Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to talk about three amendments pending on the legislation to reform Wall Street. I begin by noting the spirit of bipartisanship which is present on this issue, and I think it is a very important sign. There is too little bipartisanship in this body, and from my travels through my State and elsewhere, I believe the American people are fed up--really sick and tired--with the kind of bickering which is present in the Senate. It took a lot of public pressure and an obvious, great, and serious problem to bring about this bipartisanship. But it is very important that it be present in our efforts to reform Wall Street, and I hope it will be a sign of things to come. Some time ago, I introduced a bill which would change the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that aiders and abettors were not liable under the Securities Act. I have taken that bill and have submitted it as an amendment with quite a number of cosponsors. It is amendment No. 3776, to allow suits against aiders and abettors of Wall Street fraud, cosponsored by Senators Reed, Kaufman, Durbin, Harkin, Leahy, Levin, Menendez, Whitehouse, Franken, Feingold, and Merkley. Prior to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Central Bank, back in 1994, supplemented by the Stoneridge Investment Partners decision, the law was that aiders and abettors were civilly liable for damages. It is a very odd circumstance that aiders and abettors remain liable under the criminal law but are not liable under civil law, and this amendment would reinstate the civil liability for aiders and abettors. It is narrowly drawn to apply only to individuals who knowingly provide substantial assistance to the primary violator. But where you have a stock offering and you have many parties who are working with the principal offerer, the offerer can only carry out the fraud with the assistance of quite a number of people. This amendment will reinstate what had been the law prior to the Supreme Court decisions I just mentioned. I think it is worth noting that Senator Shelby had introduced similar legislation back in 2002. The second amendment I wish to discuss briefly is amendment No. 3794, submitted by Senators Leahy, Grassley, Kaufman, and myself, which would direct the Sentencing Commission to review and amend the sentencing guidelines for securities and financial institutions which engage in fraud, and the guidelines should reflect the intent of Congress that penalties for those offenses should be increased. Earlier this week, on Tuesday, the criminal law subcommittee held a hearing attended by quite a number of very experienced people in the securities field and in criminology. The predominant view was, where you have a fine imposed, it is not a deterrent at all. It is insufficient as punishment for the perpetrator, but it is insufficient for the gravity of the offense. A fine is simply incorporated as part of the cost of doing business, passed on to consumers. The provision for a jail sentence would be an effective deterrent. I base my own view on this subject from my experience as district attorney of Philadelphia, where I convicted many white-collar criminals and corrupt political figures, such as the chairman of the Philadelphia Housing Authority, the deputy commissioner of licenses and inspection, the stadium coordinator--to name only a few. If the perpetrators of fraud know they are going to be going to jail, it will have quite a different impact on their own conduct. One of the witnesses testified to a celebrated case where an individual was fined $50 million and was willing to pay that but said, simultaneously with the payment of the fine, if he had been charged criminally, he would have fought it tooth and nail because of the concern about going to jail. The third amendment I wish to discuss is amendment No. 3806, which provides that there should be a fiduciary duty for broker-dealers to avoid conflicts of interest in investments and make such violations a Federal crime. In the SEC complaint against Goldman Sachs, the gravamen was--and I acknowledge and am explicit that these are only allegations--that the package of mortgages was put together and then was broken up into securities, and an individual who was involved in putting the package together, knowing the details, immediately hedged and sold short. That means he bet against those securities. He thought they would go down. It is my view that the people who put that transaction together have a fiduciary duty to tell the investors--even institutional investors-- as to exactly what is going on; that they should know somebody is simultaneously saying their professional judgment is that the value is going to go down. Don't Give Miranda Warnings to Suspected Terrorists Mr. President, recently Attorney General Holder testified before the Judiciary Committee in our periodic oversight proceedings and testified that it was the policy of the Department of Justice to handle the interrogation of suspects in terrorism cases on a case-by-case basis. It is my view, which I expressed at the time I questioned Attorney General Holder, that that ought not to be the policy of the Department of Justice; that the policy of the Department of Justice ought to be not to give Miranda warnings to people who are suspected of terrorism. The Miranda warnings coming out of the decision handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1966--and I recall it well. I was in my first year as district attorney in Philadelphia at the time, and it was quite a jolt to the criminal justice system that my office prepared the details to have a card for the police officers by the end of the week, because they interrogate a great many suspects. But the Miranda warnings require the interrogator to advise an individual that he has the right to remain silent; secondly, that anything he says can and will be used against him; third, that he has the right to an attorney, and that if he wants to stop answering questions at any time in the sequence, he can. When a suspect in a terrorism case is being questioned, there are issues which are much more important than the conviction of that individual. The important thing is to gain information, find out who may be involved, and gather intelligence to prevent future acts of terrorists. I saw this in some detail during my tenure as chairman of the Intelligence Committee back in the 104th Congress. The recent apprehension of the Times Square bomber, who had the bomb positioned to blow up in Times Square and injure many people is illustrative, and the information he gave without Miranda warnings. He was Mirandized, as I understand it from the media reports at some point, but the information he has given has been very valuable in linking possible coconspirators to the Taliban in Pakistan. It is not widely understood, but the only consequence of not giving Miranda warnings is that any statements made by the suspect may not be introduced in a criminal trial in a U.S. court. But in the case of the Times Square bomber, as in the case of the Christmas bomber, there was sufficient evidence to move ahead with the convictions. But even if that were not so, the value of getting intelligence information vastly outweighs the interests of convicting the individual in that specific case. Even in that case, there is the potential alternative of being tried by a military commission where the Miranda rules do not apply. So it is my strong recommendation to the Department of Justice, as I had discussed it with Attorney General Holder, as I have communicated it to the FBI Director Bob Mueller, that the policy be changed so that it is not optional with an interrogator to make a decision on a case-by-case basis because the interrogator may make a mistake and decide that this is a case where the Miranda warnings ought to be given, and that may stop the individual from providing information. Some of the Senators at our Judiciary Committee hearing were of the opinion that the chances of getting information were enhanced by giving the Miranda warnings, and I think that is not only counterintuitive-- not what you would expect--but contrary to experience; that the likelihood of a person saying he won't talk if he is advised that he has a constitutional right not to, and then advised that he has a right to counsel, and then advised he will have counsel provided if he doesn't have counsel of his own, and once counsel are in the case, their obligation is to protect the interests of their client. That decision more likely than not will be to remain silent so the individual is not harmed with a potential criminal prosecution. I think the policy of the Department of Justice ought to be to have an absolute rule: No Miranda warnings in cases of persons suspected of terrorism. There is some suggestion of legislation on this point. I think that raises constitutional issues of separation of power, and what ought to be done is the policy ought to be established now by the Department as an absolute rule not to give Miranda warnings to those suspected of terrorism. