Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment briefly about the prospective vacancy in the Supreme Court of the United States with the resignation of Justice Stevens. I do so to urge the President to select a nominee without regard to any threats of a filibuster. I urge the President to make his selection of whomever he believes to be the best qualified to handle the responsibilities with a view to academic excellence, professional experience, and intellect to carry on the battle, where we have seen the Supreme Court veer very sharply to the right. Let's be candid about the Supreme Court being an ideological battleground today. That happens to be the fact. When some decry judicial activism, what could be more judicial activism than reversing the 100-year precedent that corporations may not engage in political advertising, as the Supreme Court did in Citizens United, in a contortion of procedural maneuverings to take a case with an isolated issue with a predetermined obvious purpose of changing the law on that very vital subject for the operation of our democracy? We had Chief Justice Roberts, in the confirmation proceedings, under oath, swear he would not, quote, ``jolt the system.'' Well, there have been quite a number of jolts in the system with his key vote. We had a very extensive questioning and commentary about Chief Justice Roberts' deference to congressional fact-finding. Only Congress has hearings, hears witnesses, and makes determinations of fact-finding. When the voting rights came up, all of that seemed to have been forgotten. We have a situation where it is obvious the Supreme Court makes the cutting-edge decisions on the law of the land. The Supreme Court, it turns out, decides who will be President in Bush v. Gore--a decision strictly along political partisan lines. The Supreme Court of the United States decides what will be the law with respect to campaign finance reform, as we seek to make a determination as to how we can limit the expenditures in political campaigns--the very core of the democratic process. In Buckley v. Valeo, in 1976, the Supreme Court said that, under the First Amendment, speech equals money. It seemed to me at the time that was a farfetched decision. Now, with Citizens United, we find that corporations are somehow persons, somehow entitled to first amendment rights and can advertise in political campaigns. The Supreme Court decides who will live and who will die, decides what is the extent of the death penalty. The Supreme Court decides the extent of a woman's right to choose--Casey v. Planned Parenthood. The Supreme Court decides about the power of the State to take private property in eminent domain. And so the cases go on and on and on. I have sought, for more than a decade now, to have the Supreme Court televised, and twice during my tenure as chairman or ranking member of the Judiciary Committee the committee reported out favorably legislation to require the Supreme Court to be televised, unless there was some extraordinary circumstance invoked by the Court. More recently, in this Congress, I have modified that effort with legislation which recommends that the Supreme Court televise its proceedings. When Bush v. Gore came up, then-Senator Biden and I wrote to Chief Justice Rehnquist urging that the Court allow that monumental case to be televised so the public could see it, considering the very limited number of people who could gain access. When I went over to the Court that day--being one of the few who could gain access to the Court--the block was surrounded with television cameras because of so much public interest. But the cameras could not go inside. That day the Supreme Court, with the Chief Justice's order, did change practice and allowed an audio transcript to be released immediately thereafter. I believe Congress has the authority, should it choose to do so, to direct the Supreme Court to permit its proceedings to be televised. The Supreme Court, in a series of cases, has said the public has a right to know what is going on inside the courtroom, and that was the case which involved Richmond Newspapers. Well, in an electronic era, where the public gets so much of its information via television or via radio, there ought to be that access. But the Congress has the authority to determine when the Court starts to function each year: the first Monday in October. Congress sets a quorum for the Court: six. Congress can set the number of Justices on the Court, as evidenced by the effort by President Franklin Roosevelt in the mid to late 1930s to increase the number of the Supreme Court to some 15. Obviously, we cannot tell the Supreme Court what to decide, how to decide, but we can tell them about administrative matters. And the Congress has the authority to tell the Court which cases to take. So there is a broad range of matters where the Congress cannot act. I modified the effort I had to have the Supreme Court televised-- instead of ``requiring it'' to ``recommending it''--because in the final analysis the Court can make a determination on separation of powers if Congress imposes a requirement that can be overruled by the Court. But if the public had access to what was going on in the Supreme Court, it seems to me there would be a clamor to have more openness, more transparency, and greater public appreciation of the fact that the Supreme Court is a battleground. When considerations are made about--as the Sunday talk shows have filled the airwaves just yesterday--a number of Senators from the other side of the aisle left the filibuster on the table, would not rule it out, the question of what is judge-made law. Well, that is very much in the eye of the beholder as to what is judge-made law. But I would urge the President not to pay any heed to that. When we start to engage in the subtleties of a nominee who will be among the five instead of the four, I suggest that is a stretch beyond making any determination. That is, I believe--well, it was candidly said trying to persuade Justice Kennedy to be among five, as it is speculated with some pretty solid foundation that Justice Stevens succeeded in persuading Justice Kennedy to side on the issue of habeas corpus. We had Rasul v. Bush, where Justice Stevens--in a very learned opinion, tracing the authority of detention from the Magna Carta down through habeas corpus--made a determination that habeas corpus was a constitutional right. The case then came to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and in a contorted opinion--at least contorted in my judgment--the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia said it was on statutory grounds and not constitutional grounds. But reading Rasul v. Bush, starting with the Magna Carta and tracing the constitutional evolution, it certainly, as a fair reading would say, was on constitutional grounds. Then Boumediene v. Bush came up, and on the petition for cert, only three Justices voted to hear the case, and Justice Stevens was not among them. Had Justice Stevens voted to hear the case, there would have been four Justices to take up the case and it would have been docketed and it would have been heard. But Justice Stevens voted not to hear the case. It was speculated at that time widely that Justice Stevens felt if the Court took the case habeas corpus would be rejected. We had the long fight on the floor of this body, and I offered an amendment to restore habeas corpus, which was defeated 51 to 48 on the military commissions act. I predicted at that time the Supreme Court would eventually overrule the congressional determination and reinstate habeas corpus as a constitutional right. Then there came to light information in the military commissions about some very questionable practices, and there was a subsequent petition for reconsideration for a grant of cert. On a petition for reconsideration on a grant of cert, it takes five votes. Four votes are insufficient. You have to have five votes