on stem cell research, to have the potential of curing these maladies. I sustained an episode with Hodgkin's lymphoma cancer 2 years ago. That trauma, that illness, I think, could have been prevented had that war on cancer declared by the President of the United States in 1970 been prosecuted with sufficient intensity. We now know about stem cells. We now know from the leading scientists of the United States and the leading scientists of the world the potential of stem cells to deal with these dreaded maladies. The leader of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Zerhouni, has said: Embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for treating, curing, and improving our understanding of disease, as well as revealing important basic mechanisms involved in stem cell differentiation and development. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, to print in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks the testimonials from the Directors of the National Institutes of Health who have spoken out vigorously in support of embryonic stem cell research.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there are some 400,000 of those embryos which have been frozen and which will either be used potentially to cure disease or will be discarded. Embryos are created for in vitro fertilization. A few of them are used and the others are frozen. If any of these embryos could be used to produce life, none of us would advocate the research. But they will not be used to produce life. Our subcommittee took the lead in providing $2 million for embryonic stem cell adoption. As of April 5 of this year, the Night Life Christian Adoption Service reports that embryo adoption resulted in the birth of some 135 so-called snowflake children, and 20 babies are currently due. It is obvious by these statistics that we have enormous wasted resources available for scientific research. I have in my hand an hourglass. This hourglass was referenced by one of my constituents, a man named Jim Cordy, from Pittsburgh, PA, who suffers from Parkinson's. When I was in Pittsburgh years ago, Jim Cordy approached me with an hourglass. He said: Senator, the sands are slipping through this hourglass like my life is slipping away. There is the potential for curing Parkinson's, and you ought to be doing something about it. We have tried mightily. Senator Harkin, Senator Kennedy, Senator Hatch, Senator Smith, Senator Feinstein--many of us have tried mightily. Last year we passed a bill for stem cell research which would allow the use of Federal funds for research. But I think it is important to note that the Federal funds would not be used to kill embryos but would be used to conduct research on 400 existing lines. That bill, as we all know, was vetoed. The Senate passed the bill by 63 votes. I believe it is accurate to say that there are more than 63 affirmative votes in the Senate today. Whether there are 67 remains to be seen. I think it is also accurate to say that in the House of Representatives, we are not close to a veto override based on the votes in the House of Representatives last year. But we are not too far away either. It is my view that if we had sufficient mobilization of public opinion, that public opinion and political pressure, which is the appropriate process in a democracy, could provide enough votes for an override. As I see it, it is not a matter of whether there will be Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research but when that Federal funding will be present. The longer it is delayed, the more people will suffer and die from these maladies. I have encouraged the groups which come to Washington in large numbers to stage a massive march on the Mall. If we put a million people on the Mall, they would be within hearing distance of the living quarters of the White House, and with 110 million people who are affected personally or indirectly through their families, there is the potential for sufficient political pressure to provide enough votes to override a veto if, in fact, the President were to veto the bill. It is my hope the President will relent in light of the reconstructed statute which we are providing. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the history of the 20 hearings which the subcommittee has held on stem cells, the endorsements of the embryonic stem cell research by the Directors of the National Institutes of Heath, and my full statement on the stem cell bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much of my 20 minutes remains?