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, the residents of the city of Pittsburgh and all the citizens of southwestern Pennsylvania on Pittsburgh being recognized yet again, this time by Forbes, as the Nation's most livable city. I have been visiting Pittsburgh every few weeks for over 30 years and I have witnessed its transformation into a progressive metropolitan area. I am pleased to see people from around the United States and around the globe recognize the unique quality of life in the Pittsburgh region. The region has transformed shuttered factories and brownfields into attractive and bustling riverfront developments and a breathtaking skyline. People have always been aware of Pittsburgh's rich history from the days of the French and Indian wars to the Industrial Revolution and the birth of Organized Labor, but now people are seeing its transformation into the new economy as well. Steel mills are still here, but the region has also embraced and excelled in life sciences, robotics, green buildings, renewable energy and advanced manufacturing. This advancement has been spurred by world class universities and healthcare institutions, fueled by innovative entrepreneurs, and supported by a vibrant foundation and civic community. The Pittsburgh region enjoys an abundance of natural resources, outdoor amenities, world class arts and cultural institutions, low cost of living, low crime rates, low housing costs, and of course world champion sports teams. As many of my colleagues understand, we still face many environmental and infrastructure challenges with our postindustrial ``Rust Belt'' regions, and we must work together to support their rebirth and continued growth. I am pleased to recognize Pittsburgh and its people who exemplify so well the model for 2lst century economic growth and recovery in America. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Forbes article be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce an important piece of legislation entitled the Student Loan Forgiveness and Repayment Assistance Act of 2010. This legislation is in response to the increasingly high cost of postsecondary education, an important issue that I recently discussed with Pennsylvania students. During this conversation I discussed the need for what I called an ``education bill of rights'' and today I am introducing a practical approach to increasing the accessibility and affordability of higher education. On March 30, 2010, the President signed into law the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, AFRA, as part of the healthcare and education reconciliation bill, which I am proud to have supported in the Senate. This historic legislation made an important investment in higher education, including: $36 billion to fund and strengthen the Pell Grant program, $2.55 billion to support Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Serving Institutions, $1.5 billion to strengthen the Income Based Repayment, IBR, plan as well as several other student financial assistance and deficit reduction provisions. These actions were an important first step, but we must do more. According to Campus Progress--the total federal student debt is more than $617 million; the average student today graduates college with student debt 25 percent higher than that of college graduates a decade ago; the average college senior graduated with $4,100 in credit card debt and $23,200 in student loans; almost 7 in 10 college graduates are burdened with educational debt; student debt is outpacing the starting salaries of jobs in teaching and social work; 38 percent of graduates delay buying their first house because of debt, 14 percent marriage, and 21 percent delay having children; and over 60 percent of minorities face a gap between their expected family contributions, grants and loans and the cost of their education. These troublesome statistics underscore the need for further action. I strongly feel that education is our Nation's greatest capital investment. The legislation that I am introducing today reinforces this belief and helps us make several smart investments in our Nation's future. We must improve accessibility to higher education, and the key to accessibility is affordability. For these reasons, the Student Loan Forgiveness and Repayment Assistance Act of 2010 will focus on 5 key initiatives which help make prudent and targeted investments in higher education. First, my bill will strengthen the IBR plan. The IBR plan is an important tool that helps borrowers afford their monthly student loan payments by capping a borrower's monthly payment based on his/her income and family size. Currently the IBR plan caps monthly payments at 15 percent of a borrower's discretionary income. SAFRA lowered the percentage to 10 percent starting in 2014, which will allow more borrowers to take advantage of this helpful plan. I propose to further reduce the percentage to 7 percent, thereby allowing more students to participate in the IBR plan. In addition to capping monthly payments, a borrower's remaining debt will be forgiven after 20 years of making qualified monthly payments. SAFRA reduced this threshold by 5 years from the original 25 year requirement. My legislation will further reduce the number of years that a borrower must make his/her payments before debt is forgiven to 15 years. Second, the bill I am introducing will enhance the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program. This program, which was created in 2007 by the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, discharges remaining student loan debt if the borrower is employed in public service for 10 years. This program not only provides important loan forgiveness, but it encourages essential public service. My legislation proposes to make the benefits of this program more generous and encourage greater public service participation. My bill would reduce the number of years, from 10 to 5 that a borrower must work in the public sector before being able to take advantage of this program. After the 5th year, a percentage of the borrower's debt will be incrementally forgiven each year, up until after the 10th year of public service when all remaining debt will be forgiven. Third, my legislation will expand the student loan programs or health professions, primary care, and nursing by reducing the interest rate to 3.5 percent. My bill will also expand the health professions student loan program to include physician's assistants. Health care reform's embrace of some 32 million previously uninsured Americans has created a need for additional doctors and nurses. Ways must be found to make medical education more affordable and accompanying debt burdens less onerous. I believe my bill helps achieve this goal. Fourth, my bill will enhance opportunities for minorities by creating a new pilot program administered by the U.S. Department of Education, which will provide funding opportunities for minority serving institutions. This program will provide grants on a competitive basis to eligible institutions based on a college's plan to increase enrollment and graduation rates without increasing costs to students. My legislation authorizes $100 million annually for this purpose, for 5 years. Fifth and lastly, my legislation will establish an Assistant Secretary position to evaluate and promote accessibility and affordability in higher education. It is important that we have a person who can not only evaluate the efficacy of the programs that I have discussed and to make recommendations to Congress on how to improve them, but also to help make prospective students aware of how they can gain access to, and afford a higher education. As I said earlier, education is our greatest capital investment, and I believe that the Student Loan Forgiveness and Repayment Assistance Act of 2010 will help our nation make a smart investment in our future.