to have cert granted and cert was granted. Justice Stevens and Justice Kennedy joined the other three Justices in the petition for reconsideration to grant cert. In Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court said that habeas corpus, in fact, was a right. Well, those are speculative and those are subtleties. But my own thinking on the subject is the President ought to appoint somebody who can be in a sense a warrior in this ideological battle which is going on across the green in the Supreme Court. That is what is happening. If a new nominee is only a fourth, well, there may be an opportunity for a fifth. President Obama is not halfway through his second year. Who knows what the future will hold on the electoral process or who knows what the future may hold with respect to Supreme Court vacancies. But there may well be an opportunity for subsequent appointments to the Supreme Court. It is my hope there will be a nominee whom the President feels comfortable with ideologically. Interestingly, when President Obama was Senator Obama, as the record shows, he voted against Chief Justice Roberts for confirmation. In his statement he pretty much acknowledged Chief Justice Roberts'--then Judge Roberts--competency and qualifications but disagreed with him on philosophical and ideological grounds. But what goes on inside that conference room is known only to the Justices. It is very small, very simple, situated right behind where the Chief Justice sits in court, if you walk right in back of that. I think relatively few people have had an opportunity to see that conference room. It is written about as a place where only the Justices can go. If there is a knock on the door, as is frequently reported, it is the junior Justice who answers the door. But what goes on inside that conference room decides the cutting-edge questions of the day. It is my hope that the replacement will be someone with solid academic credentials, solid professional credentials, the intellect and really the ability to carry on that battle, which is an ideological battleground within that Supreme Court conference room. I urge further that the President look beyond certain judges. Today, the nine Justices, including Justice Stevens, all come from the courts of appeals from the circuits. Well, there is great talent beyond the circuits. When Brown v. Board of Education was decided, I believe only one had been a circuit judge. Why not look for an ex-Governor like Earl Warren? Why not look for an ex-Attorney General like Robert Jackson? Why not look for an ex-Senator or a current Senator, like Hugo Black, who was a Senator when he was selected for the Court, or perhaps even an ex-President? William Howard Taft had been President of the United States and later served as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. So I believe we ought not to be concerned about it. As divisive as the Senate has become and as partisan and as gridlocked as the Senate has become, I believe there are 60 votes in this Chamber to reject the concept of a filibuster and that the President ought to have a free hand in selecting his choice in accordance with the considerations which I have outlined. I thank the Chair, and in the absence of any Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to urge passage of the bill I have just introduced, the Fair Access to Veterans Benefits Act of 2010. 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. Let me briefly explain why this legislation is so urgently needed. Until 1988, veterans denied benefits by the administrative Board of Veterans' Appeals had no right to appeal their cases to any court. Congress responded that year with legislation establishing the Veterans Court. The legislation's purpose was to ``ensure that all veterans are served with compassion, fairness, and efficiency and that each individual veteran receives . . . every benefit and service to which he or she is entitled under law'', S. Rep. 100-418, 110th Cong., 2d Sess. 30-31. Proceedings of the Veterans Court were to be ``informal, efficient, and fair'' rather than ``formalized'', H.R. Rep. No. 100- 963, 110th Cong., 2d Sess. 26, 1988. This was important because most veterans handle their own appeals without a lawyer. Veterans Court has, by and large, served its intended function well. It regularly corrects many erroneous denials of benefits. The court's last-published annual report notes that, in 2008, veterans prevailed in about eighty percent of the appeals. A recent court decision, however, will close the Veterans Court to too many deserving veterans. I refer to last year's decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears appeals from Veterans Court, in Henderson v. Shinseki, 589 F.3d 1201. Mr. Henderson suffered from paranoid schizophrenia as a result of his active-duty service in the Korean War. His appeal of an administrative denial of benefits to the Veterans Court was filed just 15 days late. He asked the Veterans Court to excuse his late filing--in legal parlance, to ``equitably toll'' the filing period--because it was caused by his service-related disability. The Veterans Court refused to do so, and a divided Federal Circuit affirmed its decision. Like the Veterans Court, the Federal Circuit held that this unjust result was compelled by a controversial 2007 decision of the Supreme Court, Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, which held that the deadline for filing a notice of appeal from a district court's order is ``jurisdictional'' and hence not waivable. Three judges dissented in Henderson on the ground that Bowles was distinguishable. Whether or not correctly decided in the wake of Bowles, Henderson cannot stand. It creates, in the words of the three dissenting judges, a ``Kafkaesqe adjudicatory process in which those veterans who are most deserving of service-connected benefits will frequently be those least likely to obtain benefits. It is the veteran who incurs the most devastating service-related injury who will often be least able to comply with rigidly enforced deadlines.'' Even two of the judges in the majority felt constrained to note, in a concurring opinion, ``that the deadline of the existing statute can and does lead to unfairness. This is particularly so in many cases where the veteran is not represented by counsel . . . and/or is suffering from a mental disability. These circumstances can make it extremely difficult for a veteran to navigate the system and meet the statutory deadlines.'' Mr. Henderson's situation is not unique. Already a disturbing number of veterans just like him have been denied their day in court. The two concurring judges in Henderson called upon Congress to ``amend the statute to provide for a good cause exception. My bill would do just that. It would require the Veterans Court to excuse late filings upon a showing by the veteran of ``good cause.'' This simple amendment will ensure that each year upwards of a hundred of veterans will receive the benefits to which they are so justly entitled. My bill will also require the Veterans Court to reinstate untimely appeals already dismissed as a result of that court's failure to equitably toll the filing period. The veterans who filed those appeals should also have their day in court. There are no countervailing policy considerations. As the dissenting judges in Henderson persuasively noted, ``because it takes many years-- in some cases several decades--to obtain service-connected benefits, the government is hardly in a position to complain that equitable tolling will result in inordinate delays.'' I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, whatever their views on the issue addressed in Bowles, to support our veterans by passing my bill without delay.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to urge passage of the bill I have just introduced, the Fair Access to Veterans Benefits Act of 2010. 