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. (The further remarks of Mr. Specter are printed in the Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the remaining time that I have allocated, I wish to talk about another subject, and that is the United States Tax Code. I believe that as I speak there are thousands of Americans, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Americans, now calculating their income tax for the year 2006. Today is April the 10th. Tax returns have to be filed during the course of the next week to comply with the Federal tax laws, and this is a matter which is very much on the minds of thousands of Americans, perhaps even some watching the Senate on C-SPAN are in the process of compiling their tax returns. I will use this occasion to again introduce legislation for the flat tax. The flat tax is a new structure of taxation of income in the United States under a model proposed by Professors Hall and Rabushka, from Stanford University, which would enable taxpayers to file their returns on a simple postcard, which I hold in my hand, where the tax return can be filled out in the course of 15 minutes. It has some 10 lines to fill out: Wages, personal allowance, number of dependents, mortgage interest deduction, charitable contributions, total for deductions, total taxable compensation, tax of 20 percent, tax withheld by employer, and the tax or refund due. We have a system in the United States today where the statistics are astounding. There are some 582 tax forms to be filled out by Americans who file their tax returns. There are some 6.4 billion hours and $265 billion each year spent in complying with the tax laws. The IRS Code and regulations fill more than 17,000 pages and have grown from some 744,000 words in 1955 to over 7 million words 50 years later in the year 2005. Albert Einstein, genius that he was, is quoted as saying: The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax. For a man who developed the theory of relativity, that is quite an indictment of the American tax system. This change in the tax laws would be a godsend for the U.S. economy. Economists estimate that in the course of 7 years, the gross national product would increase by $2 trillion, attributable solely to the efficiencies which would come about by relieving this enormous regulatory burden. We talk frequently about the burden of regulation in the Federal Government, but the most onerous regulatory form is the tax form, or the tax regulations, which are a burden on all Americans. When you take a look at the cost of compliance, at $265 billion a year, and take a look at the loopholes of some $390 billion a year, which would be eliminated by the flat tax, and $120 billion a year in tax fraud, with the $10 billion a year it costs to run the Internal Revenue Service, it is obvious what an enormous savings there would be in the economy. Most importantly, there would be the savings to individual citizens who, on the average, require about 14 hours to fill out a tax return. Many citizens now hire specialists because the tax forms have become so complicated. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the flat tax return, plus the legislation itself, and my full statement on this subject be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is one additional comment on the flat tax return. I have incorporated in the statement an analysis of taxes which would be made by people at various levels of the income spectrum, and for a married couple with two children, with an annual income of $40,000, an analysis of the comparison shows a decrease in taxes of $1,217. For middle-class taxpayers, with comparable taxes, a slight increase but relatively little compared to the enormous savings that are involved. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague from Iowa for yielding me the time, and I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Tax Day 2007 Floor Statement Mr. Specter. Mr. President, this week, American taxpayers face another Federal income tax deadline. The date of April 15 (or April 16 this year) stabs fear, anxiety, and unease into the hearts of millions of Americans. Every year during ``tax season,'' millions of Americans spend their evenings poring over page after page of IRS instructions, going through their records looking for information and struggling to find and fill out all the appropriate forms on their federal tax returns. Americans are intimidated by the sheer number of different tax forms and their instructions, many of which they may be unsure whether they need to file. Given the approximately 582 possible forms, not to mention the instructions that accompany them, simply trying to determine which form to file can in itself be a daunting and overwhelming task. In 2006, studies conducted by the Office of Management and Budget and the Tax Foundation found that American taxpayers, including businesses, spend more than 6.4 billion hours and $265 billion each year complying with tax laws. That works out to more than $2,500 per U.S. household. Much of this time is spent burrowing through IRS laws and regulations which fill over 17,000 pages and have grown from 744,000 words in 1955 to 7.1 million words in 2005. By contrast, the Pledge of Allegiance has only 31 words, the Gettysburg Address has 267 words, the Declaration of Independence has about 1,300 words, and the Bible has only about 1,773,000 words. The majority of taxpayers face filing tax forms that are far too complicated and take far too long to complete. According to the estimated preparation time listed on the forms by the IRS, the 2006 Form 1040 is estimated to take 13 hours and 15 minutes to complete. Moreover this does not include the estimated time to complete the accompanying schedules, such as Schedule A, for itemized deductions, which carries an