Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words in support of the nomination of Michael R. Barrett. As the distinguished Senator from Ohio has probably already commented on--I just got in from Pennsylvania, so I did not get a chance to hear all of his speech--and as the Presiding Officer knows, because the distinguished Presiding Officer is a member of the Judiciary Committee, Michael R. Barrett was passed unanimously by the committee. He comes to this position with an excellent background. He received his bachelor's degree from the University of Cincinnati. He received his law degree from the University of Cincinnati in 1977. So he has had 29 years of expedience in practice. He was the assistant prosecuting attorney in the felony trial division in Hamilton County. It is always a good experience to be a prosecuting attorney, something that Senator DeWine did, Senator Leahy did, something that I have done. He was an associate partner at Graydon, Head & Ritchey, a shareholder attorney at Barrett & Weber, and has the qualifications to do an excellent job on the U.S. District Court. I am pleased to endorse him and urge my fellow Senators to confirm him for this important lifetime position. I thank the Chair and yield the floor and note we are just 2 or 3 minutes away from the vote. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, during the period of April 7-16, 2006, my colleague on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Jeff Sessions, and I traveled to Colombia, Peru, Brazil, and the Dominican Republic for a firsthand view on issues of immigration, drug enforcement, and trade. On April 7, 8, and 9, we traveled to Bogota and Cartagena, Colombia. Upon exiting the plane, we immediately met with Ambassador William Wood, who has been U.S. Ambassador to Colombia since August 13, 2003, and is a graduate of Bucknell University. I was looking forward to returning to Colombia in that I had not had an opportunity to visit there since December 1999. At the time, President Pastrana was the President of Colombia, and I had the opportunity to discuss with him my concerns about the forcible eradication of the supply of narcotics and the status of peace talks between the Colombia Government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, FARC. Traveling to Colombia this time, I was aware that Colombia was still facing many serious challenges. Many of these suspicions were corroborated by Ambassador Wood. Ambassador Wood stated that the United States sent Colombia $600 million in aid in 2005. The purpose of this aid is to assist Colombia against various drug cartels and guerilla groups which threaten Colombia's security. Colombia faces two leftist and one rightwing insurgent group that wage guerilla warfare, carrying out kidnappings, hijackings, attacks on civilians, and political assassinations. The primary threat that Colombia faces is from FARC. Ambassador Wood estimated that FARC is composed of 17,000 members and operates in approximately 40 percent of Colombia. Senator Sessions and I were also made aware of some recent changes that have occurred to Colombia's justice system. Ambassador Wood stated that the new Colombian Justice system has instilled in the Colombian people a new level of confidence in the prosecution of criminals. The new system provides for live testimony through the implementation of an oral accusatorial system, whereas the previous system was nonadversarial and operated almost exclusively on the basis on written testimony. Ambassador Wood stated that the new system is now in Bogota and three other municipal areas. Over 17,000 prosecutors and judges have received intensive training in the new accusatory system in 2005 from various U.S. agencies. The implementation of this new justice system demonstrates that the Colombian Government is serious about cracking down on crime and will no longer serve as a kangaroo court for the benefit of the cartels. Ambassador Wood also noted several other significant areas where the Colombian Government has improved in the area of law enforcement. Specifically, Ambassador Wood noted that the number of annual homicides were at their lowest number in 18 years. The number of kidnappings is down 39 percent, and terror attacks are down 42 percent under President Uribe's administration. Later during the trip to Colombia, we had the opportunity to meet President Alvaro Uribe and Colombia's Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, Camilo Reyes. I came away extremely impressed with President Uribe and his agenda for Colombia. President Uribe is a true Colombian patriot who has elected to take the battle to FARC and to try to eliminate the cultivation of illegal narcotics in his country. Based primarily on his success against narcotic groups, President Uribe was reelected President of Colombia on March 12, 2006, on a platform to defeat guerillas, eliminate paramilitary organizations, end narcotrafficking, and enhance Colombia's domestic security. The first issue that Senator Sessions and I broached with President Uribe was the issue of narcotics. Approximately 90 percent of the cocaine that enters the United States and 80 percent of the heroin east of the Mississippi comes from Colombia. President Uribe agreed with us that the biggest problem in the war on drugs was lowering the consumption of drugs. President Uribe believes, as do I, that so long as there are consumers of drugs, people will keep producing it. Despite this concern, President Uribe was adamant that Colombia, with continued assistance from the United States, would be able to win the war on drugs. President Uribe felt that so long as the United States supplied financial aid to Colombia for another 5 years, they will have taken significant steps towards eliminating cocaine production from his country. During our meeting with President Uribe, Senator Sessions and I also discussed the recent actions that the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives have taken on the issue of illegal immigration to the United States. I was very curious to hear President Uribe's opinion on how we might deal with the issue. President Uribe stated his belief that it was important for the United States to legislate carefully in this area in order to maintain a positive relationship with Colombia. President Uribe noted that the United States needed friends in South America in order to serve as a counterweight to Venezuela and President Chavez. The comprehensive Senate bill that originated in the Judiciary Committee, President Uribe noted, appears preferential to the House bill. Senator Sessions and I also asked President Uribe about the problem of seasonal workers that emigrate from Colombia to the United States in order to work temporarily on farms and don't return to Colombia once their appointed working time period has elapsed. I was interested to hear President Uribe state that he understood the concerns that the United States has with seasonal workers that overstay the work period in the United States. President Uribe stated that Colombia currently has a good working relationship with both Canada and Spain and that he would like to implement that same system with the United States. I asked President Uribe to explain how Colombia was able to get their seasonal workers to return from Canada and Spain after their designated work period had elapsed. President Uribe stated that whenever Colombia sends seasonal workers to Canada or Spain, they keep very close track of where the temporary worker is working and for what time period he is permitted to stay. Seasonal workers also have learned that if they don't return to Colombia at the conclusion of the seasonal work period, then they will never be permitted to participate in an overseas work program again. Despite President Uribe's approach on this topic, I still expressed grave concerns whether this incentive of returning to seasonal work would be enough to have seasonal workers return from the United States at the conclusion of their work period. President Uribe said he would consider having Colombian workers have microchips implanted into their bodies before they are permitted to enter the United States to work on a seasonal basis. I doubted whether the implantation of microchips would be effective since the immigrant worker might be able to remove them. I also asked President Uribe what new policies he would like to see the United States enact. President Uribe stated that the five nations of the Andean community, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Bolivia, are going through trying times. President Uribe felt that it was important that the United States maintain a good relationship with Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia to combat the anti-American influence of Venezuela's President Chavez. I had the opportunity to visit President Chavez in December of 2005 and agree that he does pose a threat to U.S. interests in South America. I still believe, however, that it would be prudent for the United States to deal directly with President Chavez in order to reach an understanding on some of our Nation's differences. Finally, President Uribe discussed with us a recent vote that had just taken place concerning the protection of intellectual property rights among the Andean nations. By way of background, in 2003, President Bush announced the intentions of the United States to begin negotiating a free-trade agreement, FTA, with Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia. Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru currently benefit from the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act, ATPDEA. This trade pact, which is set to expire on December 31, 2006, authorizes the President to grant duty-free treatment to certain products, with more than half of all U.S. imports in 2004 from the Andean countries entering under these preferences. In a recent vote which just took place in the Andean community, the community voted three to two to protect intellectual property rights in trade agreements with the United States. Colombia, along with Peru and Ecuador, voted in favor of the protection of intellectual property rights, whereas Venezuela and Bolivia voted against the protection of these rights. President Uribe is concerned about whether or not Peru will still support the protection of intellectual rights once they elect a new President in the summer of this year. Later in Colombia, Senator Sessions and I met Susan Reichle, Deputy Director of the USAID mission in Bogota, and Guillermo Del Coilitto, Jorge Droujo and Rosano de Riccardi, board members on Project Unidad Pedagogica Productiva Agroindustrial de Turbaco. During our visit to the project, we were told that the project was started in order to teach 300 displaced Colombian families how to generate income and garner employment through agricultural and agribusiness activities in Northern Bolivar, Colombia. This and other USAID projects in Colombia provide income and employment opportunities to rural communities which agree to give up the growth of narcotic crops and for those that are displaced by the country's continued conflict. These projects serve to instill these employment skills which they can market outside of the cultivation of narcotics. I left Project Unidad Pedagogica Productiva Agroindustrial de Turbaco with a favorable opinion of the work that USAID is performing in Colombia. When we visited the U.S. Embassy in Bogota, Colombia, on April 8, 2006, we reviewed the incident of February 13, 2003, when a small U.S. plane crashed in Colombia resulting in FARC taking hostage Marc Gonsalves, Keith Stansell, and Tom Howes, who were under contract with the Department of Defense in the war against drug traffickers. Despite the best efforts by President Uribe to rescue these hostages, all efforts, as of now, have been unsuccessful. During our visit to the Embassy we were told that, if there were sufficient Department of Defense resources applied, the hostages could be located. As a result of this meeting, Senator Sessions and I sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld on April 10, 2006, requesting that he allocate additional resources toward the location of these men. In discussing this matter with the personnel at the Embassy, it was obvious that they wanted more resources for this effort as a successful outcome would clearly have a positive impact on morale and national credibility. One of the men at the Embassy said he thinks about the hostages every day. The Embassy people talk about these men as POW and MIA and there are plaques and signs displayed throughout the Embassy. Senator Sessions and I also met with Robert Taylor, Assistant Regional Director in the Drug Enforcement Agency, DEA, and Admiral Alfonzo Diaz of the Colombian Navy. Mr. Taylor and Admiral Diaz discussed the methods by which the Colombian cartels use to smuggle cocaine and other drugs out of the country. We were advised that the primary way that drugs are shipped out of Colombia is via the use of go-fast boats. Go-fast boats can carry up to 3 tons of cocaine and can reach high rates of speed. They are frequently used to transport drugs to Mexico, Central American and Caribbean transshipment countries, using refueling vessels to extend their range. Despite the advent of go-fast boats, the Colombian navy, in conjunction with U.S. agencies, was able to intercept $25 billion in cocaine in 2005 as a result of their own faster go-fast midnight express boats, which can reach speeds in excess of 60 knots. Both Admiral Diaz and Mr. Taylor stated that Colombian law enforcement has an excellent working relationship with the United States and all of its agencies. One of the primary examples of this is the sharp increase in the number of extraditions of Colombians to the United States. Since President Uribe took office in 2002, Colombia had extradited 304 Colombian nationals and 11 non-nationals to the United States. In early 2005, Colombia extradited FARC leader Nayibe Rojas Valderama and Cali Cartel leader Miguel Rodriguez Orejuela. The zeal with which President Uribe's administration is waging the war on drugs left little doubt that it is in the interests of the United States to continue to assist him. Senator Sessions and I arrived in Peru on April 10, 2006. I have had the opportunity to travel to Peru on four previous occasions, the last of which was on January 4, 2002. This was an optimum time to be in Peru, as they are in the midst of Presidential elections which had taken place the day before our arrival. We first met with Ambassador Curtis Struble, who was confirmed as Ambassador to Peru on December 9, 2003. He and his staff gave us a country briefing and informed us that Peru's poverty rate is approximately 50 percent, but that Peru's economy is starting to rebound and per capita growth rate rose in 1 year from $2,100 a year to $2,800. Soon after our meeting with Mr. Struble, we were met by Oscar Marutua, Peru's Foreign Minister, and Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, Peru's Prime Minister. I was especially impressed with Mr. Kuczynski, who is a graduate of Princeton University and worked in New York City for 20 years. He reminded me of our squash match 4 years earlier and commented on my ``drop'' shots. One of our primary concerns was the status of Peru's recent Presidential elections. Prime Minister Kuczynski advised us that there were a total of 23 separate candidates running for President in Peru. Out of these 23, only 3 were viewed as serious candidates. Ollanta Humula, a leftwing candidate who had been receiving significant monetary support from President Chavez, was leading in the early election return with 30 percent of the vote. The other two primary candidates, Ms. Lourdes Flores Nano and Alan Garcia, were characterized by Mr. Kuczynski as moderates and were in a dead heat, each capturing about 25 percent of the votes. Mr. Kuczynski explained that under Peru's political system, if no candidate receives 50 percent of the vote, then a run-off vote between the top two candidates occurs on May 7, 2006. Without question, it will be in the interest of the United States that either Ms. Flores Nano or Mr. Garcia prevails in Peru's election for President. Foreign Minister Maurtua stated that there are approximately 1 million Peruvians living in the United States. Of these, he estimated that 50 percent were residing in the United States illegally. Kuczynski suggested breaking the issue of immigration down into two parts: what to do with the people already in the United States and what to do with those who would like to go there. Senator Sessions and I also met with Susan Keogh, Director of Narcotics Affairs in Peru. Ms. Keough discussed the current difficulties the Peruvian Government was having in combating narcotics and the deleterious effect that narcotic cultivation has on the environment. Ms. Keough stated that approximately 400,000 acres are being deforested annually for the cultivation of coca and other plants. On average, there are approximately 40,000 to 100,000 coca plants per 2 acres, which require about 2 tons of chemicals to be used for their production. Since coca is very vulnerable to diseases, coca growers cover the coca with pesticides which are very deleterious to the environment. Some portions of these chemicals almost always find their way into rivers and streams, as coca must be cultivated close to a water supply. I asked what efforts the Peruvian Government is taking to combat these problems. Ms. Keough remarked