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the health and future of Pennsylvania's veterans has been a longstanding concern of mine. The first veteran I knew was my father, Harry Specter, a veteran of WWI. My father received terrific care from the VA following his service to our Nation. I want to make sure today's veterans, whatever their age, receive the benefits and services we owe them. I have had the privilege of serving for 6 of my nearly 30 years in the Senate as chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee. Under my chairmanship from 1998 to 2002, funding for the VA increased by 28 percent, and from 2004 to 2006, funding increased a further 16 percent. Such funding increases have allowed the VA to expand to meet increasing challenges. I want to note at this time that I recently cosponsored legislation to restore collective bargaining rights to VA medical personnel, as their well being is vital to ensuring that veterans get the best possible care. The ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with the recession, have put tremendous stress on the VA, and necessitate further improvements. Today I will outline proposals for making improvements in five related areas: reducing the claims backlog; increasing veterans' employment opportunities; combating homelessness among veterans; widening education opportunities through the Post-9/11 GI Bill; and expanding veterans courts. In a slap at the men and women who fight our wars, a court created by Congress expressly to handle appeals of veterans' disability claims turned down the appeal of a disabled Korean War veteran because he missed a filing deadline. The veteran, David L. Henderson, served in the military from 1950 to 1952. He was discharged following a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and assigned a 100 percent disability rating. In 2001, he applied for in-home care and was turned down by a regional Veterans Administration department. The congressionally established Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims--the Veterans Court--then refused to hear his appeal on grounds that he missed the filing deadline by 15 days. A divided federal appeals court upheld the decision. After fighting a war and suffering long-term disability as a result, Henderson in later life has been penalized because he took 135 days, instead of 120, to file his claims appeal. The fact that he had good reason for missing the deadline didn't matter. His psychiatrist called him ``incapable of rational thought or deliberate decisionmaking.'' On April 12, 2010, I introduced the Fair Access to Veterans Benefits Act, to provide for the tolling of the timing of review for appeals of final decisions of the Board of Veterans' Appeals. Its main provision would require the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, known as the Veterans Court, to hear appeals by veterans of administrative decisions denying them benefits when circumstances beyond their control--sometimes the very service-related disabilities that entitle them to benefits--render them unable to meet the deadline for filing an appeal. On January 28, 2010, I met with VA Secretary Eric Shinseki in my Washington, DC office. Secretary Shinseki identified reducing the VA claims backlog--which currently numbers 400,000--as being his top priority this year. The average processing time for an individual claim was 161 days in January 2010. This is simply too long. In January 2010, Secretary Shinseki initiated a pilot project at the VA Pittsburgh Regional Office to identify opportunities to reduce the time required for the VA to request and receive evidence required to support veterans' claims. I believe that efforts such as this, which leverage the expertise of veterans' service organizations, will help to decrease significantly the claims backlog by streamlining each claims submission, and so improving the care and benefits given to our veterans. I recently requested that the Milcon/VA Appropriations Subcommittee increase funding by $1 million in fiscal year 2011 for costs associated with expanding the pilot program. Beyond this pilot program, I am introducing legislation to give the Secretary of the Veterans Affairs the authority to award grants to state and local agencies, and non-profit organizations such as VSOs, to assist in collecting evidence and submitting claims. I believe this pre-submission assistance will aid the Veterans Benefits Administration in reducing the claims backlog. The National Guard has played a vital role in ensuring our nation's security since September 11, 2001. The citizen soldiers and airmen serving in the Guard have been called upon to serve both domestically and overseas. Current law protects Guardsmen who are called up to serve overseas from losing their civilian jobs, but the same degree of protection does not extend to domestic missions. After repeated deployments, Guardsmen could soon find themselves having to chose between critical national security missions--like protecting the southern border or responding to natural disasters--and keeping their civilian job due to a five-year cap on cumulative service for employment protection, which can be waived for overseas service but currently not domestic. Legislation is needed to ensure that Guardsmen receive the same employment protection whether they are called to serve domestically or overseas. Congress took an important step when it established a tax credit incentivizing the hiring of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This tax credit is set to expire in August 2011, and I am introducing legislation to extend through 2010 the veteran-specific provisions of the tax credit to assist recently discharged veterans secure employment. On November 3, 2009, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki unveiled an ambitious five-year plan to end homelessness among the nation's veterans. According to the VA's latest estimates, there are currently 107,000 homeless veterans, down from 131,000 in 2008. The VA's fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $4.2 billion to prevent and reduce homelessness among Veterans--over $3.4 billion for core medical services and $799 million for specific homeless programs and expanded medical programs. On November 11, 2009, I held a field hearing on the issue of unemployment and homelessness among veterans. Among those who testified were four formerly homeless veterans who have benefited from HUD-VASH vouchers and VA job training programs. The hearing highlighted the success of the HUD-VASH voucher program and the need to expand it, so I cosponsored Sen. Reed's Zero Tolerance for Veterans Homelessness Act of 2009, which would increase the number of vouchers by 60,000 over the next four years. Additionally, two of the witnesses were single mothers. Their testimony underscored the importance of tailoring assistance to the needs of individual veterans, and to ensuring that the specific needs of veterans with special needs, such as homeless female veterans and homeless veterans with children are addressed. I cosponsored Senator Murray's Homeless Women Veterans and Homeless Veterans with Children Act, which would authorize $10 million a year in grants for five years to assist homeless veterans with special needs or dependents. I voted for this legislation when it was passed by the Veterans Affairs Committee on January 28, 2010. The GI Bill of Rights, which had remained largely unchanged for over two decades, was in need of revision. I was pleased to cosponsor and advocate for the Post-9/11 GI bill, which was signed into law in June 2008. This bill, which went into effect in August 2009, will provide for this generation what the post-WWII GI Bill provided for veterans of that conflict. As our men and women serving today will continue to lead and serve our country tomorrow, it is in our best interest to ensure that they are afforded higher educational opportunities. Yet there remain aspects of this legislation which need improvement. While all veterans deserve educational opportunities, they also deserve the right to choose where to secure their education. For some, a vocational program, apprenticeship, or on the job training is more appealing than a traditional university education. We should support such decisions, and so I recently cosponsored the Veterans Training Act, introduced by Senator Lincoln, to make this enhancement. Various studies report that between 20- and 50-percent of the veterans returning from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, depression, traumatic brain injury, TBI, or other mental disorders, and half of those veterans will not receive the mental health care they need. The symptoms and subsequent behavior associated with PTSD and TBI, as well as the abuse of drugs and alcohol by veterans suffering from these symptoms, bring many of these veterans into contact with the criminal justice system. Veterans account for 9 of every 100 inmates in U.S. jails and prisons. In Pennsylvania state prisons, there are approximately 3,000 male and female military veterans currently incarcerated, according to Dr. Mark L. Dembert, Chief of Psychiatry, Bureau of Health Care Services, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. That number does not include those locked up in county jails. The chief goal of the Veterans Court program is to direct veterans who have been charged with a crime into an intensely monitored network of support coordinated by the VA and the courts. While Veterans Courts are voluntary, they will offer participating veterans a pathway to rehabilitation and reduced rates of recidivism. Following my February 2010 hearing on veterans courts in Pittsburgh, I cosponsored legislation, S. 902, the Services, Education, and Rehabilitation for Veterans Act, introduced by Senators Kerry and Murkowski, which would authorize the Attorney General to award grants up to $25 million over 5 years to assist States in the development of Veterans Courts. Our freedom has been assured by the courageous service of our veterans. Our gratitude can best be shown by ensuring that their needs are met, whether medical, educational, professional or legal. I will continue to fight for treatment of our veterans worthy of the sacrifices they have made and dedication they have shown.