estimated preparation time of 5 hours, 37 minutes, or Schedule D, for reporting capital gains and losses, which shows an estimated preparation time of 6 hours, 10 minutes. Moreover, this complexity is getting worse each year. Just from 2000 to 2004 the estimated time to prepare Form 1040 jumped 34 minutes. It is no wonder that well over half of all taxpayers, 61 percent according to a recent survey, now hire an outside professional to prepare their tax returns for them. However, the fact that only about 35 percent of individuals itemize their deductions shows that a significant percentage of our taxpaying population believes that the tax system is too complex for them to deal with. We all understand that paying taxes will never be something we enjoy, but neither should it be cruel and unusual punishment. Further, the pace of change to the Internal Revenue Code is brisk--Congress made over 9,500 tax code changes in the past fifteen years. And we are far from being finished. Year after year, we continue to ask the same question--isn't there a better way? My flat tax legislation would make filing a tax return a manageable chore, not a seemingly endless nightmare, for most taxpayers. My flat tax legislation will fundamentally revise the present tax code, with its myriad rates, deductions, and instructions. This legislation would institute a simple, flat 20 percent tax rate for all individuals and businesses. This proposal is not cast in stone, but is intended to move the debate forward by focusing attention on three key principles which are critical to an effective and equitable taxation system: simplicity, fairness and economic growth. My flat tax plan would eliminate the kinds of frustrations I have outlined above for millions of taxpayers. This flat tax would enable us to scrap the great majority of the IRS rules, regulations and instructions and delete most of the 7.1 million words in the Internal Revenue Code. Instead of billions of hours of non-productive time spent in compliance with, or avoidance of, the tax code, taxpayers would spend only the small amount of time necessary to fill out a postcard-sized form. Both business and individual taxpayers would thus find valuable hours freed up to engage in productive business activity, or for more time with their families, instead of poring over tax tables, schedules and regulations. My flat tax proposal is dramatic, but so are its advantages: a taxation system that is simple, fair and designed to maximize prosperity for all Americans. A summary of the key advantages are: Simplicity: A 10-line postcard filing would replace the myriad forms and attachments currently required, thus saving Americans the 6.4 billion hours they currently spend every year in tax compliance. Cuts government: The flat tax would eliminate the lion's share of IRS rules, regulations and requirements, which have grown from 744,000 words in 1955 to 7.1 approximately 94,000 employees, creating opportunities to put their expertise to use elsewhere in the government or in private industry. Promotes economic growth: Economists estimate a growth due to a flat tax of over $2 trillion in national wealth over seven years, representing an increase of approximately $7,500 in personal wealth for every man, woman and child in America. This growth would also lead to the creation of 6 million new jobs. Increases efficiency: Investment decisions would be made on the basis of productivity rather than simply for tax avoidance, thus leading to even greater economic expansion. Reduces interest rates: Economic forecasts indicate that interest rates would fall substantially, by as much as two points, as the flat tax removes many of the current disincentives to savings. Lowers compliance costs: Americans would be able to save or invest the $265 billion they currently spend every year in tax compliance. Decreases fraud: As tax loopholes are eliminated and the tax code is simplified, there will be far less opportunity for tax avoidance and fraud. Currently, the IRS is estimating a tax gap of $300 billion a year. Reduces IRA costs: Simplification of the tax code will allow us to save significantly on the $10 billion annual budget currently allocated to the Internal Revenue Service. The most dramatic way to illustrate the flat tax is to consider that the income tax form for the flat tax is printed on a postcard--it will allow all taxpayers to file their April 15 tax returns on a simple 10-line postcard. This postcard will take 15 minutes to fill out. At my town hall meetings across Pennsylvania, the public support for fundamental tax reform is overwhelming. I would point out in those speeches that I never leave home without two key documents: (1) my copy of the Constitution; and (2) a copy of my 10-line flat tax postcard. I soon realized that I needed more than just one copy of my flat tax postcard--many people wanted their own postcard so that they could see what life in a flat tax world would be like, where tax returns only take 15 minutes to fill out and individual taxpayers are no longer burdened with double taxation on their dividends, interest, capital gains and estates. This is a win-win situation for America because it lowers