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. Let me briefly explain why this legislation is so urgently needed. Until 1988, veterans denied benefits by the administrative Board of Veterans' Appeals had no right to appeal their cases to any court. Congress responded that year with legislation establishing the Veterans Court. The legislation's purpose was to ``ensure that all veterans are served with compassion, fairness, and efficiency and that each individual veteran receives . . . every benefit and service to which he or she is entitled under law'', S. Rep. 100-418, 110th Cong., 2d Sess. 30-31. Proceedings of the Veterans Court were to be ``informal, efficient, and fair'' rather than ``formalized'', H.R. Rep. No. 100- 963, 110th Cong., 2d Sess. 26, 1988. This was important because most veterans handle their own appeals without a lawyer. Veterans Court has, by and large, served its intended function well. It regularly corrects many erroneous denials of benefits. The court's last-published annual report notes that, in 2008, veterans prevailed in about eighty percent of the appeals. A recent court decision, however, will close the Veterans Court to too many deserving veterans. I refer to last year's decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears appeals from Veterans Court, in Henderson v. Shinseki, 589 F.3d 1201. Mr. Henderson suffered from paranoid schizophrenia as a result of his active-duty service in the Korean War. His appeal of an administrative denial of benefits to the Veterans Court was filed just 15 days late. He asked the Veterans Court to excuse his late filing--in legal parlance, to ``equitably toll'' the filing period--because it was caused by his service-related disability. The Veterans Court refused to do so, and a divided Federal Circuit affirmed its decision. Like the Veterans Court, the Federal Circuit held that this unjust result was compelled by a controversial 2007 decision of the Supreme Court, Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, which held that the deadline for filing a notice of appeal from a district court's order is ``jurisdictional'' and hence not waivable. Three judges dissented in Henderson on the ground that Bowles was distinguishable. Whether or not correctly decided in the wake of Bowles, Henderson cannot stand. It creates, in the words of the three dissenting judges, a ``Kafkaesqe adjudicatory process in which those veterans who are most deserving of service-connected benefits will frequently be those least likely to obtain benefits. It is the veteran who incurs the most devastating service-related injury who will often be least able to comply with rigidly enforced deadlines.'' Even two of the judges in the majority felt constrained to note, in a concurring opinion, ``that the deadline of the existing statute can and does lead to unfairness. This is particularly so in many cases where the veteran is not represented by counsel . . . and/or is suffering from a mental disability. These circumstances can make it extremely difficult for a veteran to navigate the system and meet the statutory deadlines.'' Mr. Henderson's situation is not unique. Already a disturbing number of veterans just like him have been denied their day in court. The two concurring judges in Henderson called upon Congress to ``amend the statute to provide for a good cause exception. My bill would do just that. It would require the Veterans Court to excuse late filings upon a showing by the veteran of ``good cause.'' This simple amendment will ensure that each year upwards of a hundred of veterans will receive the benefits to which they are so justly entitled. My bill will also require the Veterans Court to reinstate untimely appeals already dismissed as a result of that court's failure to equitably toll the filing period. The veterans who filed those appeals should also have their day in court. There are no countervailing policy considerations. As the dissenting judges in Henderson persuasively noted, ``because it takes many years-- in some cases several decades--to obtain service-connected benefits, the government is hardly in a position to complain that equitable tolling will result in inordinate delays.'' I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, whatever their views on the issue addressed in Bowles, to support our veterans by passing my bill without delay.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to address transparency concerns with the Independent Payment Advisory Board established in H.R. 3590. As Medicare enrollment grows, the issue of cost-containment becomes more pressing. To address this issue the Independent Payment Advisory Board was included as part of health reform legislation. The Board's task is to slow the rate of growth in the Medicare Program--a goal which is important if the program is going to remain solvent for years to come. It has been suggested that this Board will operate in secret, without public input and its meetings and decision-making process will not be transparent. This belief is inaccurate. The legislation ensures that the Board operates in an open and transparent way that facilitates open discussion and input from the public at large and from Medicare beneficiaries. The legislation specifically authorizes the Board to hold open and public meetings and I would expect that the Board will do this often as it gathers input from various stakeholders in the health care sector and Medicare beneficiaries. Further, the bill creates a Consumer Advisory Council to advise the Board of the impact that its recommendations will have on consumers and Medicare beneficiaries. The Advisory Council is directed to meet at least twice a year in a forum open to the public. I fully intend and expect that as the Board creates its recommendations it will give ample weight to the views and concerns of the Consumer Advisory Council, as it is consumers that will ultimately be impacted by the decisions of the Independent Payment Advisory Board. The Board and the Consumer Advisory Council must engage in an open and transparent decision making process, with ample opportunity for input from Medicare beneficiaries as well as other health care stakeholders as is intended by this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation to incorporate two historically significant properties into the boundary of Gettysburg National Military Park. This expansion effort is consistent with Gettysburg National Military Park's 1999 General Management Plan, the goals of the National Park Service and is supported by the Gettysburg Borough Council. The bill I have introduced will expand the boundary of the park to include the Gettysburg Railroad Station, also known as the Lincoln Train Station, located in downtown Gettysburg, PA. This train station was built in 1858 and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The station served as a hospital during the Battle of Gettysburg and was the departure point for thousands of soldiers who were wounded or killed in battle. The Lincoln Train Station is perhaps most historically significant as the site at which President Abraham Lincoln arrived on November 18, 1863, 1 day before he delivered the Gettysburg Address. Currently, the station is operated by the National Trust for Historic Gettysburg and is open to the public throughout the year. Additionally, the station served as the home of the Pennsylvania Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, which promoted events to commemorate the 200th anniversary year of Lincoln's birth in 2009. I am informed that the borough of Gettysburg had planned for the Lincoln Train Station to be used as an information and orientation center for visitors. Toward that goal, the borough in 2006 completed a rehabilitation of the station funded thought a State grant but has been unable to operate the visitor center due to a lack of funds. Accordingly, I understand that the Gettysburg Borough Council voted in 2008 to transfer the station to the National Park Service. The legislation I introduced also expands the boundary of Gettysburg National Military Park to include 45 acres of land at the southern end of Gettysburg battlefield. I am informed by National Park officials that there were cavalry skirmishes in this area during the Battle of Gettysburg in July of 1863. Moreover, I am advised that this property is environmentally significant as the home to wetlands and wildlife habitat related to the Plum Run stream that traverses the park. This 45-acre property is adjacent to current park land and was generously donated in April of 2009. Therefore, no federal land acquisition funding will be necessary to obtain this property. This legislation will help preserve properties and land that are historically and environmentally significant and critically important to telling the story of the Battle of Gettysburg. The Civil War was a defining moment for our Nation and we ought to take steps necessary to preserve historical assets for the benefit of current and future generations. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation to incorporate two historically significant properties into the boundary of Gettysburg National Military Park. This expansion effort is consistent with Gettysburg National Military Park's 1999 General Management Plan, the goals of the National Park Service and is supported by the Gettysburg Borough Council. The bill I have introduced will expand the boundary of the park to include the Gettysburg Railroad Station, also known as the Lincoln Train Station, located in downtown Gettysburg, PA. This train station was built in 1858 and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The station served as a hospital during the Battle of Gettysburg and was the departure point for thousands of soldiers who were wounded or killed in battle. The Lincoln Train Station is perhaps most historically significant as the site at which President Abraham Lincoln arrived on November 18, 1863, 1 day before he delivered the Gettysburg Address. Currently, the station is operated by the National Trust for Historic Gettysburg and is open to the public throughout the year. Additionally, the station served as the home of the Pennsylvania Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, which promoted events to commemorate the 200th anniversary year of Lincoln's birth in 2009. I am informed that the borough of Gettysburg had planned for the Lincoln Train Station to be used as an information and orientation center for visitors. Toward that goal, the borough in 2006 completed a rehabilitation of the station funded thought a State grant but has been unable to operate the visitor center due to a lack of funds. Accordingly, I understand that the Gettysburg Borough Council voted in 2008 to transfer the station to the National Park Service. The legislation I introduced also expands the boundary of Gettysburg National Military Park to include 45 acres of land at the southern end of Gettysburg battlefield. I am informed by National Park officials that there were cavalry skirmishes in this area during the Battle of Gettysburg in July of 1863. Moreover, I am advised that this property is environmentally significant as the home to wetlands and wildlife habitat related to the Plum Run stream that traverses the park. This 45-acre property is adjacent to current park land and was generously donated in April of 2009. Therefore, no federal land acquisition funding will be necessary to obtain this property. This legislation will help preserve properties and land that are historically and environmentally significant and critically important to telling the story of the Battle of Gettysburg. The Civil War was a defining moment for our Nation and we ought to take steps necessary to preserve historical assets for the benefit of current and future generations. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce the Biosecurity and Vaccine Development Improvement Act, which will ensure our country has the resources necessary to protect the American people in the event of a disease outbreak or terrorist attack. Last year, in preparation for flu season and concern about the H1N1 virus, the Department of Health and Human Services set out to acquire 120 million doses of vaccines. In August 2009, the department initially projected that these doses would be available by mid-October. However, only 11 million were obtained by that time, and the 120 million doses were not acquired until January 2010. The current system consists of government contracts with private vaccine manufacturers to produce vaccines. While this lowers overhead costs to the Government, the Government is not able to dictate when vaccines will be produced or which vaccines will be produced. The production of the H1N1 vaccine is good example of the problems that can arise without a dedicated Government manufacturing facility for vaccines. The delay was due to several problems with the supplying companies. For example, one company based in Australia had to produce vaccines to meet the needs in Australia before exporting doses to the U.S. Another company had to produce their regular seasonal flu vaccine before switching to H1N1 vaccine production. This demonstrates the critical need to examine the current vaccine system. The current system has limitations on the ability to produce vaccines related to bioterrorism such as smallpox, anthrax, ebola virus and botulism, leaving the U.S. without vaccines and susceptible to terrorist attacks. What we want to do is to avoid having the government come up short on something like what happened with Katrina where we are unprepared for the eventuality. I have long been concerned with these issues. Since 2004, when I chaired the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, with the joinder of Senator Harkin, who is now the chair, we appropriated $14.336 billion for pandemic preparedness. So you can see that we are talking about very substantial funds to meet a very substantial problem. Over the past year, I have held a number of meetings about the need for a facility, through a public/private partnership, that would afford the U.S. Government greater control over vaccine and countermeasure production and development. These meetings included Vice President Biden, Secretary of Health and Human Services Sebelius and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. On August 21, 2009, I chaired a hearing in Pittsburgh, PA, to examine the problems our current system faces and what can be done to remedy them. This legislation would provide funding for a public/private partnership vaccine developing and manufacturing facility, determined by a competitive bidding process. A public/private facility such as this would allow the government to determine what vaccines would be produced and would use new technology being developed by General Electric to allow rapid change in the vaccines produced. This process currently requires extensive cleaning and takes weeks, but this new technology includes disposable manufacturing equipment to change production quickly and would improve output and meet demand. This proposed facility would develop and manufacture medical countermeasures critical to this Nation's health and security and could greatly enhance the U.S.'s vaccine-producing abilities. I encourage my colleagues to work with me to move this legislation forward promptly.