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation titled The Weekends Without Hunger Act. This legislation will ensure that children who rely on free and reduced-price school meals have access to nutritious meals on the weekends and during other periods in which they are away from school. Nearly 20 million school-age children, including more than one million in Pennsylvania, eat a free or reduced-price meal at school. Existing programs designed to ensure access to affordable meals for these disadvantaged children at home are inadequate. A Department of Agriculture survey released in November 2009 reported that 49 million Americans were unable to consistently get enough to eat during 2008; 17 million of them were children. A recently conducted survey by Drexel University shows that the number of children under the age of 6 experiencing very low food security has tripled since 2006. The legislation I am introducing today addresses the food insecurity experienced by our Nation's school children by providing them a weekend feeding option. My legislation establishes a 5-year pilot program during which time eligible institutions, such as schools and food banks, may provide a free backpack of child-friendly, non-perishable food for the weekend. It is my intention to seek inclusion of The Weekends Without Hunger Act in the upcoming reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation titled The Weekends Without Hunger Act. This legislation will ensure that children who rely on free and reduced-price school meals have access to nutritious meals on the weekends and during other periods in which they are away from school. Nearly 20 million school-age children, including more than one million in Pennsylvania, eat a free or reduced-price meal at school. Existing programs designed to ensure access to affordable meals for these disadvantaged children at home are inadequate. A Department of Agriculture survey released in November 2009 reported that 49 million Americans were unable to consistently get enough to eat during 2008; 17 million of them were children. A recently conducted survey by Drexel University shows that the number of children under the age of 6 experiencing very low food security has tripled since 2006. The legislation I am introducing today addresses the food insecurity experienced by our Nation's school children by providing them a weekend feeding option. My legislation establishes a 5-year pilot program during which time eligible institutions, such as schools and food banks, may provide a free backpack of child-friendly, non-perishable food for the weekend. It is my intention to seek inclusion of The Weekends Without Hunger Act in the upcoming reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the health and future of Pennsylvania's veterans has been a longstanding concern of mine. The first veteran I knew was my father, Harry Specter, a veteran of WWI. My father received terrific care from the VA following his service to our Nation. I want to make sure today's veterans, whatever their age, receive the benefits and services we owe them. I have had the privilege of serving for 6 of my nearly 30 years in the Senate as chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee. Under my chairmanship from 1998 to 2002, funding for the VA increased by 28 percent, and from 2004 to 2006, funding increased a further 16 percent. Such funding increases have allowed the VA to expand to meet increasing challenges. I want to note at this time that I recently cosponsored legislation to restore collective bargaining rights to VA medical personnel, as their well being is vital to ensuring that veterans get the best possible care. The ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with the recession, have put tremendous stress on the VA, and necessitate further improvements. Today I will outline proposals for making improvements in five related areas: reducing the claims backlog; increasing veterans' employment opportunities; combating homelessness among veterans; widening education opportunities through the Post-9/11 GI Bill; and expanding veterans courts. In a slap at the men and women who fight our wars, a court created by Congress expressly to handle appeals of veterans' disability claims turned down the appeal of a disabled Korean War veteran because he missed a filing deadline. The veteran, David L. Henderson, served in the military from 1950 to 1952. He was discharged following a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and assigned a 100 percent disability rating. In 2001, he applied for in-home care and was turned down by a regional Veterans Administration department. The congressionally established Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims--the Veterans Court--then refused to hear his appeal on grounds that he missed the filing deadline by 15 days. A divided federal appeals court upheld the decision. After fighting a war and suffering long-term disability as a result, Henderson in later life has been penalized because he took 135 days, instead of 120, to file his claims appeal. The fact that he had good reason for missing the deadline didn't matter. His psychiatrist called him ``incapable of rational thought or deliberate decisionmaking.'' On April 12, 2010, I introduced the Fair Access to Veterans Benefits Act, to provide for the tolling of the timing of review for appeals of final decisions of the Board of Veterans' Appeals. Its main provision would require the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, known as the Veterans Court, to hear appeals by veterans of administrative decisions denying them benefits when circumstances beyond their control--sometimes the very service-related disabilities that entitle them to benefits--render them unable to meet the deadline for filing an appeal. On January 28, 2010, I met with VA Secretary Eric Shinseki in my Washington, DC office. Secretary Shinseki identified reducing the VA claims backlog--which currently numbers 400,000--as being his top priority this year. The average processing time for an individual claim was 161 days in January 2010. This is simply too long. In January 2010, Secretary Shinseki initiated a pilot project at the VA Pittsburgh Regional Office to identify opportunities to reduce the time required for the VA to request and receive evidence required to support veterans' claims. I believe that efforts such as this, which leverage the expertise of veterans' service organizations, will help to decrease significantly the claims backlog by streamlining each claims submission, and so improving the care and benefits given to our veterans. I recently requested that the Milcon/VA Appropriations Subcommittee increase funding by $1 million in fiscal year 2011 for costs associated with expanding the pilot program. Beyond this pilot program, I am introducing legislation to give the Secretary of the Veterans Affairs the authority to award grants to state and local agencies, and non-profit organizations such as VSOs, to assist in collecting evidence and submitting claims. I believe this pre-submission assistance will aid the Veterans Benefits Administration in reducing the claims backlog. The National Guard has played a vital role in ensuring our nation's security since September 11, 2001. The citizen soldiers and airmen serving in the Guard have been called upon to serve both domestically and overseas. Current law protects Guardsmen who are called up to serve overseas from losing their civilian jobs, but the same degree of protection does not extend to domestic missions. After repeated deployments, Guardsmen could soon find themselves having to chose between critical national security missions--like protecting the southern border or responding to natural disasters--and keeping their civilian job due to a five-year cap on cumulative service for employment protection, which can be waived for overseas service but currently not domestic. Legislation is needed to ensure that Guardsmen receive the same employment protection whether they are called to serve domestically or overseas. Congress took an important step when it established a tax credit incentivizing the hiring of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This tax credit is set to expire in August 2011, and I am introducing legislation to extend through 2010 the veteran-specific provisions of the tax credit to assist recently discharged veterans secure employment. On November 3, 2009, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki unveiled an ambitious five-year plan to end homelessness among the nation's veterans. According to the VA's latest estimates, there are currently 107,000 homeless veterans, down from 131,000 in 2008. The VA's fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $4.2 billion to prevent and reduce homelessness among Veterans--over $3.4 billion for core medical services and $799 million for specific homeless programs and expanded medical programs. On November 11, 2009, I held a field hearing on the issue of unemployment and homelessness among veterans. Among