the tax burden on the taxpayers in the lower brackets. For example in the 2006 tax year, the standard deduction is $5,150 for a single taxpayer, $7,550 for a head of household and $10,300 for a married couple filing jointly, while the personal exemption for individuals and dependents is $3,300. Thus, under the current tax code, a family of four which does not itemize deductions would pay taxes on all income over $23,500--that is personal exemptions of $13,200 and a standard deduction of $10,300. By contrast, under my flat tax bill, that same family would receive a personal exemption of $37,500, and would pay tax on income over that amount. The tax loopholes enable write-offs of some $390 billion a year. What is eliminated under the flat tax are the loopholes, the deductions in this complicated code which can be deciphered, interpreted, and found really only by the $500-an-hour lawyers. That money is lost to the taxpayers. $120 billion would be saved by the elimination of fraud because of the simplicity of the Tax Code, the taxpayer being able to find out exactly what they owe. This bill is modeled after a proposal organized and written by two very distinguished professors of law from Stanford University, Professor Hall and Professor Rabushka. Their model was first introduced in the Congress in the fall of 1994 by Majority Leader Richard Armey. I introduced the flat tax bill--the first one in the Senate--on March 2, 1995, Senate bill 488. On October 27, 1995, I introduced a Sense of the Senate Resolution calling on my colleagues to expedite Congressional adoption of a flat tax. The Resolution, which was introduced as an amendment to pending legislation, was not adopted. I reintroduced my legislation in the 105th Congress with slight modifications to reflect inflation- adjusted increases in the personal allowances and dependent allowances. I reintroduced the bill on April l5, 1999 income tax day--in a bill denominated as S. 822. I then introduced my flat tax legislation as an amendment to S. 1429, the Tax Reconciliation bill; the amendment was not adopted. During the 108th Congress, I introduced my flat tax legislation once again on April 11, 2003. On May 14, 2003, I offered an amendment to the Tax Reconciliation legislation urging the Senate to hold hearings and consider legislation providing for a flat tax; this amendment passed by a vote of 70 to 30 on May 15, 2003. I then testified on this issue at a subsequent hearing held by the Joint Economic Committee on November 5, 2003. On April 15, 2005, I reintroduced my flat tax legislation in a bill denominated as S. 812. Today, I again put forward this legislation with two minor changes. The first is that the numbers for personal exemptions and deductions have been adjusted for inflation. The second is a newly inserted provision that will allow these numbers to continue to be adjusted for inflation in the years to come. This change will prevent these exemptions and deductions from losing value over time. Over the years and prior to my legislative efforts on behalf of flat tax reform, I have devoted considerable time and attention to analyzing our nation's tax code and the policies which underlie it. I began the study of the complexities of the tax code over 40 years ago as a law student at Yale University. I included some tax law as part of my practice in my early years as an attorney in Philadelphia. In the spring of 1962, I published a law review article in the Villanova Law Review, ``Pension and Profit Sharing Plans: Coverage and Operation for Closely Held Corporations and Professional Associations,'' 7 Villanova L. Rev. 335, which in part focused on the inequity in making tax-exempt retirement benefits available to some kinds of businesses but not others. It was apparent then, as it is now, that the very complexities of the Internal Revenue Code could be used to give unfair advantage to some. Einstein himself is quoted as saying ``the hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.'' The Hall-Rabushka model envisioned a flat tax with no deductions whatsoever. After considerable reflection, I decided to include in the legislation limited deductions for home mortgage interest for up to $125,000 in borrowing and charitable contributions up to $3,125. While these modifications undercut the pure principle of the flat tax by continuing the use of tax policy to promote home buying and charitable contributions, I believe that those two deductions are so deeply ingrained in the financial planning of American families that they should be retained as a matter of fairness and public policy--and also political practicality. With those two deductions maintained, passage of a modified flat tax will be difficult, but without them, probably impossible. In my judgment, an indispensable prerequisite to enactment of a modified flat tax is revenue neutrality. Professor Hall advised that the revenue neutrality of the Hall-Rabushka proposal, which uses a 19 percent rate, is based on a well-documented model founded on reliable governmental statistics. My legislation raises that rate from 19 percent to 20 percent to accommodate retaining limited home mortgage interest and charitable deductions. This