Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. So what we have here, essentially, is gridlock created by the composition of the two Houses of Congress. We have a situation where not one Member on the other side of the aisle voted in favor of the health care bill. In the House of Representatives, the vote was 176 to 1; that is, among the 177 Republicans voting, only 1 out of 177 in the House voted in favor. It is hard to see a more precise definition of ``gridlock'' than what appears here. It would be my hope that we would be able to resolve the issue without resorting to reconciliation. If there is any doubt about the procedure, our institutional integrity would be enhanced without going in that direction. But if you have to fight fire with fire and since it is a legitimate means, then we can use it. Five years ago, in 2005, the Senate faced a somewhat similar situation when the roles were reversed, when it was the Democrats filibustering judicial nominees of President Bush. And we find that so often it depends on whose ox is being gored as to who takes the position. Some of the most vociferous objectors to the use of reconciliation on comprehensive health care reform have filled the Congressional Record with statements in favor of using reconciliation in analogous circumstances when it helped their cause. But in the year 2000, it was the Democrats stymying Republican judicial nominees. During the Clinton administration, it was exactly reversed--it was Republicans stymying Clinton's judicial nominees. Fortunately, in 2005 we were able to work out the controversy. We were able to confirm some of the judges, some of the judges were withdrawn, and we did not move for what was called the nuclear option, which would have confirmed judges by 51 votes. The procedural integrity of the Senate is very important. Without going into great detail, it was the Senate that saved the independence of the Federal judiciary when the Senate acquitted Supreme Court Justice Chase in 1805, and it was the Senate that preserved the power of the Presidency on the impeachment proceeding of Andrew Johnson in 1868. Congress sought to have limited the President's power to discharge a Cabinet officer in the absence of approval by the Senate. Well, the Senate has to confirm, but the Senate doesn't have standing to stop the President from terminating the services of a Cabinet officer. And there, the Senate saved it through the courageous vote of a single Senator--a Kansan, I like to mention, being one originally myself. So it would be fine if we could find some way to solve the problem, but absent that, this Senate reconciliation procedure is entirely appropriate. We have gotten much more deeply involved in the research and analysis as this issue has come to the floor on comprehensive health coverage. The gridlock that faces the Senate and the country today has profound implications beyond the legislation itself. It is hard to find something more important than insuring the millions of Americans now not covered or to find something more important than stopping the escalating cost of health insurance, driving many people to be uninsured and raising the prices for small businesses where it cannot be afforded. But the fact is, this gridlock is threatening the capacity in this country to govern--really threatening the capacity to govern. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was before the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Committee on Appropriations, and I asked her about this issue. I asked her about the President not being able to: . . . project the kind of stature and power that he did a year ago because he is being hamstrung by Congress. And it has an impact on foreign policy which we really ought to do everything we can not to have partisanship influence. Secretary of State Clinton replied as follows: Senator, I think there is certainly a perception that I encounter in representing our country around the world that supports your characterization. People don't understand the way our system operates, they just don't get it. Their view does color whether the United States is in a position--not just this President but our country--is in a position going forward to demonstrate the kind of unity and strength and effectiveness that I think we have to in this very complex and dangerous world. She continued a little later: We have to be attuned to how the rest of the world sees the functioning of our Government. Because it's an asset. It may be an intangible asset, but it's an asset of great importance and as we sell democracy, and we're the lead democracy in the world, I want people to know that we have checks and balances, but we also have the capacity to move too. So what we find is a diminution of the authority and stature of the President, a diminution of the authority and stature of the Presidency, and ultimately a diminution and reduction in the stature of our country unable to deal with these problems. So it would be my hope we could yet resolve this issue with a little bipartisanship. It would not take a whole lot, but at the moment there is none, with 40 Senators voting no, all those on the other side of the aisle, and 176 out of 177 Republicans in the House voting no. That simply is no way to govern.

Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 3080 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. SPECTER. Madam 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 today to introduce the Unfair Foreign Competition Act of 2010. This legislation provides a private right of action for domestic manufacturers injured by illegal subsidization and dumping of foreign products into U.S. markets. These anticompetitive, predatory trade practices steal jobs from our workers, profits from our companies, and growth from our economy. Job creation and job retention in this country depend in large part on our ability to enforce existing trade laws. At a time when unemployment remains at nearly 10 percent and our economic future is at stake, it becomes even more important that we focus on trade priorities which too long have been sacrificed for foreign policy and defense interests. The latest trade numbers demonstrate that the U.S. trade deficit with China in November 2009 was $20.2 billion. Over the years, imports from China have exceeded our imports by a staggering $208.6 billion. This is not evidence that American manufacturers cannot produce goods efficiently or compete with foreign markets; rather, it is evidence of unlawful behavior on the part of China. Such behavior is tantamount to international banditry, and it must not be tolerated. In the current environment, I believe it is necessary for an injured industry to have an opportunity to go into Federal court and seek enforcement of our country's trade laws. My legislation addresses two specific types of illegal trade practices: dumping, which occurs when a foreign producer sells a product in the United States at a price that is below the producer's sales price in its home market or at a price which is lower than its cost of production, and subsidizing, which occurs when a foreign government provides financial assistance to benefit the production, manufacture, or exportation of a good. Under current law, the International Trade Commission and the Department of Commerce conduct antidumping and countervailing duty investigations and 5-year reviews under title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. U.S. industries may petition the ITC and Commerce for relief from dumped and subsidized imports. If Commerce finds that an imported product is dumped or subsidized and the ITC finds that the petitioning industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury, an antidumping duty order or countervailing duty order will be imposed to offset the dumping or subsidies. Because current administrative remedies have not been consistently and effectively enforced, I am introducing private right of action legislation to enforce the law. My legislation would allow petitioners to choose between the ITC and their local U.S. district court for the injury determination phase of their investigation. Doing so gives injured domestic producers the opportunity as private plaintiffs to control the litigation in seeking enforcement of our trade laws. If injury is found, U.S. Customs and Border Protection would then assess duties on