those who testified were four formerly homeless veterans who have benefited from HUD-VASH vouchers and VA job training programs. The hearing highlighted the success of the HUD-VASH voucher program and the need to expand it, so I cosponsored Sen. Reed's Zero Tolerance for Veterans Homelessness Act of 2009, which would increase the number of vouchers by 60,000 over the next four years. Additionally, two of the witnesses were single mothers. Their testimony underscored the importance of tailoring assistance to the needs of individual veterans, and to ensuring that the specific needs of veterans with special needs, such as homeless female veterans and homeless veterans with children are addressed. I cosponsored Senator Murray's Homeless Women Veterans and Homeless Veterans with Children Act, which would authorize $10 million a year in grants for five years to assist homeless veterans with special needs or dependents. I voted for this legislation when it was passed by the Veterans Affairs Committee on January 28, 2010. The GI Bill of Rights, which had remained largely unchanged for over two decades, was in need of revision. I was pleased to cosponsor and advocate for the Post-9/11 GI bill, which was signed into law in June 2008. This bill, which went into effect in August 2009, will provide for this generation what the post-WWII GI Bill provided for veterans of that conflict. As our men and women serving today will continue to lead and serve our country tomorrow, it is in our best interest to ensure that they are afforded higher educational opportunities. Yet there remain aspects of this legislation which need improvement. While all veterans deserve educational opportunities, they also deserve the right to choose where to secure their education. For some, a vocational program, apprenticeship, or on the job training is more appealing than a traditional university education. We should support such decisions, and so I recently cosponsored the Veterans Training Act, introduced by Senator Lincoln, to make this enhancement. Various studies report that between 20- and 50-percent of the veterans returning from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, depression, traumatic brain injury, TBI, or other mental disorders, and half of those veterans will not receive the mental health care they need. The symptoms and subsequent behavior associated with PTSD and TBI, as well as the abuse of drugs and alcohol by veterans suffering from these symptoms, bring many of these veterans into contact with the criminal justice system. Veterans account for 9 of every 100 inmates in U.S. jails and prisons. In Pennsylvania state prisons, there are approximately 3,000 male and female military veterans currently incarcerated, according to Dr. Mark L. Dembert, Chief of Psychiatry, Bureau of Health Care Services, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. That number does not include those locked up in county jails. The chief goal of the Veterans Court program is to direct veterans who have been charged with a crime into an intensely monitored network of support coordinated by the VA and the courts. While Veterans Courts are voluntary, they will offer participating veterans a pathway to rehabilitation and reduced rates of recidivism. Following my February 2010 hearing on veterans courts in Pittsburgh, I cosponsored legislation, S. 902, the Services, Education, and Rehabilitation for Veterans Act, introduced by Senators Kerry and Murkowski, which would authorize the Attorney General to award grants up to $25 million over 5 years to assist States in the development of Veterans Courts. Our freedom has been assured by the courageous service of our veterans. Our gratitude can best be shown by ensuring that their needs are met, whether medical, educational, professional or legal. I will continue to fight for treatment of our veterans worthy of the sacrifices they have made and dedication they have shown.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce an important piece of legislation entitled the Student Loan Forgiveness and Repayment Assistance Act of 2010. This legislation is in response to the increasingly high cost of postsecondary education, an important issue that I recently discussed with Pennsylvania students. During this conversation I discussed the need for what I called an ``education bill of rights'' and today I am introducing a practical approach to increasing the accessibility and affordability of higher education. On March 30, 2010, the President signed into law the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, AFRA, as part of the healthcare and education reconciliation bill, which I am proud to have supported in the Senate. This historic legislation made an important investment in higher education, including: $36 billion to fund and strengthen the Pell Grant program, $2.55 billion to support Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Serving Institutions, $1.5 billion to strengthen the Income Based Repayment, IBR, plan as well as several other student financial assistance and deficit reduction provisions. These actions were an important first step, but we must do more. According to Campus Progress--the total federal student debt is more than $617 million; the average student today graduates college with student debt 25 percent higher than that of college graduates a decade ago; the average college senior graduated with $4,100 in credit card debt and $23,200 in student loans; almost 7 in 10 college graduates are burdened with educational debt; student debt is outpacing the starting salaries of jobs in teaching and social work; 38 percent of graduates delay buying their first house because of debt, 14 percent marriage, and 21 percent delay having children; and over 60 percent of minorities face a gap between their expected family contributions, grants and loans and the cost of their education. These troublesome statistics underscore the need for further action. I strongly feel that education is our Nation's greatest capital investment. The legislation that I am introducing today reinforces this belief and helps us make several smart investments in our Nation's future. We must improve accessibility to higher education, and the key to accessibility is affordability. For these reasons, the Student Loan Forgiveness and Repayment Assistance Act of 2010 will focus on 5 key initiatives which help make prudent and targeted investments in higher education. First, my bill will strengthen the IBR plan. The IBR plan is an important tool that helps borrowers afford their monthly student loan payments by capping a borrower's monthly payment based on his/her income and family size. Currently the IBR plan caps monthly payments at 15 percent of a borrower's discretionary income. SAFRA lowered the percentage to 10 percent starting in 2014, which will allow more borrowers to take advantage of this helpful plan. I propose to further reduce the percentage to 7 percent, thereby allowing more students to participate in the IBR plan. In addition to capping monthly payments, a borrower's remaining debt will be forgiven after 20 years of making qualified monthly payments. SAFRA reduced this threshold by 5 years from the original 25 year requirement. My legislation will further reduce the number of years that a borrower must make his/her payments before debt is forgiven to 15 years. Second, the bill I am introducing will enhance the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program. This program, which was created in 2007 by the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, discharges remaining student loan debt if the borrower is employed in public service for 10 years. This program not only provides important loan forgiveness, but it encourages essential public service. My legislation proposes to make the benefits of this program more generous and encourage greater public service participation. My bill would reduce the number of years, from 10 to 5 that a borrower must work in the public sector before being able to take advantage of this program. After the 5th year, a percentage of the borrower's debt will be incrementally forgiven each year, up until after the 10th year of public service when all remaining debt will be forgiven. Third, my legislation will expand the student loan programs or health professions, primary care, and nursing by reducing the interest rate to 3.5 percent. My bill will also expand the health professions student loan program to include physician's assistants. Health care reform's embrace of some 32 million previously uninsured Americans has created a need for additional doctors and nurses. Ways must be found to make medical education more affordable and accompanying debt burdens less onerous. I believe my bill helps achieve this goal. Fourth, my bill will enhance opportunities for minorities by creating a new pilot program administered by the U.S. Department of Education, which will provide funding opportunities for minority serving institutions. This program will provide grants on a competitive basis to eligible institutions based on a college's plan to increase enrollment and graduation rates without increasing costs to students. My legislation authorizes $100 million annually for this purpose, for 5 years. Fifth and lastly, my legislation will establish an Assistant Secretary position to evaluate and promote accessibility and affordability in higher education. It is important that we have a person who can not only evaluate the efficacy of the programs that I have discussed and to make recommendations to Congress on how to improve them, but also to help make prospective students aware of how they can gain access to, and afford a higher education. As I said earlier, education is our greatest capital investment, and I believe that the Student Loan Forgiveness and Repayment Assistance Act of 2010 will help our nation make a smart investment in our future.