proposal taxes business revenues fully at their source, so that there is no personal taxation on interest, dividends, capital gains, gifts or estates. Restructured in this way, the tax code can become a powerful incentive for savings and investment--which translates into economic growth and expansion, more and better jobs, and raising the standard of living for all Americans. The key advantages of this flat tax plan are threefold: First, it will dramatically simplify the payment of taxes. Second, it will remove much of the IRS regulatory morass now imposed on individual and corporate taxpayers, and allow those taxpayers to devote more of their energies to productive pursuits. Third, since it is a plan which rewards savings and investment, the flat tax will spur economic growth in all sectors of the economy as more money flows into investments and savings accounts. Professors Hall and Rabushka have projected that within seven years of enactment, this type of a flat tax would produce a 6 percent increase in output from increased total work in the U.S. economy and increased capital formation. The economic growth would mean a $7,500 increase in the personal income of all Americans. No one likes to pay taxes. But Americans will be much more willing to pay their taxes under a system that they believe is fair, a system that they can understand, and a system that they recognize promotes rather than prevents growth. and prosperity. My flat tax legislation will afford Americans such a tax system. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS10AP07.001 A variety of specific cases illustrate the fairness and simplicity of this flat tax: Case #1--Married couple with two children, rents home, yearly income $40,000 Under Current Law: Income........................................................$40,000 Four personal exemptions.......................................13,200 Standard deduction.............................................10,300 Taxable income.................................................16,500 Tax due under current rates....................................$1,717

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to discuss a matter of the utmost importance, a pay raise for judges and justices of the United States. The salaries of article III judges are inadequate for the stature and duties that are attendant to the job. The low salaries threaten the independence and excellence of the judiciary. The Framers sought to ensure that the Federal judges would be independent--free from persuasion--to impartially apply the law. Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist No. 79: ``Next to permanency in office, nothing can contribute more to the independence of the judges than a fixed provision for their support. . . . In the general course of human nature, a power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will.'' For this reason, though Congress was charged with providing for the judiciary's support, judges were given salary protection in the compensation clause in article III, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. This clause provides that ``the Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.'' The Framers gave judges salary protection so that they could be independent, free from the threat of salary diminution by Congress. They recognized that independence was key to the ability of judges to implement the rule of law without fear or favor. Judicial independence is the cornerstone of our legal system, which has been the model for judiciaries throughout the world. This constitutional protection against salary diminution, so central to judicial independence, is undermined when judicial salaries are allowed to steadily decline through neglect. And the independent judiciary our forefathers envisioned is undermined when Congress fails to attend to the needs of its principals and insists on tying of their salaries to those of elected leaders. The last time Congress significantly raised the pay of Federal judges was in 1989, when the Ethics Reform Act raised their salaries by 25 percent. At the same time, however, the act curtailed judges' ability to earn outside income. Although the act provided for annual cost-of- living adjustments, these annual increases have not been realized due to congressional inaction in 5 of the last 13 years. Thus, the real pay of judges has continued to decline--12 percent since the Ethics Reform Act was enacted. The decline of judicial salaries since 1969 is even starker--the real pay of district judges has decreased by nearly 25 percent since 1969. During the same time period, the salary for the average American worker increased by about 19 percent. Obviously, we cannot equate the judges' pay with that of ordinary working Americans. No one would argue that Federal judges' salaries are worse than those of the vast majority of American taxpayers. However, Federal judges' pay has not kept pace with the salary increases of their peers within the legal profession. In 1969, Federal judges' salaries exceeded those of top law school deans by 21 percent. Today, in contrast, Federal district judges earn about half as much as deans at these law schools. In fact, the salary of a district judge today-- $165,200--is a mere $20,000 more than what a first year associate at a New York law firm earns. Partners in law firms often earn an excess of $1 million per year. Nor have judicial salaries kept up with the salaries of other government servants. The Chief Justice of the United States earns $212,100, while the Chief Learning Officer at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation earns up to $257,134. Many other government employees can receive in excess of $200,000 per year in compensation, while judges for the courts of appeal earn $175,100 and district court judges earn $165,200. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy have both recently addressed the toll that these comparatively low judicial salaries are taking on his fellow justices and judges. On February 14, 2007, Justice Kennedy addressed the Judiciary Committee and related that in more than 30 years as a judge, he has never seen his ``colleagues so dispirited as at the present time.'' He testified that ``if there is a continued neglect of compensation needs,'' he is concerned that low morale will lead to a judiciary that ``will be diminished in its stature and its capacity.'' Chief Justice Roberts also addressed this problem, devoting his entire 2006 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary to the topic. He raised concerns that the low salaries of judges threaten the ability of the judiciary to draw the best and the brightest legal minds into service. The Chief Justice raised the alarm that ``without fair judicial compensation we cannot preserve the quality and independence of our judiciary, which is the model for the world.'' Further, he fears that the relative inadequacy of judicial compensation is cause for judges to leave the bench for more lucrative careers elsewhere. He wrote that ``[i]f judicial appointment ceases to be the capstone of a distinguished career and instead becomes a stepping stone to a lucrative position in private practice, the Framers' goal of a truly independent judiciary will be placed in serious jeopardy.'' On a related note, I would like to address the notion that judicial salaries should be linked to salaries for Senators and Members of the House. Judges should not be held hostage because political winds make it difficult for elected leaders to raise their own salaries. It is high time to dispense with the idea that the two ought to be linked. The judicial branch is separate but equal to the legislative branch, each with its own needs, each of equivalent stature. We cannot continue to humble the judiciary, neglecting our constitutional mandate to provide for its support, ignoring its independence, by tying judges' compensation to our own. The problems of inadequate judicial compensation and the linking of judicial salaries to those of elected leaders are not new. Chief Justice Rehnquist raised the inadequacy of judicial compensation for nearly 20 years, and the National Commission on the Public Service--the ``Volcker Commission''--addressed judicial pay increases and linkage in its 2003 report on revitalizing the Federal Government. The Commission recommended a substantial pay raise for judges, calling the judicial compensation ``the most egregious example of the failure of federal compensation policies.'' The Commission also recommended breaking the link between salaries for Members of Congress and those for judges. The Commission admonished Congress that ``judicial salaries must be determined by procedures that tie them to the needs of the government, not the career related political exigencies of members of Congress.'' The American Bar Association and the Federal Bar Association have also endorsed increasing judicial salaries and delinking judicial salaries from those of elected leaders. It is imperative that Congress address a judicial salary increase soon and decouple the salaries of judges with those of Members of Congress. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to ensure that the salaries for our judicial brethren are commensurate with the duties and stature of their positions and that salary policy respects the independence of this coequal branch of government. Our failure to act prevents us from showing proper respect to a coordinate branch of our constitutional government.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I voted against the supplemental appropriations bill because of the provision which specifies a withdrawal date. With President Bush's statement that he will veto the bill, it will be returned to Congress so that we can negotiate with the White House to provide funding to support the troops without a withdrawal date which allows our enemies to wait us out. I voted against the supplemental appropriations bill for the same reasons that I voted in favor of Senator Cochran's amendment to strike a withdrawal date, which amendment failed. The full statement of my reasons appear in the Congressional Record in the proceedings on March 28, 2007, in relation to the Cochran amendment.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I came to hear the majority leader's concluding comments and to put a statement in the Record.