that the Peruvian Government hardly focuses on this issue and that the growth of cocaine and the effects on the environment was rarely mentioned during the current Presidential campaign. We suggested to Ms. Keough that she and her colleagues, who were concerned about protecting the environment, should write letters to the editor of respected Peruvian newspapers expressing their concern over the growth of cocaine in Peru and the deleterious effects that this cultivation is having on the environment. Senator Sessions and I arrived in Brazil on April 12, 2006. Immediately upon our arrival, we met with acting U.S. Ambassador and Deputy Chief of Mission to Brazil, Phillip Chicola, a Cuban-American who came to the United States in 1961 and graduated from Florida Atlantic University. Mr. Chicola stated that, although Brazil views the United States as an ally, the Brazilian administration has made building relations with neighboring countries in the southern hemisphere its first priority. He said that Brazil is seeking to redress U.S. influence by strengthening ties with nontraditional trading partners such as India and China. Senator Sessions and I also asked Mr. Chicola about narcotics trafficking throughout South America. Mr. Chicola stated that, although Brazil is not a significant drug-producing country, Brazil does serve as a conduit for cocaine moving to Europe and Africa. Specifically, both Colombian and Bolivian drug smugglers attempt to transport cocaine over the Brazilian borders. Although Colombian drug smugglers have had some success in bringing narcotics across the border, the Amazon rain forest and various rivers provide natural boundaries against drug smuggling. As a result of these natural boundaries, drug smugglers have attempted to fly drugs out of Colombia and into Brazil. Mr. Chicola stated that the majority of drug smugglers now ship their cocaine through Venezuela as a result of Brazil's shootdown law, which authorizes the Brazilian Air Force to use lethal force in the interdiction of aircraft suspected of involvement in drug trafficking. Later during the trip we met with Under Secretary for South American Affairs Ministry for External Relations, Jose Eduardo Felicio. Mr. Felicio was an articulate, impressive man, who spent several years of his life working in New York City. One of the first questions we asked Mr. Felicio was how the United States can limit the destabilizing effect that President Chavez has been having on South America. Mr. Felicio stated that the Brazilian Government views Chavez as the legitimately elected President of Venezuela even though they do not approve of everything he says publicly. Mr. Felicio stated that, despite Chavez's harsh rhetoric against the United States, Brazil does not believe there is sufficient proof that Chavez is a disrupting force in South America. I also asked Mr. Felicio what steps the United Nations Security Counsel should take in regards to Iran's attempts to develop nuclear arms in violation of the nonproliferation treaty. Mr. Felicio stated that, while Iran should cooperate with requests made by the International Atomic Energy Association, Brazil does not believe that Iran is being treated fairly because there is a double standard against Iran. While certain countries like Israel, Pakistan, and India are permitted to develop nuclear programs in violation of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, Iran has been unfairly singled out. The next portion of the CODEL took us to Manaus, where we spoke with Mr. Francisco Ritta Bernardino, the owner of many hotels throughout the Amazon and noted author of several books dealing with the importance of the Amazon ecosystem. A lawyer and entrepreneur, Mr. Bernardino told us of his meeting with Jacques Cousteau, the famous diver and undersea explorer who documented life in the Amazon from December 1981 to November 1982. Mr. Bernardino stated that it was during this time period that Jacques Cousteau convinced him that the greatest threat to mankind was not nuclear war, but the destruction of nature. Cousteau believed that if the destruction of the Amazon was not halted, mankind would be sacrificing the future of their children and grandchildren. Soon after Mr. Bernardino's meeting with Mr. Cousteau, he set about the construction of the Ariau Amazon Towers. Mr. Bernardino stated that he built the hotel in the middle of the Amazon in order to help people become acquainted with the Amazon in a region untouched by people. The Ariau Amazon Towers are built upon seven wooden towers interconnected by raised walkways over portions of the Amazon River. These walkways connect the towers with various docks and paths that lead throughout the Amazon. During our meeting with Mr. Bernardino, we inquired about the origin of the Amazon River flow. Mr. Bernardino explained that the Amazon River is created at the junction of the Negro and Solimoes Rivers near Manaus. He stated that the water of the Negro River runs approximately 3,200 kilometers, originating from the various tributaries that spill out of the Andes Mountains of Colombia and Peru. The water of the Negro River is completely black, colored from the collection of minerals and organic materials that it collects from hundreds of tributaries that empty into it from the rock beds of the Andes. Mr. Bernardino explained that, although the Negro River is full of acid and poor in oxygen, it fertilizes the surrounding shores with its rich minerals. In contrast to the Negro River, Mr. Bernardino stated that the water of the Solimoes River is colored light blue and flows from the Brazilian- Peruvian border. The Solimoes River runs for about 1,600 kilometers, until it meets the black Negro waters where it merges to form the Amazon River in a floodplain about 80 kilometers wide. The Amazon River runs 5,904 kilometers in length; its basins widening during the rainy seasons to as much as 100 kilometers. Mr. Bernardino explained that approximately 1,100 tributaries empty their waters into the Amazon and that the Amazon average width ranges from 2 to 30 kilometers, until it reaches a width of 230 kilometers when it empties into the Atlantic Ocean. The flow of the Amazon river is so forceful that the waters of the Atlantic Ocean are pushed approximately 2 to 5 kilometers away from the shoreline of the Amazon basin by its free- flowing fresh water. We also met with the National Aeronautical Space Administration, NASA, Project Liaison to Large Scale Biosphere Atmosphere Experiment, Josefine Durazo, about the effects the deforestation of the Amazon is having on global warming. Ms. Durazo explained that the Large Scale Biosphere Atmosphere Experiment, LBA, is an international cooperative research program led by Brazil and dedicated to the study of International Geosphere-Biosphere studies regarding the deforestation of the Amazon. She further stated that she worked with the LBA-ECO, which is a subproject operating under the LBA, funded entirely by NASA. The LBA-ECO is dedicated to gaining an understanding of how the ecosystem of the Amazon functions as a system and what effects the deforestation of the Amazon are having on climate control. Ms. Durazo explained that NASA began funding the program in 1998 by constructing tower sites which measure carbon flux in various geographic areas within the Amazon. These towers, in conjunction with extensive support by Brazilian researchers, enable NASA to measure the flux of carbon levels during forest fires and lumbering projects. As a result of this research, NASA and LBA have discovered that current logging efforts in the Amazon cover an area nearly equal to that of the portions that have already been deforested. Ms. Durazo stated that by using these techniques, NASA and the LBA will soon be able to determine the effect that the continued logging of the Amazon will have on the level of carbon dioxide being emitted to the atmosphere. After our meeting with Ms. Durazo, I had my staff reach out to Michael Keller a physical scientist working at the International Institute of Tropical Forestry. According to Mr. Keller, carbon dioxide is responsible for the largest portion of the manmade greenhouse effect. Each year, there are eight gigatons, 1 billion tons, of carbon added to the atmospheric burden of carbon dioxide. Of those 8 gigatons, 1.6 result from land use change processes, such as the clearing of forest and savanna in the tropics. Mr. Keller estimates that .3 gigatons of the carbon emitted to the atmosphere occurs as a result of the deforestation of the Amazon. Accordingly, Mr. Keller and other experts believe that the deforestation of the Amazon is playing a significant role in the manmade greenhouse effect. NASA is continuing to study the data that they have collected in the Amazon. Senator