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for his generous and complimentary comments. As today completes 1 year since my return to the Democratic Party, I have a few observations on what we should do as Senators, not as Democrats or Republicans, to tend to the Nation's business in these difficult days. Partisanship ran high in 2005, with Republican threats to invoke the nuclear or constitutional option, which would, in effect, change the rule to allow 51 votes to cut off filibusters. The so-called ``Gang of 14,'' a group of centrists from both parties, structured a compromise which confirmed some judicial nominees, rejected others, and established a standard that filibusters should not be employed except in ``exceptional circumstances.'' That spirit of compromise, I suggest, should be revisited today. In the threat of a great depression in February 2009, I refused to join the Republican obstructionism and played a key role in the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I am fully aware that my vote put my job on the line. Achieving civility and cooperation for the common good in 2010, as it occurred in 2005 with respect to judicial nominations, will require independence and risk-taking by Senators. Senators must be willing to cross the aisle and work with their colleagues even at the peril of the disfavor of their own political party. The problems of the country today are too severe, too many Americans are out of work, too many Americans are fighting and dying in foreign lands, for members of this body to be unwilling to risk their seats for the public good. The stakes for America require we all do our level best and permit the public to judge us accordingly. At the moment, there is a pressing need for Republicans to join with us in reforming Wall Street to prevent the kind of financial crisis that cost this country 8 million jobs. Both sides agree that legislation is necessary. On a motion to proceed, which is now pending on this legislation, there is no realistic contention that ``extraordinary circumstances'' justify a filibuster. Once the bill is being debated, there will be opportunity for amendments. Forty-one Republican Senators will then have the opportunity to filibuster whatever proposed legislation evolves before final passage occurs. ``Extraordinary circumstances'' now call for Republicans to join Democrats in passing legislation to prevent another economic crisis.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as I have expressed to Senator Harkin and to Secretary Duncan, I am concerned that the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, SAFRA, may not adequately provide for the replacement of the early college awareness, default prevention, financial literacy, and school support services that are provided by State guaranty agencies in some States. The citizens of my State rely upon the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, PHEAA, to provide these services. Over the years, PHEAA has funded these services with the earnings they have retained from their role as a State guaranty agency, lender, and servicer. It is my understanding that some of these earnings will no longer be available to PHEAA or to other similar agencies across the country. Would Senator Harkin agree that some of the services provided by these agencies are vital and should, to the extent possible, be continued?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I thank the Chair. I have sought recognition to comment briefly on a hearing which will be held by the Criminal Law Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary on May 4 concerning allegations of improper practices on Wall Street. In light of the allegations of misconduct on Wall Street in recent years and the consequential damages to the economy of the United States and worldwide, serious consideration should be given to whether civil liability and fines are sufficient or whether jail sentences are required to deal with such conduct and as a deterrence to others. With civil liability or a fine, the companies or individuals calculate it as part of the cost of doing business, but a jail sentence is enormously different. The charges brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission accusing Goldman Sachs of securities fraud in a civil lawsuit has brought intense public concern to conduct on Wall Street which has long been questioned. According to the SEC complaint, Goldman permitted a client who was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in the portfolio. Goldman then sold the investments to pension funds, insurance companies, and banks. The client was betting the securities would decline in value based on his knowledge of the underlying value. Similar practices have been defended by investment bankers on the ground that the investors are sophisticated and have a duty to protect themselves without relying on the investment counsel. There is a contention that the only issue is whether the investments are suitable, with the denial that there is a fiduciary duty. That defense further contends that there is no conflict of interest. Some of the issues to be considered at the hearing to be held by the Criminal Law Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee on May 4 are the following: First: Precisely what are the structures of the complex commercial transactions involving securitizing mortgages, selling short hedge funds, derivatives, et cetera? Second: Under what circumstances, if any, do the investment bankers have a fiduciary duty to the investors? Third: Where, if at all, do conflicts of interest arise in such transactions? Fourth: Is there a legitimate distinction between the investment council's duty to provide only a ``suitable'' investment without a fiduciary duty involved? Fifth: When the investment banker recommends or offers an investment, is there an implicit representation that it is a good investment? In my judgment, Congress should examine these complicated transactions with a microscope and make a public policy determination as to whether such conduct crosses the criminal line. Congress should investigate and hold hearings to find the facts. Congress should then define what is a fiduciary relationship, what is a conflict of interest, and what conduct is sufficiently antisocial to warrant criminal liability and a jail sentence. As a starting point, it should be emphasized that the SEC complaint contains allegations which have yet to be proved. The numerous newspaper stories and other media reports are hearsay, so the task remains to find the facts. These inquiries on Wall Street practices are being made in the context that they triggered or at least contributed to a global financial crisis. Larry Summers, on March 13, 2009, said: On a global basis, $50 trillion in global wealth has been erased over the last 18 months. That includes $7 trillion in the U.S. stock market wealth which has vanished, $6 trillion in housing wealth which has been destroyed, 4.4 million jobs which have already been lost, and the unemployment rate now exceeds 8 percent. In the intervening year, a total of 6.5 million jobs are now the total lost, and the unemployment rate stands at 9.7 percent. I have long been concerned about the acceptance of fines instead of jail sentences in egregious cases. There are many illustrative cases, but three will suffice to make the point. In each of these cases, I registered my complaint with the Department of Justice. First: On September 2, 2009, Pfizer agreed to pay $2.3 billion to resolve criminal and civil liability for committing health care fraud for selling Bextra, for off-label uses the FDA declined to approve because they were unsafe. For a company with revenues in excess of $48 billion and an income in excess of $8 billion in fiscal year 2008, it was chalked off as the cost of doing business. The second case: On December 15, 2008, Siemens AG entered guilty pleas to violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and agreed to pay $1.6 billion in fines, penalties, and disgorgements with no jail sentences. Again, that amounts to a calculation as part of the cost of doing business for a company which had revenues of $104 billion and a net income of $2.5 billion in fiscal year 2008, after the penalty. The