future importation of the article in question. The legal standard for determining dumping margins, established by the Commerce Department, would remain unchanged. This legislation is similar to legislation I have introduced as far back as 1982 when I originally sought injunctive relief. But this bill has been modified to comply with World Trade Organization rules. In December 2004, the United States took action to comply with WTO rulings on the Antidumping Act of 1916 which provided a private cause of action and criminal penalties for dumping by prospectively repealing the act. The United States also took action in February 2006 to comply with WTO rulings on the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act which requires the distribution of collected antidumping and countervailing duties to petitioners and interested parties in the underlying trade proceedings. In both cases, the WTO panel found that U.S. law allowed an impermissible specific action against dumping and subsidization. The legislation I introduce today has been adapted to these changes in law and allows for a determination of injury in accordance with our international obligations. Aggressive policy measures, such as this legislation, are necessary to prevent foreign producers--China in particular--from causing a major crisis for our domestic producers. In testimony before the ITC earlier this year, I noted that we have a complicated relationship with China. I was one of 15 Senators who opposed China's entrance into the WTO in 2000. With China's economy still widely under state direction and characterized by dubious trade practices, I believed Chinese membership in the WTO would present a likelihood of trade distortion and market disruption. And that is why I voted against it in 2000. Congress heeded some of the concerns which I and others expressed and inserted a China-specific safeguard provision under section 421 of the Trade Act. But such a safeguard is only as effective as the President's willingness to enforce it. Seven petitions have been filed under section 421 since its inception. Of these, the ITC has made an affirmative determination of injury in five cases. Yet only one determination, handed down in the most recent Chinese tires case, has been upheld by the President. Despite overwhelming evidence to support the ITC's findings of injury, President Bush rejected all four previous petitions for relief on the ground that providing import relief was not in the economic interest of the United States. Since President Bush's decision, countless jobs in my State and across the country have been lost and the trade deficit has widened. It is difficult to understand how providing import relief was not in our economic interest. President Obama's decision to uphold the ITC rulings in the Chinese tires case last year is a step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done to ensure that domestic industries enjoy the protection afforded to them by existing trade laws. While it is my hope that this administration and future administrations will evaluate trade remedies objectively in terms of economic consequences, this act will provide a valuable tool for the domestic industry. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this legislation. The enforcement of trade laws should not be a partisan issue. To those who decry our enforcement mechanisms as unabashedly protectionist, let me be clear. I believe in free trade. International trade and open markets are crucial to the economic prosperity of this country. But the essence of free trade is selling goods at a price equal to the cost of production and a reasonable profit. When one country engages in dumping or subsidization at the expense of other countries, it is the antithesis of free trade. Let me remind those who criticize our domestic safeguards that President Ronald Reagan, a staunch advocate of open markets, signed into law agreements limiting the imports of autos and steel and pushed for the Plaza Accord in 1985 which raised the value of the yen and made Japanese imports more expensive. President Reagan understood that free trade did not mean wholly unfettered, unregulated trade. Free trade does not mean turning a blind eye to illegal and unsavory practices committed by our trading partners. I have argued that enforcement of our trade laws is critical to ensuring that our domestic manufacturers have a fair opportunity of competing with foreign producers. But even the most stringent enforcement will be insufficient to fully counter the effects of substandard labor, trade, and environmental practices, particularly those practiced by China. The safeguard measures the United States negotiated in advance of China's entry into the WTO were designed to limit the destructive effects of surging Chinese imports on domestic producers. As a result, China's succession to the WTO accelerated a ``race to the bottom'' in wages and environmental quality. Given these factors, in addition to China's mixed record on providing market access to the United States and its failure to provide protection of U.S. intellectual property rights, I urge that the Congress reexamine our trade agreement the United States signed with China and, if necessary, seek to withdraw permanent normal trade relations status from China. Such a withdrawal would be a serious measure, but we must be willing to demonstrate that we are serious about holding China to its international commitments. When the United States granted most-favored-nation status to China in 2000, we lost our ability to demand that China play by the rules. We may have to regain this leverage if we are to maintain an equitable trading relationship with China and keep our domestic industry strong. As President Obama recently noted in his remarks at the Senate Democratic Conference, the United States is home to some of the most innovative, skilled, and efficient workers in the world. But advances in efficiency and innovation by our producers cannot make up for the unfair advantage held by countries that engage in illegal trade practices. Our industries can compete if the playing field is level, but if foreign exporters are not held accountable, and can freely undercut American producers with dumped goods and government subsidies, this country's economic future will be at risk. We must take a stand and we must do it now.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce the Unfair Foreign Competition Act of 2010. This legislation provides a private right of action for domestic manufacturers injured by illegal subsidization and dumping of foreign products into U.S. markets. These anticompetitive, predatory trade practices steal jobs from our workers, profits from our companies, and growth from our economy. Job creation and job retention in this country depend in large part on our ability to enforce existing trade laws. At a time when unemployment remains at nearly 10 percent and our economic future is at stake, it becomes even more important that we focus on trade priorities which too long have been sacrificed for foreign policy and defense interests. The latest trade numbers demonstrate that the U.S. trade deficit with China in November 2009 was $20.2 billion. Over the years, imports from China have exceeded our imports by a staggering $208.6 billion. This is not evidence that American manufacturers cannot produce goods efficiently or compete with foreign markets; rather, it is evidence of unlawful behavior on the part of China. Such behavior is tantamount to international banditry, and it must not be tolerated. In the current environment, I believe it is necessary for an injured industry to have an opportunity to go into Federal court and seek enforcement of our country's trade laws. My legislation addresses two specific types of illegal trade practices: dumping, which occurs when a foreign producer sells a product in the United States at a price that is below the producer's sales price in its home market or at a price which is lower than its cost of production, and subsidizing, which occurs when a foreign government provides financial assistance to benefit the production, manufacture, or exportation of a good. Under current law, the International Trade Commission and the Department of Commerce conduct antidumping and countervailing duty investigations and 5-year reviews under title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. U.S. industries