Sessions and I arrived in the Dominican Republic on April 15, 2006, and met for a team briefing with Peter Reilly of the DEA, Andy Diaz of the FBI, Michael Garuckis of the State Department, Jeff Radgowski of the Coast Guard and Timothy Tubbs of the Department of Homeland Security regarding issues of drug trafficking and immigration. We were told at this briefing that the Dominican Republic's long border with Haiti, combined with its overstretched law enforcement agencies and geographic location in the Caribbean, make the country a prime location for drug traffickers. Although the Dominican Republic is not a major drug-producing country, it nonetheless acts as a transit point for cocaine and heroin bound for the United States from Colombia and Venezuela. The main trafficking points are by sea from Colombia, which lies just 360 nautical miles from the coast of the Dominican Republic. We were also informed at this briefing that there are approximately 1.6 million Dominicans residing in the United States. In 2005, U.S. immigration authorities repatriated 4,918 Dominicans. Most of those returned to the Dominican Republic had served 4 to 9 years in jail in the United States. After our country briefing, we traveled to see a training program run by the Hotel Association with assistance from USAID and the Peace Corp at La Romana Bayahibe Tourism Cluster, Romana Cluster. The Hotel Association is attempting to educate and train the local populace in order to make the Dominican Republic more attractive to tourists. The Romana Cluster is a community of homes built by USAID for displaced individuals on land purchased by the Hotel Association for displaced Dominicans. While there, we met with Lisette Gill, the executive director of the Romana Cluster, and Rosa Garza of the Peace Corps. Ms. Gill explained that the Romana Cluster was started in 2001 by USAID to train the local community in marketable skills so that the area would be more attractive to tourists. Ms. Gill stated that the Romana Cluster receives approximately $250,000 annually from the Hotel Association. Ms. Gill took us to a high school that was constructed by the Hotel Association for 120 students living in the Romana Cluster. Before the construction of this high school, we were told that Dominicans living in the area could not attend high school, as there was no public schooling available in the area. Later that evening, we met with the Foreign Minister for the Dominican Republic, Mr. Carlos Morales Troncoso. I told the Foreign Minister that I had spoken to President Uribe about the problem of the United States of getting guest workers to return to their native country after they had finished working, and I was interested to hear his thoughts on the subject. Mr. Troncoso stated that the Dominican Republic had just begun a guest worker program with Spain. The Dominican Republic guest worker program was a 2-year program whereby the government would keep a log of where the worker would be working in Spain and where they could find him. Mr. Toncoso explained that, so long as the worker performed well and returned to the Dominican Republic at the end of the working season, then it would be permissible for the worker to work in Spain the following year. He stated that if the worker does not come back, that worker would be barred from being eligible for any future participation in a guest worker program. Mr. Troncoso admitted that there is always the problem of some guest workers not wanting to return to the Dominican Republic, but nonetheless, the current system seems to be working well. Mr. Troncoso stated that, in 2005, Dominican Republic citizens working in the United States sent approximately $2.8 billion back to their families in the Dominican Republic. Senator Sessions and I also had the opportunity to meet with President Leonel Fernandez Reyna. President Reyna was a very impressive man who was born in Santo Domingo in 1953 and moved to New York City in 1956 where he attended elementary and junior high school. President Reyna returned to the Dominican Republic in 1969 and served as President from 1996-2000 but was not permitted to run again as a result of term limits. In 2003, however, the Dominican Republic constitution was changed, permitting President Reyna to become President for a second time in 2004. President Reyna spoke to us about the border problems that the Dominican Republic was having with illegal Haitian immigrants entering the Dominican Republic. President Reyna explained that, while the Dominican Republic's unemployment rate was 17.4 percent, Haiti's was approximately 50 percent. As a result of this, the Dominican Republic must constantly contend with Haitian citizens coming across the border looking for work. President Reyna stated that it was imperative for the Dominican Republic to encourage the expansion of democratic institutions in Haiti, in the hope that this would lead to political stability. We returned to Washington on April 16 to use the second week of the recess to work on the immigration bill.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak about the extraordinary career of Federal Judge Edward R. Becker who was appointed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 1970, was elevated to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1982, was Chief Judge of the Circuit Court from February 1998 until May 2003, and continues to serve as a Senior Judge. In addition to his 35-plus years on the Federal bench, he also has the distinction of being the 101st United States Senator. Some, who have laid claim to the position of 101st Senator, have enhanced their status. To identify Judge Becker as the 101st Senator is to enhance the status of the United States Senate. Judge Becker became a member of the Senate's family by his negotiating, cajoling, and writing most of Senate Bill 852 dealing with asbestos reform. At my request, he convened the so-called stakeholders--that is, the manufacturers, labor--AFL-CIO, insurers and trial lawyers--in his Philadelphia chambers for 2 days in August 2003 to preside over discussions leading to the structuring of the asbestos reform bill. Thereafter, on about 50 occasions, frequently with my being present, he continued to preside over negotiations with stakeholders in meetings attended by 20 to 50 interested parties. Beyond that, he met with numerous individual Senators, representatives of the stakeholders on dozens of occasions, and continuously counseled Judiciary Committee staff for almost 3 years. When the legislation was in committee and on the Senate floor, Judge Becker was at my side continuously counseling on the next steps to be taken to promote the bill's passage. He undertook this arduous extra assignment in addition to his judicial duties notwithstanding the fact that he was undergoing treatment for prostate cancer. When told of Judge Becker's contribution to this important legislation, President George Bush inscribed a tribute to Judge Becker on the face of Senate Bill 852 designating it as the ``Becker Bill''. I first met Ed Becker in the fall of 1950 when we rode the Frankford elevated train, public transportation, together for about an hour each morning from Northeast Philadelphia to the University of Pennsylvania. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Penn in 1954 and, again with academic distinction, from the Yale Law School in 1957, which we again attended together. We were colleagues in a celebrated debate against the Norfolk Massachusetts State Prison team in 1952 before approximately 800 inmates, truly a captive audience. The prison team took the affirmative on the subject: Resolved that the Communist Party should be outlawed. Editors from the then-five Boston newspapers voted 4 to 1 that the prisoners won the debate. Following graduation from law school, he had a distinguished law practice in the partnership of Becker, Becker and Fryman, his father and brother-in-law. He was active in politics, becoming a Republican committeeman, as his father was before him. He worked the rowhouses in Northeast Philadelphia going door to door seeking new registrations and support for his Party. He undertook kamikaze candidacies for State Senate and City Council on the Republican ticket in Philadelphia, a city totally dominated by Democrats. He represented the Republican Party as counsel in complex court proceedings. He was a lawyer's lawyer, just as he later became a judge's judge. I turned to him for counseling and representation when the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on three occasions in 1967 ruled on my status a to be a candidate for mayor while continuing to serve as district attorney. The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter prohibited any city officer from being a