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce the Biosecurity and Vaccine Development Improvement Act, which will ensure our country has the resources necessary to protect the American people in the event of a disease outbreak or terrorist attack. Last year, in preparation for flu season and concern about the H1N1 virus, the Department of Health and Human Services set out to acquire 120 million doses of vaccines. In August 2009, the department initially projected that these doses would be available by mid-October. However, only 11 million were obtained by that time, and the 120 million doses were not acquired until January 2010. The current system consists of government contracts with private vaccine manufacturers to produce vaccines. While this lowers overhead costs to the Government, the Government is not able to dictate when vaccines will be produced or which vaccines will be produced. The production of the H1N1 vaccine is good example of the problems that can arise without a dedicated Government manufacturing facility for vaccines. The delay was due to several problems with the supplying companies. For example, one company based in Australia had to produce vaccines to meet the needs in Australia before exporting doses to the U.S. Another company had to produce their regular seasonal flu vaccine before switching to H1N1 vaccine production. This demonstrates the critical need to examine the current vaccine system. The current system has limitations on the ability to produce vaccines related to bioterrorism such as smallpox, anthrax, ebola virus and botulism, leaving the U.S. without vaccines and susceptible to terrorist attacks. What we want to do is to avoid having the government come up short on something like what happened with Katrina where we are unprepared for the eventuality. I have long been concerned with these issues. Since 2004, when I chaired the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, with the joinder of Senator Harkin, who is now the chair, we appropriated $14.336 billion for pandemic preparedness. So you can see that we are talking about very substantial funds to meet a very substantial problem. Over the past year, I have held a number of meetings about the need for a facility, through a public/private partnership, that would afford the U.S. Government greater control over vaccine and countermeasure production and development. These meetings included Vice President Biden, Secretary of Health and Human Services Sebelius and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. On August 21, 2009, I chaired a hearing in Pittsburgh, PA, to examine the problems our current system faces and what can be done to remedy them. This legislation would provide funding for a public/private partnership vaccine developing and manufacturing facility, determined by a competitive bidding process. A public/private facility such as this would allow the government to determine what vaccines would be produced and would use new technology being developed by General Electric to allow rapid change in the vaccines produced. This process currently requires extensive cleaning and takes weeks, but this new technology includes disposable manufacturing equipment to change production quickly and would improve output and meet demand. This proposed facility would develop and manufacture medical countermeasures critical to this Nation's health and security and could greatly enhance the U.S.'s vaccine-producing abilities. I encourage my colleagues to work with me to move this legislation forward promptly.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to comment on the current controversy between the United States and Israel on the settlement issue. Before the current controversy between the United States and Israel escalates further, I suggest all parties cool the rhetoric, avoid public recriminations, determine exactly what happened and consider some fundamental questions. What are the facts? It has been reported that there are 1,600 new settlements in East Jerusalem in violation of Israeli commitments. Authoritative sources insist that the announcement by a mid-level official at the Ministry of the Interior only involved planning subject to judicial review with no groundbreaking for 3 years. Another report said U.S. officials extracted a secret promise from Prime Minister Netanyahu not to allow provocative steps in East Jerusalem. Is it true that the United States accepted the 10-month moratorium on settlements with caveats that excluded East Jerusalem in line with the insistence by Israeli officials dating back to Prime Minister Golda Meir that Jerusalem was under Israeli exclusive sovereignty? It is conceded that Prime Minister Netanyahu was blindsided by the announcement. It is further acknowledged that the Israeli Minister of the Interior is a member of the ultra-conservative Shaos party whose participation is essential to the continuation of the coalition government. These matters need to be thought through before making public pronouncements that could significantly damage the U.S.-Israeli relationship and give aid and comfort to the enemies of the Mideast peace process. The rock solid alliance between the United States and Israel has withstood significant disagreements for six decades. The mutual interests which bind these two countries together have always been stronger than the most substantial differences. The United States needs to respect Israeli security interests, understanding that Israel cannot lose a war and survive. The United States has many layers of defense to protect our security interests and survive. I suggest that if we all take a few deep breaths, think through the pending questions and reflect on the importance of maintaining U.S.- Israeli solidarity, we can weather this storm. (The further remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 3120 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my distinguished colleague from Connecticut for awaiting those few comments and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to address the subject of reconciliation. I have previously spoken about gridlock in Congress and the negative impact it is having on our stature internationally. We are unable to confirm judicial and executive nominations which is paralyzing the work of the Senate and putting the government's ability to confront the Nation's challenges at risk. It slows the judicial process and leaves many posts empty, including those in defense and national security. The most central issue at the moment, however, is health care reform. Health care reform passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In the Senate, it passed by a supermajority vote of 60-39. The only issue before us now is aligning the already-passed Senate version with the already-passed House version. Despite its passage by 60-39, Republicans are still trying to stop this bill by threatening to filibuster the amendments needed to bring it into a condition that will pass the House of Representatives. These tactics, which amount to a minority of Senators halting a bill that has overwhelming support, can be overcome by the often used reconciliation process. The reconciliation process is an optional procedure that operates as an adjunct to the budget resolution process established by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The reconciliation process has been used by nearly every Congress since its enactment to pass a vast array of legislation. In their endless efforts to circumvent the will of the majority and thwart the passage of much needed and much supported health care legislation, the Republicans have launched a campaign against the reconciliation process, making it out to be an illegitimate tactic that the Democrats have invented to pass health care legislation. That is simply untrue. A look back in time, however, shows that the very same Republicans who are now denouncing the use of reconciliation were the very same Republicans who were defending its use not too long ago. When he was chair of the Budget Committee, Senator Judd Gregg, in defending the use of reconciliation to try to pass an amendment allowing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 2005 said, ``Reconciliation is a rule of the Senate set up under the Budget Act. It has been used before for purposes exactly like this on numerous occasions. The fact is all this rule of the Senate does is allow a majority of the Senate to take a position and pass a piece of legislation, support that position. Is there something wrong with `majority rules'? I don't think so.'' When using reconciliation to pass Medicare spending, Senator Gregg said, ``You can't get 60 votes because the party on the other side of the aisle simply refuses to do anything constructive in this area.'' Senator Chuck Grassley, when defending the use of reconciliation to pass the Bush tax cuts, said that reconciliation was ``the way it will have to be done in order to get it done at all.'' Last year Republican Congressman Paul Ryan said of Democrats using reconciliation, ``It's their right. They did win the election. We don't like it because we don't like what looks like the outcome.'' Republicans are implying that reconciliation is a new idea, and has never been used to pass significant legislation. The fact is, since 1980, Congress has sent 22 reconciliation bills to the President. Of those, 16 enacted into law occurred under Republican majority control. The 16 reconciliation bills created with a Republican majority included: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resultant FY Majority reconciliation act(s) Veto? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1981................................. Republican............. Omnibus Budget None. Reconciliation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-499). 1982................................. Republican............. Omnibus Budget None. Reconciliation Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-35). 1983................................. Republican............. Tax Equity and Fiscal None. Responsibility Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248). Republican............. Omnibus Budget None. Reconciliation Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-253). 1984................................. Republican............. Omnibus Budget None. Reconciliation Act of 1983 (P.L. 98-270). 1986................................. Republican............. Consolidated Omnibus None. Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (P.L. 99- 272). 1996................................. Republican............. Balanced Budget Act of Vetoed by Clinton. 1995. 1997................................. Republican............. Personal Responsibility None. and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193). 1998................................. Republican............. Balanced Budget Act of None. 1997 (P.L. 105-33). Republican............. Taxpayer Relief Act of None. 1997 (P.L. 105-34). 2000................................. Republican............. Taxpayer Refund and Vetoed by Clinton. Relief Act of 1999 (H.R. 2488). 2001................................. Republican............. Marriage Tax Relief Vetoed by Clinton. Reconciliation Act of 2000 (H.R. 4810). 2002................................. Republican............. Economic Growth and Tax None. Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (P.L. 107- 16). 2004................................. Republican............. Jobs and Growth Tax None. Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (P.L. 108- 27). 2006................................. Republican............. Deficit Reduction Act None. of 2005 (P.L. 109-171). Republican............. Tax Increase Prevention None. and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-222). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The six reconciliation bills created with a Democratic majority included: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resultant Fiscal year Majority reconciliation act(s) Veto? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1987................................. Democrat............... Omnibus Budget None. Reconciliation Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-509). 1988................................. Democrat............... Omnibus Budget None. Reconciliation Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-203). 1990................................. Democrat............... Omnibus Budget None. Reconciliation Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-239). 1991................................. Democrat............... Omnibus Budget None. Reconciliation Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508). 1994................................. Democrat............... Omnibus Budget None. Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66). 2008................................. Democrat............... College Cost Reduction Vetoed by Clinton. and Access Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-84). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This could not be further from the truth. The new Reagan administration and Republican majority in 1981 that first used reconciliation to pass major legislation--Reagan's tax cuts--and used it again in 1982 to cut spending and roll back some tax cuts. A Republican-controlled Senate also used reconciliation to pass the 1996 welfare overhaul, the Children's Health Insurance Program, Medicare Advantage and COBRA. Republicans have used reconciliation many times to pass partisan bills. For example, the 1995 Balanced Budget Act, the 2001 Bush tax cuts, the 2003 Bush tax cuts, the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act, and the 2006 Tax Relief Extension Act were all passed in reconciliation and with small vote margins. Two of these passed only with the tie-breaking intervention of Vice President Dick Cheney, and Democrats got more votes for the health bill than any of these measures received. Republicans have also complained that reconciliation is not proper for a health care bill. However, over the past 20 years, reconciliation has been used to pass almost all major pieces of health care legislation, including COBRA; the Children's Health Insurance Program; the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which requires hospitals that take Medicaid and Medicare to treat anyone entering an ER; and welfare reform, which disentangled Medicaid from welfare. Further, the health care bill has already passed with 60 votes. It is only the amendments that need to pass via reconciliation. The 2009 budget resolution instructed both Houses of Congress to enact health care reform. Again, comprehensive health legislation has already passed both Chambers, garnering a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate. Since the House and the Senate versions are slightly different, using reconciliation to implement the budget resolution by reconciling the two bills follows established procedure. Reconciliation will be used only to pass a small package of fixes to the original health bills that are necessary to align the House and Senate versions. This is actually less ambitious than the usual reconciliation process, which usually applies to entire bills, not just small fixes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am now introducing the Fugitive Information Networked Database Act of 2010. On December 12 of last year, the Philadelphia Inquirer began a series of articles that served as a blistering indictment of the Philadelphia criminal justice system. The Inquirer described it as ``a system that too often fails to punish violent criminals, fails to protect witnesses, fails to catch thousands of fugitives, fails to decide cases on their merits, and fails to provide justice.'' The Inquirer article 3 days later elaborated on the fugitive problem, noting that as of November 2009, there were almost 47,000 long-term fugitives at large. The warrant situation in Philadelphia is complicated by the fact that the Philadelphia Police Department only enters into the national database a few hundred bench warrants deemed by the district attorney's office to concern extraditable offenses. Those who abscond from criminal proceedings in Philadelphia and flee to other States likely will not be captured because the information for their warrants is not automatically entered into the NCIC database. The legislation I am introducing today, along with Senator Durbin, builds on