may petition the ITC and Commerce for relief from dumped and subsidized imports. If Commerce finds that an imported product is dumped or subsidized and the ITC finds that the petitioning industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury, an antidumping duty order or countervailing duty order will be imposed to offset the dumping or subsidies. Because current administrative remedies have not been consistently and effectively enforced, I am introducing private right of action legislation to enforce the law. My legislation would allow petitioners to choose between the ITC and their local U.S. district court for the injury determination phase of their investigation. Doing so gives injured domestic producers the opportunity as private plaintiffs to control the litigation in seeking enforcement of our trade laws. If injury is found, U.S. Customs and Border Protection would then assess duties on future importation of the article in question. The legal standard for determining dumping margins, established by the Commerce Department, would remain unchanged. This legislation is similar to legislation I have introduced as far back as 1982 when I originally sought injunctive relief. But this bill has been modified to comply with World Trade Organization rules. In December 2004, the United States took action to comply with WTO rulings on the Antidumping Act of 1916 which provided a private cause of action and criminal penalties for dumping by prospectively repealing the act. The United States also took action in February 2006 to comply with WTO rulings on the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act which requires the distribution of collected antidumping and countervailing duties to petitioners and interested parties in the underlying trade proceedings. In both cases, the WTO panel found that U.S. law allowed an impermissible specific action against dumping and subsidization. The legislation I introduce today has been adapted to these changes in law and allows for a determination of injury in accordance with our international obligations. Aggressive policy measures, such as this legislation, are necessary to prevent foreign producers--China in particular--from causing a major crisis for our domestic producers. In testimony before the ITC earlier this year, I noted that we have a complicated relationship with China. I was one of 15 Senators who opposed China's entrance into the WTO in 2000. With China's economy still widely under state direction and characterized by dubious trade practices, I believed Chinese membership in the WTO would present a likelihood of trade distortion and market disruption. And that is why I voted against it in 2000. Congress heeded some of the concerns which I and others expressed and inserted a China-specific safeguard provision under section 421 of the Trade Act. But such a safeguard is only as effective as the President's willingness to enforce it. Seven petitions have been filed under section 421 since its inception. Of these, the ITC has made an affirmative determination of injury in five cases. Yet only one determination, handed down in the most recent Chinese tires case, has been upheld by the President. Despite overwhelming evidence to support the ITC's findings of injury, President Bush rejected all four previous petitions for relief on the ground that providing import relief was not in the economic interest of the United States. Since President Bush's decision, countless jobs in my State and across the country have been lost and the trade deficit has widened. It is difficult to understand how providing import relief was not in our economic interest. President Obama's decision to uphold the ITC rulings in the Chinese tires case last year is a step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done to ensure that domestic industries enjoy the protection afforded to them by existing trade laws. While it is my hope that this administration and future administrations will evaluate trade remedies objectively in terms of economic consequences, this act will provide a valuable tool for the domestic industry. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this legislation. The enforcement of trade laws should not be a partisan issue. To those who decry our enforcement mechanisms as unabashedly protectionist, let me be clear. I believe in free trade. International trade and open markets are crucial to the economic prosperity of this country. But the essence of free trade is selling goods at a price equal to the cost of production and a reasonable profit. When one country engages in dumping or subsidization at the expense of other countries, it is the antithesis of free trade. Let me remind those who criticize our domestic safeguards that President Ronald Reagan, a staunch advocate of open markets, signed into law agreements limiting the imports of autos and steel and pushed for the Plaza Accord in 1985 which raised the value of the yen and made Japanese imports more expensive. President Reagan understood that free trade did not mean wholly unfettered, unregulated trade. Free trade does not mean turning a blind eye to illegal and unsavory practices committed by our trading partners. I have argued that enforcement of our trade laws is critical to ensuring that our domestic manufacturers have a fair opportunity of competing with foreign producers. But even the most stringent enforcement will be insufficient to fully counter the effects of substandard labor, trade, and environmental practices, particularly those practiced by China. The safeguard measures the United States negotiated in advance of China's entry into the WTO were designed to limit the destructive effects of surging Chinese imports on domestic producers. As a result, China's succession to the WTO accelerated a ``race to the bottom'' in wages and environmental quality. Given these factors, in addition to China's mixed record on providing market access to the United States and its failure to provide protection of U.S. intellectual property rights, I urge that the Congress reexamine our trade agreement the United States signed with China and, if necessary, seek to withdraw permanent normal trade relations status from China. Such a withdrawal would be a serious measure, but we must be willing to demonstrate that we are serious about holding China to its international commitments. When the United States granted most-favored-nation status to China in 2000, we lost our ability to demand that China play by the rules. We may have to regain this leverage if we are to maintain an equitable trading relationship with China and keep our domestic industry strong. As President Obama recently noted in his remarks at the Senate Democratic Conference, the United States is home to some of the most innovative, skilled, and efficient workers in the world. But advances in efficiency and innovation by our producers cannot make up for the unfair advantage held by countries that engage in illegal trade practices. Our industries can compete if the playing field is level, but if foreign exporters are not held accountable, and can freely undercut American producers with dumped goods and government subsidies, this country's economic future will be at risk. We must take a stand and we must do it now.