candidate for any other office. With his assistance, we won all three cases. If I had followed his political advice as well as his legal advice, I probably would have been elected mayor; but who knows what would have happened after that. When appointed to the Federal Bench in 1970 at the age of 37, he merited the position both in terms of exceptional competency and extraordinary contribution to his party. No one in my experience has merited the appointment to the Federal bench more than Judge Becker on both counts. Judge Becker and I have been good friends, really best friends, in the intervening years. Our wives were school-girl classmates. Joan Levy, now Specter, sat next to Flora Liman, now Becker in alphabetical order in Olney High School. As Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, he brought many innovations. In 2002, he was the recipient of the coveted Edward J. Devitt Distinguished Service to Justice Award with his selection as the most distinguished Article III Judge out of 862 then sitting ``whose career has been exemplary, measured by their significant contributions to the administration of justice, the advancement of the rule of law, and the improvement of society as a whole.'' He brought to the bench a prodigious work ethic. He is never without a stack of briefs which he reads whenever he has a moment to spare. At Philadelphia Eagles' football games, he would read those briefs during halftime preferring them to the dancing cheerleaders. He would even sneak a peak--I mean a peak at the briefs--during the incessant timeouts for the endless commercials. Among his landmark decisions are three opinions adopted by the Supreme Court on cutting-edge issues. He pioneered new law on the reliability of scientific evidence which formed the basis for Justice Blackmun's decision in 1993 in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Similarly, he originated the rationale on class action certification adopted by Judge Ginsburg in 1995 in Georgine v. Amchem Products. When he disagreed with seven other Circuit Courts of Appeals, the Supreme Court followed his judgment on ERISA Standards of Review in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch. He was consistently recognized by the University of Chicago Law Review as being among the three Circuit Judges most often cited by the Supreme Court. His 2,000 judicial opinions, filling many volumes on law library shelves, are legendary--long, thorough, analytical with many footnotes. His masterful handling of Japanese electronics case produced four opinions exceeding 2,000 pages having ruled three times on complex evidentiary issues before granting summary judgment in a highly unusual case. His versatility was demonstrated when he once wrote an opinion in rhyme. When he is not up to going to the courthouse these days, he participates by telephone on the oral arguments and the conferences where the three judge panel discuss the cases. Among his many accomplishments is his talent to play by ear any song known in the American repertoire. The Supreme Court of the United States has chosen him as the Court's pianist for their periodic sing- alongs. Rivaling his attributes as a jurist, Justice David Souter wrote in May 2001 in a University of Pennsylvania Law Review ``Tribute to the Honorable Edward R. Becker'': ``I've never heard anyone call for a tune the Judge didn't know; never have I seen him read a sheet of music.'' Edward R. Becker is truly the personification of the Renaissance man. Recently, he undertook a new challenge by testifying and organizing a panel of judges to appear before the Judiciary Committee in support of the nomination of Third Circuit Judge Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. He did so out of conviction that Judge Alito was being unfairly criticized. Based on working with him for over 15 years, he advised the Judiciary Committee that after oral arguments, when the three panel judges would retire to deliberate, Judge Alito had an open mind, no agenda and was a superb jurist. That panel of current and former Third Circuit judges, led by Judge Becker, provided important testimony for the Judiciary Committee, leading to Judge Alito's confirmation. For a man with such achievements, Judge Becker remains the model of modesty and humility. He continues to live in an unpretentious house in a working-class neighborhood in Northeast Philadelphia where he moved with his parents when he was 3. Even as the Chief Judge of the Circuit, he continued to ride public transportation to the Federal Courthouse, surprising fellow riders to see a man of his prominence sitting among them. He is the quintessential family man, with an accomplished wife, three professional children and four adorable grandchildren. When his friends enjoy a variety of cocktails, his favorite drink continues to be ``Schuylkill punch,'' which translates into Philadelphia tap water. When I was diagnosed with Hodgkin's last year, I followed his advice on how to cope. He was an inspiration and model to me. Watching close friends suffer and die from cancer, and from my own experience with Hodgkin's, all of that has reinforced my determination to work to secure sufficient funding for the National Institutes of Health to conquer cancer and other maladies. In 1970, President Nixon declared war against cancer. If the United States had approached that war with the same intensity we do other wars, the cure for cancer would have been found long ago. Two years ago I saw my chief of staff, Carey Lackman, a beautiful young woman of 48, die from breast cancer. A few months later, I saw the same fate for Paula Kline, the wife of my son's law partner. Visiting Judge Becker at his home last Saturday, I saw a large stack of briefs on his desk and observed him carrying on his judicial duties from his living room with determination and gusto, notwithstanding his prostate cancer. From my own experience with Hodgkin's, I know cancer can be beaten. From watching Judge Becker, I have seen him beat cancer for more than 3 years. My statement today has the dual purpose, No. 1, of recognizing and acknowledging the public service and contributions of a truly great American, and, No. 2, urging my Senate colleagues who have come to know, admire, and respect Judge Becker to support adequate funding to win the war against cancer. I thank the Chair. In the absence of any Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, may I express my regret that I don't have eyes in the back of my head.

Mr. SPECTER. The distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, is standing right behind me. I should have felt the radiation of his powerful personality. I yield to my distinguished colleague.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Before the distinguished ranking member, Senator Leahy, leaves the floor, I would like his attention for a minute. He has to leave because he has other commitments. First, I congratulate him on the work he has done on this bill. I congratulate him on the work he has done in his 31 years in the Senate generally, but especially in the last 15 months, when he and I have worked together on the Judiciary Committee. I wanted to say this while he was still on the floor. As chairman, I am committed to make this immigration bill the No. 1 priority of the Judiciary Committee. When we are unable to complete action on this bill today, as it now appears, I want everyone to know when we come back after the recess, this is our No. 1 priority. We succeeded in the Judiciary Committee, where everybody thought we would fail. Senator Kennedy was on the committee and Senator Durbin was on the committee. I mention them because they are in the Chamber. We were given an impossible deadline, but we met it. We met it by having a marathon markup on a Monday, which is unheard of around here-- especially a Monday after a recess. We did it by voting 57 times. We had in that marathon markup 14 rollcall votes and 43 voice votes. We had a lot of tough votes, but we finished the bill and we reported it to the Senate. We are going to go back to work on this bill because if the full Senate cannot find the answer, then the Judiciary Committee is going to find the answer. We are going to return to the floor of the Senate a bill which I believe the Senate will find acceptable, and we will set forth procedures that I think the full Senate will find acceptable. That is the commitment.