legislation previously entered by then-Senator Biden and Senator Durbin. The proposed legislation will provide substantial Federal funding to assist the States in tracking and returning these fugitives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my statement which I have just summarized and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am now introducing the Fugitive Information Networked Database Act of 2010. On December 12 of last year, the Philadelphia Inquirer began a series of articles that served as a blistering indictment of the Philadelphia criminal justice system. The Inquirer described it as ``a system that too often fails to punish violent criminals, fails to protect witnesses, fails to catch thousands of fugitives, fails to decide cases on their merits, and fails to provide justice.'' The Inquirer article 3 days later elaborated on the fugitive problem, noting that as of November 2009, there were almost 47,000 long-term fugitives at large. The warrant situation in Philadelphia is complicated by the fact that the Philadelphia Police Department only enters into the national database a few hundred bench warrants deemed by the district attorney's office to concern extraditable offenses. Those who abscond from criminal proceedings in Philadelphia and flee to other States likely will not be captured because the information for their warrants is not automatically entered into the NCIC database. The legislation I am introducing today, along with Senator Durbin, builds on legislation previously entered by then-Senator Biden and Senator Durbin. The proposed legislation will provide substantial Federal funding to assist the States in tracking and returning these fugitives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my statement which I have just summarized and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to discuss an amendment I intend to offer. The U.S. shipyards play an important role in supporting our Nation's maritime presence by building and repairing our domestic fleet. The industry has a significant impact on our national economy by adding billions of dollars to our annual output. The commercial shipbuilding and ship repair industry is a pillar of the American steelworker labor force, employing nearly 40,000 skilled workers. In the year 2000, the Philadelphia shipyard was rebuilt on the site of the U.S. Navy shipyard. The Philadelphia Naval Shipyard was a historical institution in Philadelphia, employed upwards of 40,000 during the height of the war. At the time of its closing, it employed about 7,000. We fought the case to retain the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States because the government on the BRAC had concealed information from admirals that the yard ought to be kept open. But the case was too difficult, argued on the grounds that there was an unconstitutional delegation of authority to the base-closing commission. But the Supreme Court would have had to have overturned some 300 decisions to leave the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard intact. The Aker Philadelphia Shipyard employs some 1,200 highly skilled professional workers. Since 2003, it has built more than 50 percent of the large commercial vessels produced in the United States. Additionally, the shipyard contributes over $230 million annually to the Philadelphia region--$5 to $7 million per month in local purchases, $8.5 million in annual revenues to the city of Philadelphia--and supports over 8,000 jobs throughout the region. Today, the Aker Philadelphia Shipyard is one of only two companies producing large commercial vessels in the United States and is a critical asset to the economic vitality of the mid-Atlantic region of the domestic shipbuilding industry. Since the economic downturn, shipyards such as the Aker Philadelphia Shipyard do not qualify for loan guarantees under existing programs at the Department of Transportation. Without assistance, shipyards will be forced to begin reducing their highly skilled workforce. As the economy recovers, so will the need for ships and our domestic shipbuilding capacity. There will also be an additional need for ships, as almost $5 billion worth of double-hull construction and conversion work will need to take place by the year 2015 to meet the double-hull requirement under the Oil Pollution Control Act of 1990. To address this dire situation facing our domestic shipbuilding industry, I am seeking the establishment of a loan guarantee program where the Secretary of Transportation can issue a loan guarantee for $165 million to qualifying shipyards. Because loan guarantees leverage funding, the program would require only $15 million to leverage the $165 million. The $15 million is offset by reprogramming previously appropriated funds, so there is no additional spending associated with this program. The Federal assistance would be short-term financing, bridge financing, to enable shipyards to remain in operation and meet the future anticipated demand for domestically produced ships. I ask unanimous consent to have the full text of my statement printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. It is my intent to offer this amendment when the time is right. I know the distinguished majority leader is now arranging a schedule of pending amendments for votes. So I will not offer it at this time but will seek to have all of the relevant record and all of the relevant information included in the Record as I have stated. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to submit a resolution reauthorizing the John Heinz Senate Fellowship Program. This Congressional fellowship program, created in 1992, is a fitting tribute to my late colleague and dear friend, United States Senator John Heinz. Senator Heinz dedicated his life and much of his Congressional career to improving the lives of senior citizens. He believed that Congress has a special responsibility to serve as a guardian for those who cannot protect themselves. This fellowship program, which focuses on aging issues, honors the life and continues the legacy of Senator Heinz. During his 20 years in the Congress, John Heinz compiled an enviable record of accomplishments. While he was successful in many areas, he built a national reputation for his strong commitment to improving the quality of life of our Nation's elderly. Pennsylvania, with nearly 2 million citizens aged 65 or older--over 15 percent of the population-- houses the third largest elderly population nationwide. As John traveled throughout the State, he listened to the concerns of this important constituency and came back to Washington to address their needs through policy and legislation. Senator Heinz led the fight against age discrimination by championing legislation to eliminate the requirement that older Americans must retire at age 65, and by ensuring full retirement pay for older workers employed by factories forced to close. During his Chairmanship of the Senate Special Committee on Aging from 1981-1986 and his tenure as Ranking Minority Member from 1987-1991, Senator Heinz used his position to improve health care accessibility and affordability for senior citizens and to reduce fraud and abuse within Federal health care programs. Congress enacted his legislation to provide Medicare recipients a lower cost alternative to fee-for-service medicine, as well as his legislation to add a hospice benefit to the Medicare program. John also recognized the great need for nursing home reforms. He was successful in passing legislation mandating that safety measures be implemented in nursing homes and ensuring that nursing home residents cannot be bound and tied to their beds or wheelchairs. The John Heinz Senate Fellowship Program will help continue the efforts of Senator Heinz to give our Nation's elderly the quality of life they deserve. The program encourages the identification and training of new leadership in aging policy by awarding fellowships to