third case, briefly: On May 8, 2007, Purdue Pharma agreed to pay $19.5 million to 26 States to settle complaints that Purdue encouraged physicians which prescribed excessive doses of OxyContin in violation of an FDA ruling which resulted in numerous deaths. Company officials paid fines, nobody went to jail; again, part of the cost of doing business. From my days as district attorney of Philadelphia, where my office convicted the chairman of the Housing Authority, the Stadium Coordinator, the deputy commissioner of Licenses and Inspections, and others, my experience has convinced me that criminal prosecutions are an effective deterrent. The deterrent effect of prison was succinctly stated by Mr. William Mercer, chairman of the Sentencing Guideline Subcommittee of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee, on behalf of the Department of Justice, in a 2003 publication. He said: [W]e believe that the certainty of real and significant punishment best serves the purpose of deterring fraud offenders and particularly white collar criminals. [O]ffenders usually decide to commit fraud and other forms of white collar crimes not with passion, but only after evaluating the cost and benefits of their actions. If the criminally inclined think the risk of prison is minimal, they will view fines, probation, home arrest, and community confinement merely as a cost of doing business. We aim to remove the price tag from a prison term. We believe that if it is unmistakable that the automatic consequence for one who commits a fraud offense is prison, many will be deterred, and at least those who do the crime will indeed do the time. These are some of the considerations which will be taken up at the subcommittee hearing. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to vigorously, enthusiastically support the nomination of U.S. district court judge Thomas I. Vanaskie for the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Vanaskie is someone known to me personally for the better part of two, perhaps even three decades as a practicing lawyer in Pennsylvania, as a judge on the Middle District Court. I had the privilege of recommending him, originally, for the district court during the Clinton administration. I have had the privilege of joining with Senator Casey in recommending him to President Obama for the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Vanaskie has a spectacular record. He is a graduate of Lycoming College, in 1975, with a BA degree, magna cum laude; Dickinson Law School in 1978, cum laude. He was a law clerk to Judge William Nealon from 1978 through 1980. For those who know Judge Nealon, he is a masterful judge, a paragon, a great person to learn from. Judge Vanaskie was in private practice in Scranton from 1980 to 1994. He was confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on February 10, 1994. Judge Vanaskie has been awaiting confirmation for some time now. He has had his hearing. He was reported out of the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 16 to 3. He is an outstanding jurist. During the course of the discussions on the Judiciary Committee, where I have served during all of my tenure in the Senate, there was nothing really said in any way which was substantive in opposition. The contention was raised that he has cited foreign law, the law of other countries, but that is in keeping with the decisions of the Supreme Court in the United States, which has cited foreign legal precedents-- not that they are binding. They are not the U.S. Constitution. They are not decisions in the U.S. Federal judicial system. But they have been recognized by the Supreme Court as worthy of some consideration. It is regrettable that Judge Vanaskie has been caught up in the partisan battle in the Senate. This is a part of a broader picture of gridlock in the Congress of the United States, as we have seen the popularity and approval rating of Members of the House and Senate fall precipitously because of what America is seeing going on in this body and across the Rotunda in the House of Representatives. We see a stimulus package where there is very little willingness on the part of people on the other side of the aisle to negotiate with people on this side of the aisle. We have seen a health care package enacted into law without a single vote in the Senate. In the House of Representatives, 176 Republicans said no and 1 said yes. On reconciliation, all 177 said no; all 41 in the Senate said no. There has been a point reached where there is really an issue of whether there can be governance at all with an obstructive minority standing fast. We have seen a slight break in ranks when the issue came up on the vacation for the payroll tax. One Republican stood up and voted with Democrats. That led a few others to join. And on unemployment compensation, again, one Republican took the lead, and a few others joined. I think it is realistic to conclude that it is the pressure from back home. There are some on the other side of the aisle who may sensibly calculate--I do not fault them for the calculation-- but they have to have some flexibility if they want to return to this body. We have had concerns on Wall Street which are overwhelming with what has gone on in the economy: the precipitous great recession, which has engulfed America and has engulfed the world. And for a lengthy period of time, there has been resistance to any real negotiation by the other side of the aisle. Finally, within the last day or two, there has been some willingness to consider legislation on the Wall Street issue, but I think that has come about as a result of public pressure. It is, simply stated, impolitic to be against reforming Wall Street, considering what has gone on. It would be my hope these cracks in the die would lead to some substantial shift in position so we could return to the bipartisanship which was present in this body when I was elected in 1980. At that time, we had Mac Mathias of Maryland, who was willing to cross the aisle, and Mark Hatfield of Oregon similarly and John Danforth of Missouri, Lowell Weicker of Connecticut and Bob Stafford of Vermont and John Heinz of Pennsylvania and John Chafee of Rhode Island and Bill Cohen of Maine, so that when we had the so-called Wednesday club, it was full. That has dwindled so that the moderates can meet in a telephone booth today. We ought to go back to the days of just a little bipartisanship. We had an enormous problem in 2005 when the shoe was on the other foot and the filibustering was being done on this side of the aisle. Fortunately, we were able to work through that problem. There was a flirtation with the so-called nuclear constitutional option, which would have changed the rules on filibuster. We preserved the procedure of the Senate, the tradition of the Senate, to be the ``saucer which cools the tea'' as the expression was used during the colonial days. I think it is very important to maintain that tradition and that procedure. It was the coolness of the Senate which saved the independence of the Federal judiciary and the impeachment proceeding of Supreme Court Justice Chase of 1805 and preserved the independence of the Presidency and the acquittal on the impeachment proceeding of Andrew Johnson, when a controversy arose with the claim being made that there had to be congressional or senatorial approval to fire a Secretary of War, and he barricaded himself in the office. President Johnson refused to seek Senate consent to fire the Secretary of War. Articles of Impeachment were filed and he was saved by the vote of the Senator from Kansas. Growing up in Kansas, there was great pride in the State about that courageous Senator who stood and later was defeated. Maybe that--I would not make any predictions of the cost of standing up. So it is important to maintain the traditions of this body, but we have to do it in the context of capacity to govern. Supreme Court Justice Jackson, in a somewhat different context, said the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Whatever rules we have are not substitutes for our capacity to govern. We have seen this pattern illustrated by the nomination of Barbara Keenan of Virginia for the Fourth Circuit. Judge Keenan's nomination was stalled for 4 months, and after the time-consuming process of cloture, her nomination was approved 99 to nothing. Well, if she can be approved 99 to nothing, why require the filing of cloture? Why tie up this Senate for the better part of 2 days? May the Record show that the distinguished Presiding Officer, the junior Senator from Minnesota, is nodding in agreement with my statements. That is a procedure we lawyers use to perfect the Record. But that has been the policy--tying up this body, going to cloture, the delay, and then overwhelming confirmations; not all unanimous but very substantial, and I predict that is what will happen with Judge Vanaskie when the roll is called a little later this afternoon. One additional note. These proceedings take a very heavy toll on the nominee. Judge Vanaskie is a man devoted to public service. When he