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President I have sought recognition to speak on an amendment I am offering to H.R. 4213, the Tax Extenders Act. This amendment would create a loan guarantee program to maintain the domestic manufacturing capacity for shipbuilding. With the U.S. economy still struggling to recover, manufacturing investments can have an immediate impact. Manufacturers have lost more than 2 million jobs since the recession began in December of 2007, so there is an opportunity to create a large number of jobs in the industry and to simultaneously revitalize our economy and overall global competitiveness. One area where benefits can immediately be seen is the shipbuilding industry. U.S. shipyards play an important role in supporting our Nation's maritime presence by building and repairing our domestic fleet; and the industry has a significant impact on our national economy by adding billions of dollars to U.S. economic output annually. These shipbuilding investments are vital to the United States, creating thousands of good-paying jobs across the country. The commercial shipbuilding and ship repair industry is a pillar of the American skilled labor workforce employing nearly 40,000 skilled workers; and the ships produced domestically are an integral part of commerce, international trade, the Navy, Coast Guard, and other military and emergency support. With more than 80 percent of the world's trade carried in whole or part by seaborne transportation, the shipbuilding industry has always had and will continue to have a large industrial base that can support significant job creation and economic growth. Since the mid 1990s, the industry has been experiencing a period of expansion and renewal. The last expansion was largely marketdriven, backed by long-term customer commitments. Those new assets created much more productive and advanced ships than those they replaced. For example, articulated double-hull tank barge units replaced single-hull product tankers in U.S. coastal trades, and new duel propulsion double- hull crude carriers replaced 30 plus-year-old, steam propulsion single- hull crude carriers. The new crude carriers are larger, faster, more fuel efficient and have a fourfold increase in efficiency over the vessels they replaced. During the last expansion, the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration touted the success of Aker Philadelphia Shipyard as a great achievement for the American shipbuilding industry. In 2000, Aker Philadelphia Shipyard was rebuilt on the site of a closed U.S. Navy shipyard. In a few short years, the shipyard became the country's most modern shipbuilding facility employing 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, $8.6 million in annual tax revenues to the city of Philadelphia, and supports over 8,000 jobs throughout the region. Today, 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 viability of the mid-Atlantic region and the domestic shipbuilding industry. Despite these successes, the economic collapse has stalled the shipbuilding industry by delaying planned ship acquisitions, constraining the credit markets, and making large vessel acquisitions impossible to finance. The long-term customer-driven commitments that drove the last expansion are not a possibility in this economic climate. As a result, this industry, which is a part of the national security industrial base, supports thousands of highly skilled jobs, and is critical to the industrial fabric of our Nation, is struggling to survive. 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, apprentice programs, and vendor and supplier contracts, at a time when we can least afford additional job losses. If this situation persists and companies like Aker were to cease operations, our Nation's ability to construct commercial vessels would be severely limited and the investments we made to build this state-of-the-art facility would be lost. At the same time, there is a strong and direct correlation between the performance of shipbuilding and the global economy and trade. Shipbuilding activities rise when global trade and economy grow. Likewise, shipbuilding will be among the first activities to suffer when trade slumps and the economy stutters. This puts shipbuilding at the forefront of one of the world's key and most important economic activities, and a reliable barometer of economic performance. As the economy recovers, so will the need for ships and our domestic shipbuilding capacity. The Maritime Administration has recognized that construction of vessels for the Nation's marine highway system could result in significant new opportunities for U.S. shipyards. The shipbuilding industry is also developing vessel portfolios that can be leveraged by the government including military vessels to meet the Nation's needs in time of national emergency. For example, the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship and Joint High Speed Vessel programs are based on commercially designed and available vessels. There will also be a need for additional ships as almost $5 billion worth of double-hull construction and conversion work will need to take place by 2015 to meet the double-hull requirement under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. To address the dire situation facing the 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 of loan guarantees leverage funding, the program would require only $15 million to leverage $165 million. This $15 million is offset by reprogramming previously appropriated funds, so there is no additional spending associated with this program. The Federal assistance would be a short-term financing bridge to enable shipyards to remain in operation and meet the future anticipated demand for domestically produced ships. I encourage my colleagues to help maintain the commercial shipbuilding capacity of the United States through the inclusion of a loan guarantee program.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation concerning the beneficial use of materials derived from river dredging activities. This concept was the subject of a Committee Resolution passed by the Committee on Environment and Public Works on October 26, 2005. This legislation relates directly to the deepening of the Delaware River, which was authorized in the 1992 Water Resources Development Act. The project deepens from 40 to 45 feet the main shipping channel of the Delaware River from Philadelphia and Camden, NJ, to the mouth of the Delaware Bay. Deepening the river will help sustain and grow the maritime economy of the Delaware Valley region, as the river's current depth, which has remained stagnant since 1941, does not accommodate the size of most modern ships. Despite the tremendous benefit the deepening will have on the region, some concerns have been raised regarding the disposal of the dredge material that will be produced during the deepening process. Currently, the Army Corps of Engineers dredges the river every year to maintain the 40-foot depth and deposits materials in Corps-owned sites along the river. While capacity remains at these sites, there are compelling questions about whether dredge material may have other useful purposes. On October 26, 2005, the Committee on Environment and Public Works passed a Resolution requesting the Army Corps of Engineers to study the beneficial uses of dredge material from the Delaware River, including the potential for use in coal and other mine restoration areas. The Corps has undertaken this study with funding I secured for the past several years and intend to request this year and in the future. The outcome of this study could yield tremendous benefits for the Nation, including in the Delaware Valley region and in Pennsylvania, where there are already proposals to use the dredge materials. One such proposal involves using dredge material from the Delaware River Deepening project to reclaim abandoned mine lands in northeast Pennsylvania. One likely benefit would be stream quality improvement in the Pocono Mountains due to a reduction in acid mine flows. This proposal would also help advance an economic development project in Hazleton, PA, which could potentially create thousands of jobs and contribute to the economic development of a region still impacted by the decline of the coal industry. The use of dredge material for these purposes has been endorsed by numerous local elected officials, state legislators and members of the community. The legislation I have introduced would authorize the use of funding under the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund for the transportation and use of dredge material in the reclamation of abandoned mines. Specifically, an eligible use of this funding would be for dredging material from the Delaware River for use in abandoned mines around the State of Pennsylvania. This use could significantly reduce the amount of additional dredge material deposited along the river as well as advance the mine cleanup effort which has been ongoing for decades in Pennsylvania. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation concerning the beneficial use of materials derived from river dredging activities. This concept was the subject of a Committee Resolution passed by the Committee on Environment and Public Works on October 26, 2005. This legislation relates directly to the deepening of the Delaware River, which was authorized in the 1992 Water Resources Development Act. The project deepens from 40 to 45 feet the main shipping channel of the Delaware River from Philadelphia and Camden, NJ, to the mouth of the Delaware Bay. Deepening the river will help sustain and grow the maritime economy of the Delaware Valley region, as the river's current depth, which has remained stagnant since 1941, does not accommodate the size of most modern ships. Despite the tremendous benefit the deepening will have on the region, some concerns have been raised regarding the disposal of the dredge material that will be produced during the deepening process. Currently, the Army Corps of Engineers dredges the river every year to maintain the 40-foot depth and deposits materials in Corps-owned sites along the river. While capacity remains at these sites, there are compelling questions about whether dredge material may have other useful purposes. On October 26, 2005, the Committee on Environment and Public Works passed a Resolution requesting the Army Corps of Engineers to study the beneficial uses of dredge material from the Delaware River, including the potential for use in coal and other mine restoration areas. The Corps has undertaken this study with funding I secured for the past several years and intend to request this year and in the future. The outcome of this study could yield tremendous benefits for the Nation, including in the Delaware Valley region and in Pennsylvania, where there are already proposals to use the dredge materials. One such proposal involves using dredge material from the Delaware River Deepening project to reclaim abandoned mine lands in northeast Pennsylvania. One likely benefit would be stream quality improvement in the Pocono Mountains due to a reduction in acid mine flows. This proposal would also help advance an economic development project in Hazleton, PA, which could potentially create thousands of jobs and contribute to the economic development of a region still impacted by the decline of the coal industry. The use of dredge material for these purposes has been endorsed by numerous local elected officials, state legislators and members of the community. The legislation I have introduced would authorize the use of funding under the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund for the transportation and use of dredge material in the reclamation of abandoned mines. Specifically, an eligible use of this funding would be for dredging material from the Delaware River for use in abandoned mines around the State of Pennsylvania. This use could significantly reduce the amount of additional dredge material deposited along the river as well as advance the mine cleanup effort which has been ongoing for decades in Pennsylvania. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to talk briefly about two subjects: a recent CODEL where I participated and, secondly, on the passing of a beloved staff member. I ask unanimous consent that the time for business be extended until 12:45.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, from December 28 to January 7, I participated on a congressional delegation which visited in Cypress, Syria, India, Afghanistan, and Morocco, and have submitted a lengthy report, which is my practice. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of that report be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. SPECTER. For purposes of comment at this time, I will focus on what we found on our trip to Afghanistan and India as it relates to the current war in progress in Afghanistan which has, as a practical matter, been extended into Pakistan and a comment about our trip to Syria, our meetings with President Assad, as it bears upon the potential for a peace treaty between Israel and Syria. Our visit to Afghanistan was very revealing to get a firsthand impression as to what is going on on the ground. I approached the trip with serious reservations about the President's proposal to add an additional 30,000 troops there. My concern arose in the context of why fight in Afghanistan when al-Qaida could organize as well in many other places, Yemen or Somalia. There had been such a lack of success in efforts in Afghanistan by the Soviets, by the Brits, going all the way back to Alexander the Great. There is no doubt we have to do whatever it takes to defeat al-Qaida, because they are out to annihilate us. The question is, where? Where we face reports that there were only about 100 al-Qaida actually in Afghanistan, we are really looking at a battle with the Taliban. In our meetings with General McChrystal and other key officials, they emphasized the point that we should not retreat and that it would be a watershed event if the United States did not provide whatever military force was necessary in Afghanistan. Our delegation replied that the NATO support was lacking and we ought to rethink exactly how we are going to deal with the Taliban. The efforts to persuade the Taliban to come back and support the Karzai government--because there are many there who could be brought back if the inducements were sufficient and they were sufficiently confident-- the Karzai government did not lend a whole lot to inspire confidence. They had an election which was clouded with fraud. They have sustained reports about dealing in the narcotics trade with high-ranking officials, repeated evidence of corruption at the highest levels-- hardly inducive to a stable government. When the President projected a withdrawal by mid-2011, that was not what President Karzai had suggested. He was quoted in the press as saying, U.S. troops would have to be in Afghanistan for 15 years. When our delegation had an opportunity to meet with President Karzai, we pressed him on that issue, and he said: Well, 2 years would be required for an adequate presence of the U.S. military. He never could quite define what ``adequate'' was, but he said U.S. forces would have to stay for another 10 years. More recently, in the intervening weeks, the war there has shaped up. We still have only committed a small fraction of the 30,000 troops-- something like 5,000. Perhaps it will not be necessary to commit the additional 25,000 troops. We had a very productive meeting with the Prime Minister of India, Prime Minister Singh. A point which we pressed was whether India and Pakistan could enter into an arms reduction pact similar to the pacts which the United States and the Soviet Union have had, which would reduce the number of troops from India and the number of troops from Pakistan on the border to liberate more Pakistan military to help in the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban. Prime Minister Singh said he would certainly be willing to consider that, but Pakistan would have to control the terrorists. We questioned him as to whether the Pakistani Government could control the terrorists, and his reply was very blunt: Yes, the terrorists are the creation of Pakistan, which is the way he responded to that situation. In the intervening weeks, again, there has been unique cooperation between Pakistani intelligence and the CIA, with many joint maneuvers, so perhaps there could be a material improvement along that line. The written text, which will be submitted, goes into some greater detail, which I shall abbreviate because of the shortness of time. In Syria, our meeting with President Bashar al-Asad was cordial and I think constructive. I had first visited Syria in 1984, and this was the 19th visit there. I have gone there repeatedly, as I have to the region generally, and even more often to Israel, because I have long thought Syria was the key to the Mideast peace process. Syria desperately wants to regain the Golan Heights, and only Israel can decide whether it is in Israel's interest to cede the Golan Heights. But it is a different world in 2010 than it was in 1967, when Israel took the Golan. The strategy is very different in an era of rockets. It is not quite the same situation. There is a great deal Israel could gain if a peace treaty was entered into with Syria: stopping Syria from continuing the destabilization of Lebanon, which Syria denies but I think happens to be a fact. For Syria to stop supporting Hezbollah and Hamas would be very important to Israel's security. To try to drive a wedge between Syria and Iran would be helpful not only to Israel in the context of the Iranian President wanting to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth but would be good not only for the region but for the entire world, if we can find a way to contain Iran in their determination to acquire nuclear weapons. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified yesterday before the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, and I asked her if she would consider a recommendation to have the President call the Israeli leaders, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the Syrian President, Bashar al-Asad, to the Oval Office to be an intermediary there. The office of the Presidency could have great forcefulness and great weight. The Secretary was noncommittal, and the record will reflect the exact words which she used. The trip was very worthwhile. I find that when we leave the Beltway and leave Washington and see what is actually happening in the field, wearing a flak jacket in a helicopter across Afghanistan or talking to Foreign Minister Walid Mualem, who was the Ambassador here for 10 years, and getting a feel for what is going on in India, it gives us a much better insight into how we handle our foreign aid, how we handle our budget, and how we handle our military operations. Exhibit 1 Statement of Senator Arlen Specter Foreign Travel I seek recognition to speak about a Congressional Delegation I took part in from December 28, 2009 to January 7, 2010. The CODEL, led by Senator Gregg, comprised of Senators Bayh, Cornyn, Enzi, Klobuchar and their spouses. I was accompanied by my wife, Joan, and my Legislative Director, Christopher Bradish.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, Kenny Evans recently passed after being with me for some 30 years. I had known Mr. Evans in Philadelphia for a long time, but when I ran for the Senate in 1980, I asked him to be my campaign deputy in the African-American community. When I was elected, I brought him in as my key operative in the African-American community because of the urgency of having active minority representation. He came to be known and loved and admired as a leading public official in the city. He served longer than most anybody else who had been in public office. He took on a great role in housing and in job training and in education, on civil rights issues and on immigration. When we had a proposal advanced by Congressman Chaka Fattah called GEAR UP almost a decade ago, with a $300 million price tag, I consulted with Kenny Evans, listened to his advice and recommendations and helped provide $300 million a year, which has now come to be in the $2.5 billion range, not only servicing Philadelphia but the entire country. When we had a controversy last summer about African-American children being excluded from a swim club which said they were not welcome there, Kenny Evans took the lead in consultation and advice on how to handle it with the Civil Rights Division, and action has been taken to correct a wrong there. He was an unusual public servant and an extraordinary man. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement which was prepared by Michael Oscar, my executive director for southeastern Pennsylvania, which Mike Oscar gave at Kenny's funeral, be printed in the Congressional Record.

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

Mr. SPECTER. I do.

Mr. SPECTER

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

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation to make it a Federal offense to intimidate or threaten a witness in a State court proceeding. This legislation I believe to be necessary based upon some very disastrous experiences in the criminal courts in Philadelphia, as evidenced by a lengthy series of articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer and a field hearing which the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs held in Philadelphia. What has occurred is that in many instances, witnesses are intimidated--even murdered--to prevent them from testifying. The crime scenes in our big cities are atrocious. I spent eight years as the district attorney of Philadelphia. When I left that position, I didn't think the crime problem could be worse, but regrettably it is now, in many aspects. One of the aspects has been for the young thugs who are under accusation or friends of those who are under charge to go to the witnesses and terrify them and even murder them. During the course of the field hearing, we had two parents testify about how their children were brutally murdered. It is a violation of State law to intimidate a witness, but making it a Federal offense imports a great deal more pressure, more power to the situation. People do not like the Federal presence, the initiation of a criminal case, the investigation by the FBI, and the treatment of the Federal courts is materially different--at least in Philadelphia--than it is in the State court proceedings. I think this kind of legislation would be very salutary. If you don't have the integrity of the judicial process protected, it is a very sad day in the administration of justice. I introduced this legislation on behalf of Senator Schumer, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Kaufman. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my statement and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation to make it a Federal offense to intimidate or threaten a witness in a State court proceeding. This legislation I believe to be necessary based upon some very disastrous experiences in the criminal courts in Philadelphia, as evidenced by a lengthy series of articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer and a field hearing which the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs held in Philadelphia. What has occurred is that in many instances, witnesses are intimidated--even murdered--to prevent them from testifying. The crime scenes in our big cities are atrocious. I spent eight years as the district attorney of Philadelphia. When I left that position, I didn't think the crime problem could be worse, but regrettably it is now, in many aspects. One of the aspects has been for the young thugs who are under accusation or friends of those who are under charge to go to the witnesses and terrify them and even murder them. During the course of the field hearing, we had two parents testify about how their children were brutally murdered. It is a violation of State law to intimidate a witness, but making it a Federal offense imports a great deal more pressure, more power to the situation. People do not like the Federal presence, the initiation of a criminal case, the investigation by the FBI, and the treatment of the Federal courts is materially different--at least in Philadelphia--than it is in the State court proceedings. I think this kind of legislation would be very salutary. If you don't have the integrity of the judicial process protected, it is a very sad day in the administration of justice. I introduced this legislation on behalf of Senator Schumer, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Kaufman. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my statement and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today, I have sought recognition to offer legislation supporting the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg. This legislation will serve to commemorate three historic events in our country: the 1863 Invasion of Pennsylvania, the decisive Battle of Gettysburg, and President Lincoln's famous Gettysburg Address. On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln chose Gettysburg for his most famous address because the battle was the turning point of the Civil War. The safety and security of Pennsylvania's capital, railroads, industries, and citizens were at stake. The resulting Battle of Gettysburg was the largest and costliest of the Civil War and of the country to date with 51,000 Union and Confederate casualties. Soldiers from the U.S. Regular Army and volunteer units from Pennsylvania, Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin served during this campaign and battle. Their sacrifices should not be forgotten. This legislation will authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue commemorative Gettysburg coins in three denominations: $5 gold, $1 silver, and half-dollar silver. These coins will only be distributed during the calendar year of 2013, the 150th anniversary of Gettysburg, and will have surcharges of $35, $10, and $5 respectively. The revenue generated