[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 621-623]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          CASTING 10,000 VOTES

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I come to the point where no other 
Senator is seeking recognition, and we are through expediting the work 
of the clerks, so I am going to make a statement reflecting on my 
10,000th vote.
  The circumstances are somewhat unusual. I cast the vote and expected 
to depart the Chamber, but I found my distinguished colleague, Senator 
Casey, prepared to make some comments about my 10,000th vote. He could 
not make those comments for about an hour because the train was late 
and some Senators hadn't arrived and the vote was kept open. So a very 
unusual situation for me personally. I had nothing to do but to sit and 
think, and I was reflecting upon the 10,000 votes. That is what I am 
going to talk about now.
  I would not expect the Senator from Illinois to stay to listen to 
this because it might delay his arrival at the gym, which is very early 
tomorrow morning. I will be there at about 6:30 a.m. I don't know how 
long he will have been there, but for quite awhile. I thank Senator 
Durbin once again for his kind remarks.
  The occasion of reflecting on 10,000 votes in the Senate is something 
I have been thinking about for the past hour plus, as we awaited 
Senators to arrive to a vote, and then having yielded to two other 
Senators. I thought about why I got into public life, why I decided to 
run for office, and that is hard to say. But I believe it was at the 
inspiration of my parents.
  My story is a common one: immigrant parents, father served in World 
War I, was wounded in action in the Argonne Forest, carried shrapnel in 
his legs until the day he died, and was one of the veterans who was 
promised a $500 bonus. The government reneged on the promise--did not 
pay the veterans a bonus--as the government reneges on so many promises 
to the veterans. So there was a famous march on Washington during the 
Hoover administration when I was a child.
  President Hoover called out the Army, and they fired on veterans and 
killed veterans--one of the blackest days in American history. I think 
that event, as a young child, was emblazoned in my mind. I saw the deep 
anguish of my father, and mother too. This was during the Depression.
  My father had always had a very deep concern about government because 
he lived under the tyranny of the czar. The czar wanted to send him to 
Siberia when he was 18 years old, in 1911, when he emigrated to the 
United States. I think that experience motivated me to want to go into 
public life.
  I had always had a very deep concern about civil liberties, as a 
member of a minority group myself, to be able to deal with that issue 
in a governmental capacity. The 10,000 votes have come and gone in a 
hurry, and I was reflecting on the Reagan years. I was elected in 1980, 
the same day President Reagan was elected. There are many highlights of 
the tenure during his 8 years, but I think especially about September 
17, 1987. That is an easy date to remember because it marked the 200th 
anniversary of the signing of the Constitution of the United States.
  To commemorate the 200th anniversary there was a ceremony in 
Philadelphia, and President Reagan went to Philadelphia to participate 
in the ceremony. He invited me to go with him. He invited Senator Heinz 
as well, but Senator Heinz had other commitments that day and did not 
go.
  It was a fascinating experience to travel alone with the President, 
to talk to him on Air Force One and in the Presidential limousine. When 
we arrived at Independence Hall, they had a great wheel, and the wheel 
started with George Washington, the first President, and then John 
Adams, and all the way around until it came to Ronald Reagan right next 
to George Washington. He and I talked about the drama he experienced on 
the wheel right next to President Washington.
  On that particular week, we had the confirmation hearings of Judge 
Bork for the Supreme Court of the United States. On September 17, when 
I traveled to Philadelphia with the President, it was a Thursday, and I 
missed my opportunity to question Judge Bork. I got that opportunity on 
Saturday morning. There were only a few people there, and I had an 
opportunity to question Judge Bork for an hour and a half and 
ultimately played a key role in the rejection of the nomination of 
Judge Bork, who believed in original intent and had a very different 
view of the Constitution. He did not believe in due process of law. 
That was not part of the Constitution. And he disagreed with the 
incorporation of the 10 amendments to the due process clause to apply 
to the States. That was a momentous Supreme Court hearing.
  During the years of President George H.W. Bush, there were many 
matters of note. One that stands out was the affirmation proceeding as 
to Justice Souter. When Justice Souter was up for confirmation, I 
participated in that as a member of the Judiciary Committee, as I had 
participated in the confirmation hearing of Judge Bork. The pro-choice 
groups were apprehensive about Judge Souter becoming Justice Souter. I 
examined his record very carefully and thought that he would read the 
precedents of Roe v. Wade in a favorable light and supported his 
confirmation. Then he became a stalwart for a woman's right to choose 
and a stalwart for constitutional principles involving civil rights and 
individual freedom.
  During the years with President Clinton, I chaired the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human Services and Education, and at 
that time had an opportunity to take the lead in increasing education 
funding very substantially. Pell grants were raised very materially. 
They had been at $2,400, and the committee then moved them up, and now 
they are in excess of $5,000.
  I also took the lead in helping the working men and women through 
funding for the Department of Labor and for the National Labor 
Relations Board and for mine safety, OSHA, and MENSHA.
  Then on the funding for health, as has already been noted, I took the 
lead with the concurrence of Senator Harkin, who was then minority 
ranking member, to increase funding for the National Institutes of 
Health from $12 billion to $30 billion. During the decade I chaired the 
committee, that enormously increased the availability of grants. Some 
years as much as $3.5 billion was added to the funding of the National 
Institutes of Health. Then when the stimulus package came up, I offered 
the amendment and led the battle to add an additional $10 billion. NIH 
had slipped back because of across-the-board cuts and failure to have 
cost-of-living adjustments, but the $10 billion in the stimulus package 
has provided 15,000 grants and has stimulated the interest in a whole 
generation of sciences.
  Senator Menendez commented a few moments ago--in talking about my 
10,000 votes--how those research grants have led to enormous savings 
and in the prolonging of lives and saving of lives on many strains of 
cancer and with enormous strides being made in research into heart 
disease and autism and Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.
  During the administration of George W. Bush, again there were many 
momentous events. To mention one, because time is running, I led the 
fight for embryonic stem cell research, the Specter-Harkin bill, to use 
Federal funds to use stem cells, which had enormous potential for 
curing the maladies of the world--a veritable fountain of youth--by 
injecting stem cells into diseased cells.
  President Bush vetoed the Specter-Harkin bill. He vetoed it twice. 
But now with President Obama there has been an Executive order, and 
Senator Harkin and I are continuing to push for legislation because 
legislation has more permanency than an Executive order. An Executive 
order can be changed by the next President.