was practicing law in Scranton, his paycheck was a great deal bigger than when he became a Federal judge. When he comes into the process of the nominating procedure and he is questioned and his writings are impugned because he follows the Supreme Court of the United States, it is a jolt and it is hard on the Vanaskie family and it is hard on the community. I have had many calls from the people in Judge Vanaskie's community saying: What is going on in the Senate? What is going on? What is happening? Repeated calls. Finally, I decided to write a column for the Scranton Times Tribune, explaining what happens in the Senate as to why the delay has occurred. So I am glad to see this brought to a close. I hope we will move the appointments of the President. Consideration is being given to limiting the filibuster, not having it apply to members of the administration. We all concede, as a governmental doctrine, the President ought to have the right to name his own team but maintaining the filibuster for judicial nominations where we are talking about lifetime appointments. But this is a good and true man and he has been subjected to a process which is fundamentally unfair. I am glad to see it brought to an end this afternoon. I ask unanimous consent that the copy of the article which I wrote for the Scranton Times Tribune, dated February 26, 2010, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on confirmation of the nomination of Judge Thomas Vanaskie occur at 5:30 p.m. today, with the time until then divided as previously ordered and the remaining provisions of the order governing consideration of this nomination still in effect.

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to commend the Pennsylvania State University and the many students across the Commonwealth who each year play a very important role in the fight against cancer. The Pennsylvania State University IFC/Panhellenic Dance Marathon, referred to as ``THON,'' is a yearlong effort to raise funds and awareness for the fight against pediatric cancer. The effort culminates in a 2-day, no sitting, no sleeping dance marathon. Since 1977, THON has raised more than $60 million for the Four Diamonds Fund at Penn State Children's Hospital. The Four Diamonds Fund was established by Charles and Irma Millard, after the death of their son, Christopher, who was diagnosed with cancer at the age of 11. In addition to helping with the cost of treatment that insurance does not cover, as well as expenses that may disrupt the welfare of the child, the Four Diamonds Fund supports the medical teams that care for the children and funds pediatric cancer research through start-up grants and the Four Diamonds Pediatric Cancer Research Institute. Since its inception, THON has assisted over 2,000 families and no family has been turned away from the Four Diamonds Fund. The hard work, dedication, and enthusiasm of thousands of student volunteers and hundreds of dancers combine with the support of the wider Penn State community and students across the commonwealth of Pennsylvania to make a potent weapon in the fight against pediatric cancer. Thanks to their efforts, the fight is one we are ever closer to winning. To win the fight against pediatric cancer, and all cancers, once and for all, we need to continue to support vital medical research. When I came to the U.S. Senate in 1981, funding for the National Institutes of Health totaled $3.6 billion. Since becoming LHHS chairman in 1996, I have successfully worked to more than double NIH funding, which was $12.7 billion at that time. The fiscal year 2010 LHHS Appropriations bill provided $30.2 billion for NIH funding, an almost $1 billion increase from fiscal year 2009. I also secured an additional $10 billion in funding through an amendment to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I have fought and will continue to fight for increased funding for the NIH because medical research saves and improves lives. Medical research, along with significant community support through efforts such as THON, provides children with a real chance to be cured so that they may continue to grow and prosper.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce the Surreptitious Video Surveillance Act of 2010, on behalf of Senator Feingold, Senator Kaufman, and myself. This is a bill which I submit is necessary to protect our citizens from unwarranted intrusions in their homes. The bill regulates the use of surreptitious video surveillance in private residences where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Earlier this year, in Lower Merion Township, a suburb of Philadelphia, it was discovered that laptops taken home by students could be activated by school officials and thereby see what was going on inside a private residence. Surprisingly, this kind of surreptitious surveillance is not prohibited under Federal law. The wiretap laws specify it is a violation of law to intercept a telephone conversation or to have a microphone that overhears a private conversation, but if it is visual, there is no prohibition. This issue has been in the public domain since 1984--more than 25 years ago--when Judge Richard Posner, in the case captioned U.S. v. Torres, said this: Electronic interception, being by nature a continuing rather than one-shot invasion, is even less discriminating than a physical search, because it picks up private conversations (most of which will usually have nothing to do with any illegal activity) over a long period of time. . . . [E]lectronic interception is thought to pose a greater potential threat to personal privacy than physical searches. . . . Television surveillance is identical in its indiscriminate character to wiretapping and bugging. Judge Posner identified the problem a long time ago. Yet it lay dormant until this incident in Lower Merion Township brought it into the public fore. On March 29, in my capacity as chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, we conducted a hearing in Philadelphia. We had an array of experts very forcefully identify the problem and the need for corrective action. The New York Times editorialized, on April 2, 2010, in favor of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to take a look at the bill. I think there is likely to be widespread acceptance that in an era of warrantless wiretaps, when privacy is so much at risk, we ought to fill the gap in the law to cover this kind of electronic surveillance. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the New York Times editorial dated April 2, 2010, the text of my full statement and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce the Surreptitious Video Surveillance Act of 2010, on behalf of Senator Feingold, Senator Kaufman, and myself. This is a bill which I submit is necessary to protect our citizens from unwarranted intrusions in their homes. The bill regulates the use of surreptitious video surveillance in private residences where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Earlier this year, in Lower Merion Township, a suburb of Philadelphia, it was discovered that laptops taken home by students could be activated by school officials and thereby see what was going on inside a private residence. Surprisingly, this kind of surreptitious surveillance is not prohibited under Federal law. The wiretap laws specify it is a violation of law to intercept a telephone conversation or to have a microphone that overhears a private conversation, but if it is visual, there is no prohibition. This issue has been in the public domain since 1984--more than 25 years ago--when Judge Richard Posner, in the case captioned U.S. v. Torres, said this: Electronic interception, being by nature a continuing rather than one-shot invasion, is even less discriminating than a physical search, because it picks up private conversations (most of which will usually have nothing to do with any illegal activity) over a long period of time. . . . [E]lectronic interception is thought to pose a greater potential threat to personal privacy than physical searches. . . . Television surveillance is identical in its indiscriminate character to wiretapping and bugging. Judge Posner identified the problem a long time ago. Yet it lay dormant until this incident in Lower Merion Township brought it into the public fore. On March 29, in my capacity as chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, we conducted a hearing in Philadelphia. We had an array of experts very forcefully identify the problem and the need for corrective action. The New York Times editorialized, on April 2, 2010, in favor of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to take a look at the bill. I think there is likely to be widespread acceptance that in an era of warrantless wiretaps, when privacy is so much at risk, we ought to fill the gap in the law to cover this kind of electronic surveillance. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the New York Times editorial dated April 2, 2010, the text of my full statement and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for up to 10 minutes.