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished ranking member. Addressing the situation generally as to what we face now on the immigration bill, I think it is most unfortunate, really unacceptable, that the compromise arrangement has fallen through. I believe this legislation is vital for America's interests, vital for our national security interests, vital for our economic interests, and vital for our humanitarian interests. The agreement has been decimated, has fallen through, because of partisan politics. Regrettably, partisan politics plays too large a role on both sides of the aisle, with Democrats and Republicans, and there is more concern about political advantage in this situation--as it is in many situations--than there is on public policy and the public welfare. The procedures for not allowing tough votes, regrettably--that practice has been undertaken by both Democrats and Republicans. I have been in the Senate for 25 years now, and this has been a repeated practice which I have noted at least from the past decade and a half. It has occurred even beyond that period of time. Both the Democratic and Republican leaders--minority leaders, but mostly leaders--have been in the position to do what is called ``fill the tree.'' Senate procedures are arcane and complicated. I would not begin to try to explain them now. But the conclusion is that you can use the rules to avoid having votes come up, if you want to do it. It is called filling the tree. Republicans on this immigration bill have been stymied from offering amendments. But at the same time, on other bills, on prior days, Democrats had been stymied from offering amendments. So it is a matter of bipartisan blame. But what is happening is that the public interests are being damaged. A very similar situation occurred last year on the filibusters. The Democrats filibustered President Bush's judicial nominees in retaliation for tactics employed by Republicans to stymie President Clinton's nominees from having votes, from coming out of committee or, once out of committee, from having votes on the Senate floor. That impasse, that confrontation on judges, almost threatened to destroy a very vital part of the institution of the Senate, and that is the right of unlimited debate. Where the filibusters were used, in my view, inappropriately, consideration was given to changing the rules of the Senate to change the number of Senators necessary to cut off debate from 60, which is the current rule, to 51. Fortunately, we were able to avoid that confrontation. Now as I said to the distinguished minority leader in a private conversation, that reason is going to have to prevail, and Democrats and Republicans in the Senate are going to have to come together and stop this reprehensible practice of denying votes. We are sent here to vote. When a bill comes to the floor, as we reported the immigration bill out of committee, other Members are entitled to offer amendments to see if they can persuade 51 Senators to vote their way or, if cloture is necessary, to cut off debate, to see if they can get 60 Senators to vote their way, and then to change a committee bill. The committee doesn't speak for the Senate. The committee makes a recommendation. The Senate must speak for itself, in accordance with our procedures, with 51 votes to pass amendments or a bill, or 60 votes if it involves cutting off debate. But it is totally an unacceptable practice to stymie a bill by refusing to give votes. That is what has happened here. In the negotiations between Senator Frist and Senator Reid yesterday, Senator Reid said the maximum number of votes that would be permitted was three. I don't think he was concrete on three, but he wasn't going to go much beyond three--perhaps, as a suggestion was made, there might be a compromise for six. But on the Republican side, Senators wanted to offer a minimum of 20 amendments. An arrangement could not be agreed upon and, obviously, Senator Frist could not accept three votes, or even six votes. The position was taken to avoid having Democratic Senators take tough votes. In committee, Republicans and Democrats took tough votes--57 votes, with 14 rollcall votes, during a marathon session on that Monday on the markup. It is an open secret that there are many people who do not want to have an immigration bill. I think it is a fair comment--although subject to being refuted--that there is advantage for the Democrats to have only the bill of the House of Representatives before the public, which provides only for border security, and which doesn't take care of the 11 million undocumented aliens. That bill has provoked massive rallies--500,000 people in Los Angeles, 20,000 people reportedly in Phoenix, and more rallies are coming. The view is--and I think it is accurate--that it is very harmful to the Republican Party to have the Hispanics in America angry with the Republican position, as taken by the House of Representatives, to have only border security and not have a program to accommodate the 11 million undocumented aliens. The Senate bill, of course, directs our attention to that bill, and the Judiciary Committee bill has a very rational, humanitarian, sensible approach--not amnesty, because there is not forgiveness, because these undocumented aliens have to pay a fine, have to pay back taxes, have to learn English, have to work for 6 years; they have to undertake many conditions in order to be on the citizenship track. With refinements put in by the Judiciary Committee, they are at the end of the line. Then, in order to achieve an accommodation, changes were made on suggestions by Senator Hagel and Senator Martinez to modify that proposal, treating those who have been in the country more than 5 years differently from those who have been here less than 5 years. Frankly, I preferred the Judiciary Committee bill; I preferred our bill without amendments. But people have a right to make amendments. I was prepared to accept the compromise that brought into play the ideas of Senators Hagel and Martinez so we would have a bill. The issue that a legislator faces is not whether it is a bill he would prefer but whether the bill is better than the current system. In my mind, there is no doubt that had we moved forward with the compromise that was struck yesterday, it would be a vast improvement over the current system. It would secure the borders. It would provide a rational way to handle the 11 million undocumented aliens. It would provide a rational way to handle the guest worker situation. And it should have gone forward. It has not gone forward because there is political advantage for the Democrats not to have an immigration bill, not to take tough votes, to have the opprobrium of the House bill, which is objected to by the Hispanic population, illustrated by the massive rallies, to have that as the Republican position. Contrasted with what would have happened had the Senate produced a bill which was bipartisan, which was sponsored by Republicans, then the opprobrium, the edge would have been taken from the House bill. So we are going to leave here, by all indications, without having completed action on the immigration bill or without having come to a point where we would have a definitive list of amendments, to have an agreement that on our return from the recess we could, in short order, finish the bill. That is totally unacceptable. Again, I emphasize that the partisanship exists on both sides of the aisle. When I say the Democrats are wrong on this bill to avoid hard votes, I say simultaneously that we Republicans have been wrong in the past to deny Democrats votes on amendments which they wanted to offer. The distinction has been made by some of my colleagues--and I think it is accurate--that they have been denied votes in most situations on matters where they are nongermane to the bill. Senator Reid mentioned stem cells, and I agree, we ought to resolve the stem cell issue. I don't know if there was ever a stem cell vote offered in a way which would be nongermane, but we ought not take up an issue such as stem cells on the Transportation bill, for example. There have been amendments offered by Democrats which were germane. They wanted to offer amendments which were germane, which have been denied. It is my hope that we can come together. I have already talked with the distinguished Democratic leader this morning saying that we ought to come to some agreement that neither side will use the technicalities at our disposal to deny the other side votes. The Democratic leader has been very lavish in praise in supporting the work Senator Leahy and I have done. That spirit of accommodation ought to be carried forward to the floor of the Senate when we consider matters such as this immigration bill. For the future, it is my hope that we will come together and stop this practice of denying votes to the other side. Again, my commitment is to make this immigration bill the first priority item for the Judiciary Committee when we return after the Easter recess because America needs immigration legislation reform. I inquire as to how much time our side has remaining?