from these surcharges will be divided between the Gettysburg Foundation and the Army Heritage Center Foundation to help finance their respective nonprofit programs dedicated to supporting the hundreds of thousands of visitors who walk the Gettysburg grounds each year and to preserve the memory of those who served and the history that they made. These two foundations are nongovernmental, member-based, and publicly supported nonprofit organizations that are dependent on funds from members, donations, and grants for support. The foundations use such support to help create and sustain the Gettysburg National Military Park and the Army Heritage and Education Center. The Gettysburg Foundation is recognized as the official partner of Gettysburg National Military Park and the Army Heritage Center Foundation is recognized by the Secretary of the Army as the lead agency supporting the development of the Army Heritage and Education Center. The Gettysburg Act will greatly benefit our nation by preserving this historic battle ground for countless visitors from across the nation and from around the world. It will help fund battlefield preservation and rehabilitation projects at Gettysburg National Military Park by restoring approximately 27 acres of battlefield to its 1863 appearance. This act will help preserve the hallowedness of the ground by relocating 12 monuments to their original locations, where the veterans themselves placed these monuments several generations ago. Visitors to Gettysburg will benefit from increased educational programming at both the Army Heritage and Education Center and the Gettysburg Battle Visitor Center as the act helps facilitate the continued expansion of the Army Heritage and Education Center and construction of the Army Heritage Museum, both of which are dedicated ``to telling the Army story . . . one Soldier at a time.'' The importance of the 1863 Campaign in Pennsylvania, the Battle of Gettysburg, and Lincoln's address stretch well beyond the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and stand as an enduring reminder of how our nation was reborn out of the Civil War as a stronger Union more dedicated to its ideals of freedom and liberty. I urge each of my colleagues to join Senator Casey and myself in supporting this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today, I have sought recognition to offer legislation supporting the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg. This legislation will serve to commemorate three historic events in our country: the 1863 Invasion of Pennsylvania, the decisive Battle of Gettysburg, and President Lincoln's famous Gettysburg Address. On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln chose Gettysburg for his most famous address because the battle was the turning point of the Civil War. The safety and security of Pennsylvania's capital, railroads, industries, and citizens were at stake. The resulting Battle of Gettysburg was the largest and costliest of the Civil War and of the country to date with 51,000 Union and Confederate casualties. Soldiers from the U.S. Regular Army and volunteer units from Pennsylvania, Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin served during this campaign and battle. Their sacrifices should not be forgotten. This legislation will authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue commemorative Gettysburg coins in three denominations: $5 gold, $1 silver, and half-dollar silver. These coins will only be distributed during the calendar year of 2013, the 150th anniversary of Gettysburg, and will have surcharges of $35, $10, and $5 respectively. The revenue generated from these surcharges will be divided between the Gettysburg Foundation and the Army Heritage Center Foundation to help finance their respective nonprofit programs dedicated to supporting the hundreds of thousands of visitors who walk the Gettysburg grounds each year and to preserve the memory of those who served and the history that they made. These two foundations are nongovernmental, member-based, and publicly supported nonprofit organizations that are dependent on funds from members, donations, and grants for support. The foundations use such support to help create and sustain the Gettysburg National Military Park and the Army Heritage and Education Center. The Gettysburg Foundation is recognized as the official partner of Gettysburg National Military Park and the Army Heritage Center Foundation is recognized by the Secretary of the Army as the lead agency supporting the development of the Army Heritage and Education Center. The Gettysburg Act will greatly benefit our nation by preserving this historic battle ground for countless visitors from across the nation and from around the world. It will help fund battlefield preservation and rehabilitation projects at Gettysburg National Military Park by restoring approximately 27 acres of battlefield to its 1863 appearance. This act will help preserve the hallowedness of the ground by relocating 12 monuments to their original locations, where the veterans themselves placed these monuments several generations ago. Visitors to Gettysburg will benefit from increased educational programming at both the Army Heritage and Education Center and the Gettysburg Battle Visitor Center as the act helps facilitate the continued expansion of the Army Heritage and Education Center and construction of the Army Heritage Museum, both of which are dedicated ``to telling the Army story . . . one Soldier at a time.'' The importance of the 1863 Campaign in Pennsylvania, the Battle of Gettysburg, and Lincoln's address stretch well beyond the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and stand as an enduring reminder of how our nation was reborn out of the Civil War as a stronger Union more dedicated to its ideals of freedom and liberty. I urge each of my colleagues to join Senator Casey and myself in supporting this legislation.

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 express my views on the issue of sanctions against Iran. The Senate, on the unanimous consent calendar last Thursday, passed legislation calling for sanctions against Iran. This was the first opportunity I have had to address the subject. I wish to do so now. The threat posed by Iran armed with nuclear weapons is obvious and very serious. It is a threat which applies for the region, for the world. It is a vital national security interest of the United States that Iran not be armed with nuclear weapons. It is obviously of great importance to Israel that Iran not have nuclear weapons in light of the history--the fact that the Iranian President has called for wiping Israel off the face of the Earth. I have prepared a comprehensive statement of my views on this subject in anticipation of the matter coming to the Senate floor. I will ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record. I have been reluctant to call for sanctions because I am a firm believer in diplomacy and have undertaken a number of steps to try to encourage a parliamentary exchange between Iranian Parliamentarians and Members of Congress. I have been working on that for the better part of a decade. The extensive written statement summarizes in some detail those efforts. I have met with the last three Iranian Ambassadors to the United Nations. I found them all to be highly intelligent, to be articulate, to be cordial, and to be interested in a dialog and in conversations. I believe if their views were reflected by the Iranian Government, it would be a very different picture than it is at the present time. One year I got permission from the State Department to have the Iranian Ambassador to the U.N. come to Washington at my so-called hideaway office a few feet away from the floor and have dinner with Members of Congress and the Iranian Ambassador to talk about these issues. At one time, there was a meeting set between Iranian Parliamentarians and Members of Congress in Geneva that was canceled by the Iranian Government. My detailed statement specifies the efforts I have made over that period of time. But I think we have come to a point now where we have to get candidly tough, and we have to impose sanctions. President Obama said he would give Iran until the end of the year-- referring to the year 2009--to come to the table. There were some indications that Iran would do so. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has made a similar statement and, in a sense, they have drawn a line in the sand. My own personal assessment is that we are approaching the point of clear and present danger that Iran poses as a threat to the region, especially to Israel, to the national security interests of the United States, and to the world. So I think it is time that firm action be taken. We have seen it evolve that gradually Russia has moved to join the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, and other nations in moving toward sanctions. China, regrettably, has not done so. Comments by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just last week are important on this subject. The Secretary of State said: China will be under a lot of pressure to recognize the destabilizing effect that a nuclear-armed Iran would have in the Persian Gulf from which they receive a significant percentage of their oil. Secretary of State Clinton further remarked that a nuclear-armed Iran would risk setting off an arms race in the Persian Gulf and that it could provoke a military strike from Israel which she said she would regard a nuclear Iran as an existential threat. It has long been articulated that the military option is on the table. Israel has demonstrated its resoluteness--a small nation surrounded by, vastly outnumbered by the Arab population, still technically at war with many of the Arab countries, peace treaties only with Egypt and Jordan. Israel demonstrated its capability and willingness to take out the Iraq reactor in June of 1981 and more recently the Syrian installation which is believed to have been working on nuclear weapons. Secretary of State Clinton is blunt in the grave threat posed by the situation that Israel is concerned about with Iran becoming a nuclear force. I think the time has come to act. In the course of my statement, I have gone into some detail as to the sanctions and how effective they could be. But I think there is no doubt that if China joined the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France, Germany, India, and other nations in imposing tight sanctions, financial sanctions on the financial institutions, on trade, on supplying gasoline, on supplying Iranian needs that the world could make its point. I think Iran would have to capitulate. How much better it is to use economic sanctions than to take the military option off the table. I do believe if the United Nations, with China's concurrence, showed its determination to impose sanctions that it would have the potential to bring compliance by Iran. Russia has made a proposal that it would enrich Iran's uranium. If Iran is sincere that it does not want enriched uranium for military purposes, for a bomb, but only wants it for civilian purposes, well, take up Russia's offer to have the uranium enriched by Russia. At one point, Iran appeared to be willing to do that. Then they revoked the indication of willingness. That is still a possibility. I had occasion to visit Vienna on two occasions--met with the International Atomic Energy Agency head, Mohamed ElBaradei--to discuss the activities he has undertaken. He is a very able, skilled international diplomat who recently left that position, which he held for years. But Mr. ElBaradei was very pessimistic as to what Iran was prepared to do and resisted efforts to have the kind of inspections which would give assurance. I was very reluctant to see sanctions imposed on Syria, in the hope that diplomacy might work there, but did join in those efforts a few years back when the matter came up for a vote. I had been trying to visit Iran personally since 1989, at the end of the Iran-Iraq war, and in 1989 made my first trip to Iraq. In 1990, Senator Shelby and I had a talk with Saddam Hussein, and it was a very professional conversation. Iraq, at that time, had just launched a three-power rocket system, and I led the conversation by asking President Saddam Hussein if he would be willing to negotiate with Israel because they would take out his new weapons, just as they had taken out his reactor in June of 1981. He dismissed it, saying: No, he wouldn't negotiate with Israel; they weren't a border state. Then he asked me a question. He wanted to know why all the Russian Jews were going to Israel. I saw him shuffling some papers, and I knew he knew I was Jewish. I wanted him to know I knew that he knew that I knew, and so I said: My father was a Russian Jew who immigrated to the United States, and I believe the Russian Jews ought to go wherever they want to go. There was a 50,000 limit at the time on Russian Jews who could come into the United States. In the course of an hour-and-a-quarter discussion, it was a substantive talk, and I came back and told a number of my colleagues that I thought we ought to have more discussions with Saddam Hussein. I don't know if anything could have deterred him from his aggression against Kuwait or his later activities, but I have long been a believer in the maxim that you make peace with your enemies and not with your friends. In my work as chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the 104th Congress and work on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I have had the privilege of traveling extensively in foreign countries and sought out the people who might be categorized as our enemies. I had a useful talk a few years back with Chavez in Venezuela; several visits to Fidel Castro in Cuba; conversations with Arafat, both in Ramallah, Gaza, and when he came to Washington, to my office downstairs, looking for money from the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. I have made many trips to Syria, gotten to know Hafez al-Assad and Bashar al-Assad; had cordial conversations, as one of six Senators who visited Syria about a month ago to talk to Bashar al-Assad about the possibility of a peace treaty. I believe Syria could hold the key to a peace in the Mideast. Only Israel could decide if Israel wants to give up the Golan, and they ought to make that decision without any pressure from the United States or anyone. But if Israel should make that decision, there could be a great deal gained in terms of having Syria stopping the destabilization of Lebanon, stopping the support of Hamas, stopping the support of Hezbollah. It is a different world today than it was in 1967, when Israel took the Golan. It is an era of rockets. It is not the same strategic importance. But the point I make is, I think diplomacy is the way out. But sometimes there has to be a carrot and a stick, and I think we have come to the point where sanctions do need to be imposed, and that is why I have joined the effort. I think the President has given fair notice to Iran that they come to the table by the end of the year, and we are a little past that. We, obviously, have problems with China on a number of fronts. We have problems on the Taiwan issue and our sale of arms to Taiwan. We have problems with them with respect to Tibet and our issue of human rights. We have very serious problems on trade, and we have broader issues on human rights. China is emerging as a tremendous world power, and we are challenged at every line, but I do believe the logic of the situation is, it is in China's interest not to have a nuclear Iran. Our CODEL, after visiting in Syria, went on to India and talked to Prime Minister Singh, who was emphatic in agreement that it is not in India's interest or the world's interest to have an Iran which is armed with nuclear weapons. So it is my hope the action by the Senate, in voting for sanctions, will increase the momentum for sanctions from the United Nations. It can only be done in an effective way if China is persuaded to go along. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record my full written statement and ask that the Congressional Record recite the language I am using now. Usually, when summary is concluded and the formal statement is put in the Record, it is changed. If anybody reads the Congressional Record-- and I think there is a chance somebody does--they wonder why Senator Specter is making this repetitious statement; that he has made this statement, and here is all this repetition. If you put this explanation in, as I have said, the reader will know I have summarized and amplified, to some extent, and that what follows now is not a repetition as such but the formal statement which was prepared in advance.