qualified candidates to serve in a Senate office or with a Senate Committee. The goal of this program is to advance the development of public policy in issues affecting senior citizens. Administered by the Heinz Family Foundation in conjunction with the Secretary of the Senate, the program allows fellows to bring their firsthand experience in aging issues to the work of Congress. Heinz fellows who are advocates for aging issues spend a year to help us learn about the effects of Federal policies on our elderly citizens, those who are social workers help us find better ways to protect our Nation's elderly from abuse and neglect, and those who are health care providers help us to build a strong health care system that addresses the unique needs of our seniors. The Heinz fellowship enables us to train new leaders in senior citizen advocacy and aging policy. The fellows return to their respective careers with a new understanding about how to work effectively with government, so they may better fulfill their goals as senior citizen advocates. The John Heinz Senate Fellowship Program has been a valuable tool for Congress and our communities since its establishment in 1992. The continuation of this vital program will signal a sustained commitment to our nation's elderly. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this resolution, and urge its swift adoption.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to talk about two subjects--first, an amendment filed by Senator Rockefeller, amendment No. 3371 to amendment No. 3336, cosponsored by Senator Hatch, Senator Baucus, Senator Casey, Senator Bayh, and myself. This amendment would extend the steel industry fuel tax credit and make minor technical corrections to ensure that the steel industry will continue to recycle the hazardous waste called coal waste sludge. The recycling process which converts coal waste sludge into steel industry fuel eliminates a hazardous waste, ends the need to landfill or incinerate the waste, displaces fuel from the coking process, and increases the efficiency of coke-making. This recycling process makes the production of coke more efficient and cost-effective. Additionally, this provision will create jobs across the country and preserve thousands of fuel- making jobs in economically hard hit States. The technical corrections made by this amendment cover minor issues such as who has title to the coal in the few minutes before it enters the coke ovens and whether a minuscule percentage of the feedstock is pure coal or a material called pet coke. The extension of the tax credit and these minor technical corrections will ensure this credit can actually be used by processors and the steel industry. I am advised that all of the integrated steel companies and the representatives of their workers support this provision, which is a rarity in any industry. We have been working for nearly a decade to ensure the widespread use of this technology in coke ovens across the country. Across Pennsylvania, coke ovens continue to be used as the engine that drives the American industrial machine. I have long been committed to ensuring we use the cleanest and most efficient method for making steel and in this case, the coke that is an ingredient in the steel-making process. This is an extender right in line with the thrust of the legislation, an extender which would save many jobs and add many more jobs. So it is right in line with what we are seeking to accomplish.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Johanns be recognized next and I be recognized following his remarks for up to 20 minutes; that following my remarks, Senator Kyl be recognized, and following Senator Kyl, Senator Franken be recognized.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am now going to speak about the subject of gridlock which confronts this body and the use of the reconciliation process to enact comprehensive health care reform. We have seen an extraordinary display of gridlock, evidenced at the present time. We have some 30 judicial nominees which are pending, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the list of nominees following my remarks.

Mr. SPECTER. We have some 64 executive branch nominees who are now pending, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of these nominees following my remarks.

Mr. SPECTER. We have some 13 ambassadorial positions pending, only 1 of which I am advised is controversial, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of these 13 positions following my remarks.

Mr. SPECTER. On many occasions, the majority leader has been compelled to file a cloture petition, which is well known on this Senate floor. I don't believe it even has to be explained to C-SPAN viewers, even though it is technical and arcane, because it has been used so often. But in case anyone new is watching C-SPAN2--or perhaps I should say in case anybody is watching C-SPAN2--just a word of explanation. If a Senator places a hold on a nomination, that is a signal for a filibuster. Unfortunately, we don't have filibusters. I have been in the Senate now since being elected in 1980 and I have been part of only one real filibuster. Had we utilized that procedure, perhaps there would be fewer holds and fewer moves toward filibuster. People really had to stand up here and argue, as Senator Thurman did historically once, for some 26 hours. But when the majority leader is compelled to file a cloture petition, cloture is invoked, and then some 30 hours must be consumed where the Senate can take care of no additional business, the two lights are on, there is a quorum call, and it is a colossal waste of time. I am going to recite the facts in five of these cloture petitions to demonstrate that there was never really a controversy. Christopher Hill, Ambassador to the Republic of Iraq, had a cloture vote. Yet his vote in favor was 73 to 17--hardly controversial. Robert M. Groves, of Michigan, to be the Director of the Census, the cloture vote was 76 to 15--not really a contest there at all. Nobody seriously contested his confirmation. David Hamilton to be a judge of the Seventh Circuit, 70 yeas, 29 nays. A cloture petition was filed on Martha N. Johnson to be Administrator of General Services. The vote was 82 to 16. The nomination of Barbara Keenan to be a circuit judge in the Fourth Circuit, 99 to 0. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the details of these cloture motions and confirmations following my remarks.

Mr. SPECTER. So the stage is now set where we have gridlock on the issue of comprehensive health care reform. In this situation, we have had the bills passed by both the House and the Senate, and we are now looking to use reconciliation, a procedure which has been employed some 22 times in analogous circumstances. Illustrative of the analogous circumstances are the use of cloture to pass Medicare Advantage and the passage of COBRA, the passage of SCHIP--health care for children--and the passage of the welfare reform bill in 1996. In a learned article in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Henry J. Aaron, an expert on budgetary matters, had this to say: [reconciliation] can be used only to implement instructions contained in the budget resolution relating to taxes or expenditures. Congress created reconciliation procedures to deal with precisely this sort of situation. . . . And he is referring here to what we have with the Senate-passed bill and the House-passed bill. Quoting him further: The 2009 budget resolution instructed both Houses of Congress to enact health care reform. The House and the Senate have passed similar but not identical bills. Since both Houses have acted but some work remains to be done to align the two bills, using reconciliation to implement the instructions in the budget resolution follows established congressional procedure. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the full text of this article following my remarks.