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, how much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I might say to my colleagues who would like some time, we have 25 minutes. They are invited to come to the floor and speak. I think we will have time to extend to a number of Members. I am pleased to note we have made some significant progress, although we do not have the bill in a position yet where we know precisely where we are heading, but it now appears we will be successful with the addition of the ideas which have been injected into the process by Senator Hagel and Senator Martinez. We will be coming up on a cloture vote on the committee bill shortly. I would very much like to see the committee bill move forward, but I do not think it is fair to have cloture on the committee bill without giving Senators an opportunity to offer amendments. We have been on this measure since last Wednesday, and we have had very few amendments offered. The Senators--principally Republican Senators--who have come to the floor to offer amendments have been prevented from doing so by parliamentary rules. I acknowledge that those who have stopped us from offering amendments are operating within the rules, but I do not think within the spirit of the Senate, which is to have a committee bill, have it open for amendments, have the amendments debated, and have the amendments voted on--that is the way the Senate works, but that has not been the result here. Had that been the case, had Senators been permitted to offer their amendments in due course and have an opportunity to follow the customary procedure, then I would have been an advocate of cloture to move the process along. But that has not been the case. Unusual as it may seem for the chairman of the committee bill to oppose cloture on that bill, that is the position I am taking because there has not been an opportunity to vote on amendments. We have, in any event, progressed beyond this point so that we now have another bill which has been committed to the committee, and we are having a cloture vote in due course scheduled for tomorrow. Perhaps that cloture vote could occur today; I don't know. But if we can see where we are heading, it would obviously be desirable to move the process along as promptly as possible. The ideas advanced by Senator Hagel and Senator Martinez make changes in the committee bill by having a distinction between those who have been here for more than 5 years, where they will work for 6 years and be entitled to a green card, contrasted with those who have been here for less than 5 years but more than 2 years from the date of January 7, 2004, which is the date established by the date President Bush made a major speech on advancing ideas on immigration reform. Those who have been in the country prior to January 7, 2004, but for less than 5 years, will be on a slightly different track, where they can be here for 6 years and have 1-year extensions, and their ability for green cards will depend upon the cap not having been reached so that they are at the end of the line, in any event, from those who have had their applications pending. Some of the nurse applications for visas from the Philippines go back to 1983, and one of the additions made in the committee mark was to see to it that those 11 million undocumented aliens would not come ahead of people who have been following the law and who have been in line. There is another modification on the temporary workers--if the green cards are reduced from 400,000 to 325,000, with an effort being made not to take away jobs from Americans, to limit that number to try to reflect the need for immigrant workers but to reduce it to that extent. We are still working on some refinements so that if the unemployment rate is high in certain cities, the number of green cards may be reduced there; again, so that employers cannot bring in immigrant workers where American workers are involved. We have, obviously, a very complicated system, but the work has been prodigious. There have been quite a number of Democrats who have met with quite a number of Republicans. My own view has been to try to be flexible. If I had my choice, I would have the original chairman's mark, the mark that I put down as chairman. But that was modified significantly in the committee, taking up other provisions of the McCain-Kennedy bill, and other amendments which were offered. As chairman, I tried to structure an accommodation among all of the bills: the Hagel bill, the McCain-Kennedy bill, the Kyl-Cornyn bill. We came very close in the markup a week ago Monday to an accommodation somewhat similar to what we have reached now, but we couldn't make it in committee, so we have come forward with the committee bill. If I had my choice, to repeat, I would want the chairman's mark. My second choice is the committee bill. I am not wildly enthusiastic about the changes made in Hagel-Martinez. But where we are with the changes made by Senator Hagel and Senator Martinez is better than where we are now; it is better than no bill. What we are dealing with here, as we inevitably and invariably do on legislation, is finding the best compromise we can pass. The issue is whether that bill is better than no bill. I think, for me, that bill is decisively better than no bill.

Mr. SPECTER. I will.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, in the absence of any other Republican Senator who seeks time to speak on the pending issue, I yield to myself 5 minutes as in morning business to talk about two Judiciary Committee bills.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, how much more time remains on our side?

Mr. SPECTER. I reserve the remainder of the time and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I respond to the distinguished Senator from Idaho in the affirmative. It is intact. The reduction in green cards and visas from 400,000 to 325,000 may impact on that to some extent. But the amendment which was offered by Senator Feinstein, who is on the committee and on which you were a collaborator--and I again congratulate you on that, as I did in committee when we accepted the amendment--is intact. It is a very important amendment, worked out very carefully. You have been working on this for years--you can say how many years--but it has been a very long haul.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, how much time remains on this side?

Mr. SPECTER. Again, I invite my colleagues if they wish to comment to come to the floor. There is time. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I am sending to the desk today legislation captioned as the ``Oil and Gas Industry Antitrust Act of 2006,'' legislation on behalf of myself and Senator DeWine, Senator Kohl, Senator Leahy, Senator Feinstein and Senator Durbin. The Judiciary Committee has held hearings on the escalating price of gasoline, which has risen some 25 percent in the past year, from $1.85 per gallon nationally in January of 2005 to $2.38 a gallon early this year. We have seen rapid consolidation in the oil and gas industry, with many mergers which are specified in the written statement I will have included in the Record and enormous profits characterized by the profits reported by ExxonMobil, which earned over $36 billion in 2005, the largest corporate profit in U.S. history. The legislation we are introducing will do a number of things. First, it will eliminate the judge-made doctrines that prevent OPEC's members from being sued for violating the antitrust laws. There is no doubt that they take joint action when deciding how much oil to sell, actions would normally constitute unlawful price fixing. This legislation would make them subject to our antitrust laws. With fewer players in the industry, anticompetitive acts, including the withholding of supply and information sharing, become easier. The bill would prohibit oil and gas companies from diverting, exporting, or refusing to sell existing supplies with the specific intention of raising prices. The bill also requires the FTC and the Attorney General to consider whether future oil and gas mergers should receive closer scrutiny. It requires the GAO to evaluate whether the divestitures required by the antitrust agencies for past mergers were adequate to preserve competition. There is significant evidence that the concentration in the industry has been a contributing factor to increasing gasoline and oil prices. There are other factors, but it is not explained simply by the increase in the cost of crude oil. This bill takes a firm stand to protect the American consumer from enormous increases in gasoline prices and in oil prices--something very serious when we have insufficient funds in LIHEAP to take care of people who are unable to pay for the increasing costs of heating oil. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my prepared statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I am sending to the desk today legislation captioned as the ``Oil and Gas Industry Antitrust Act of 2006,'' legislation on behalf of myself and Senator DeWine, Senator Kohl, Senator Leahy, Senator Feinstein and Senator Durbin. The Judiciary Committee has held hearings on the escalating price of gasoline, which has risen some 25 percent in the past year, from $1.85 per gallon nationally in January of 2005 to $2.38 a gallon early this year. We have seen rapid consolidation in the oil and gas industry, with many mergers which are specified in the written statement I will have included in the Record and enormous profits characterized by the profits reported by ExxonMobil, which earned over $36 billion in 2005, the largest corporate profit in U.S. history. The legislation we are introducing will do a number of things. First, it will eliminate the judge-made doctrines that prevent OPEC's members from being sued for violating the antitrust laws. There is no doubt that they take joint action when deciding how much oil to sell, actions would normally constitute unlawful price fixing. This legislation would make them subject to our antitrust laws. With fewer players in the industry, anticompetitive acts, including the withholding of supply and information sharing, become easier. The bill would prohibit oil and gas companies from diverting, exporting, or refusing to sell existing supplies with the specific intention of raising prices. The bill also requires the FTC and the Attorney General to consider whether future oil and gas mergers should receive closer scrutiny. It requires the GAO to evaluate whether the divestitures required by the antitrust agencies for past mergers were adequate to preserve competition. There is significant evidence that the concentration in the industry has been a contributing factor to increasing gasoline and oil prices. There are other factors, but it is not explained simply by the increase in the cost of crude oil. This bill takes a firm stand to protect the American consumer from enormous increases in gasoline prices and in oil prices--something very serious when we have insufficient funds in LIHEAP to take care of people who are unable to pay for the increasing costs of heating oil. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my prepared statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I further introduce the reauthorization for the Office of National Drug Control Policy Act of 2006. Senators Hatch, Biden, and Grassley have worked with me on this issue. This is the office to establish our drug policy. Since 2001, according to the ONDCP--the Office of National Drug Control Policy--the combined use of illicit drugs by 8th, 10th, and 12th graders has decreased by some 19 percent. We have seen a serious problem with methamphetamine. This agency is very important to carry out the administration's policy to try to reduce drug usage. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my prepared statement be printed in the Record. Introductory Statement--``Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006'' Mr. President, to reiterate I seek recognition today to introduce the ``Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006'' and ask for the support of my colleagues for this important legislation concerning the war on illegal drugs. This bill re-authorizes the Office of National Drug Control Policy--(``ONDCP'')--the Administration's office responsible for establishing policy and objectives to reduce illicit drug use, manufacturing, and trafficking, drug-related crime and violence, and drug-related health consequences. Senators Biden, Hatch and Grassley have worked diligently with me in crafting this bill to provide authorization for ONDCP and its programs, and maintain a high level of Congressional oversight. I appreciate their consistent leadership. Since 2001, according to ONDCP, the combined use of illicit drugs by 8th, 10th, and 12th graders has decreased 19 percent. This amounts to roughly 700,000 students who are not using drugs. ONDCP has prepared a National Drug Control Strategy that seeks to build on this progress and attain the President's goal of a 25 percent reduction in 5 years. I want to see the President's 25 percent reduction goal become a reality, and this bill will assist the Administration meet this objective. Drug use and abuse--particularly among our youth--has a profoundly negative impact that spreads among our society like ripples made in water. Drug use leads to increased crime and violence, lowers educational standards, and has a destructive impact on the family unit. We need to take affirmative steps to provide the Executive Branch with the tools it needs to confront the problem of drugs and the negative consequences that follow from their abuse. This bill seeks to do just that. We have seen over the last few years an epidemic involving the abuse of methamphetamine--a highly addictive drug that has been particularly damaging to our youth. This is a drug that can be cooked in low-tech labs with ingredients that can be purchased at most convenience stores. As a result, we included in the USA Patriot Act--which was recently signed into law--provisions that: (1) restrict the sale and distribution of chemical ingredients that make methamphetamine; (2 ) provides critical resources to state and local law enforcement; and (3) enhances international law enforcement of methamphetamine trafficking. Congress affirmatively responded to this problem and acted by passing the Combat Meth Act. We seek to continue these efforts with this legislation. Once again, the President's 2007 budget seeks to shift funding of High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA's) from ONDCP to the Department of Justice as a separate entity within the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force-- (OCDETF). The HIDTA program was created by Congress to exist within ONDCP, and has successfully grown from 5 HIDTA's in 1990 to 28 HIDTA's that currently exist across the United States. HIDTA's enhance and coordinate drug control efforts among local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, and provides agencies with equipment, technology, and additional resources to combat drug trafficking and their harmful consequences in critical regions of the United States. This bill keeps the HIDTA program within ONDCP where Congress intended it to remain. I am hopeful the provisions in this bill meet the goals set by the President and reduce the overall use and abuse of illegal drugs in our country.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I further introduce the reauthorization for the Office of National Drug Control Policy Act of 2006. Senators Hatch, Biden, and Grassley have worked with me on this issue. This is the office to establish our drug policy. Since 2001, according to the ONDCP--the Office of National Drug Control Policy--the combined use of illicit drugs by 8th, 10th, and 12th graders has decreased by some 19 percent. We have seen a serious problem with methamphetamine. This agency is very important to carry out the administration's policy to try to reduce drug usage. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my prepared statement be printed in the Record. Introductory Statement--``Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006'' Mr. President, to reiterate I seek recognition today to introduce the ``Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006'' and ask for the support of my colleagues for this important legislation concerning the war on illegal drugs. This bill re-authorizes the Office of National Drug Control Policy--(``ONDCP'')--the Administration's office responsible for establishing policy and objectives to reduce illicit drug use, manufacturing, and trafficking, drug-related crime and violence, and drug-related health consequences. Senators Biden, Hatch and Grassley have worked diligently with me in crafting this bill to provide authorization for ONDCP and its programs, and maintain a high level of Congressional oversight. I appreciate their consistent leadership. Since 2001, according to ONDCP, the combined use of illicit drugs by 8th, 10th, and 12th graders has decreased 19 percent. This amounts to roughly 700,000 students who are not using drugs. ONDCP has prepared a National Drug Control Strategy that seeks to build on this progress and attain the President's goal of a 25 percent reduction in 5 years. I want to see the President's 25 percent reduction goal become a reality, and this bill will assist the Administration meet this objective. Drug use and abuse--particularly among our youth--has a profoundly negative impact that spreads among our society like ripples made in water. Drug use leads to increased crime and violence, lowers educational standards, and has a destructive impact on the family unit. We need to take affirmative steps to provide the Executive Branch with the tools it needs to confront the problem of drugs and the negative consequences that follow from their abuse. This bill seeks to do just that. We have seen over the last few years an epidemic involving the abuse of methamphetamine--a highly addictive drug that has been particularly damaging to our youth. This is a drug that can be cooked in low-tech labs with ingredients that can be purchased at most convenience stores. As a result, we included in the USA Patriot Act--which was recently signed into law--provisions that: (1) restrict the sale and distribution of chemical ingredients that make methamphetamine; (2 ) provides critical resources to state and local law enforcement; and (3) enhances international law enforcement of methamphetamine trafficking. Congress affirmatively responded to this problem and acted by passing the Combat Meth Act. We seek to continue these efforts with this legislation. Once again, the President's 2007 budget seeks to shift funding of High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA's) from ONDCP to the Department of Justice as a separate entity within the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force-- (OCDETF). The HIDTA program was created by Congress to exist within ONDCP, and has successfully grown from 5 HIDTA's in 1990 to 28 HIDTA's that currently exist across the United States. HIDTA's enhance and coordinate drug control efforts among local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, and provides agencies with equipment, technology, and additional resources to combat drug trafficking and their harmful consequences in critical regions of the United States. This bill keeps the HIDTA program within ONDCP where Congress intended it to remain. I am hopeful the provisions in this bill meet the goals set by the President and reduce the overall use and abuse of illegal drugs in our country.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. The ones agreed to are these, and we cannot proceed until the pending amendment is set aside: Mikulski-Warner, 3217; Collins, 3211; Dorgan-Burns, 3223; and Isakson, 3203. But we cannot take them up, as noted, unless we have consent to set aside a pending amendment.

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, will the distinguished majority leader yield for a question?