[[Page 622]]

  Then the administration of President Obama. I got to know Senator 
Barack Obama. He had his office down the corridor from me on the 
seventh floor of the Hart Senate Office building. When he came forward 
with his proposal for a stimulus and I took a look at what was 
happening in the economy, I was concerned that we would slip back into 
a 1929 depression if we did not pass the stimulus bill. I voted for the 
stimulus bill on this floor and commented about the political peril. It 
has had a profound effect on my political life, which I will not 
discuss here. But had the stimulus package not been passed I think we 
would not have been in the great recession which we are in, but we 
would have been in another Great Depression. My own State, 
Pennsylvania, has received $16 billion. Without that funding from the 
stimulus package there would not be unemployment compensation paid 
today; there wouldn't be Medicaid paid today. It has the potential for 
143,000 new jobs. It is only halfway through the cycle of 2 years. It 
passed in mid-February, not even a year old, and we see the financial 
problems of California. Where would California be without the stimulus? 
Where would any of the States be without the stimulus?
  The stimulus package and other proposed Federal expenditures have 
caused quite a public reaction so that there is great concern in 
America today with what is going on in Washington. People are very 
concerned, as am I, about the deficit and about the national debt. We 
are going to be called upon to raise the national debt again.
  When I was elected in the Senate, the national debt was $1 trillion. 
During the tenure of President Reagan, those 8 years, it increased to 
$3 trillion. President Reagan was the great economizer on his fiscal 
policies, but we have no choice when it comes to raising debt because 
if we do not raise the national debt we will be in default. The debt is 
being used to pay for many obligations, including the support of our 
troops in Afghanistan, which I will comment about in a few moments.
  In the spring of this year--April, May, June, July--there was 
tremendous worry about what the Federal Government was talking about 
spending: $1 trillion on health care reform; $1 trillion on cap and 
trade, on climate control. There was great public opposition that arose 
to what was happening in Washington. It was promoted by the gridlock 
which is present in this Chamber, spoken about by Senator Menendez and 
Senator Lautenberg a few moments ago; by the filibusters which are 
being carried on by Republicans.
  A few years ago filibusters were being carried on by Democrats and 
President Bush's judicial nominees were the subject of filibusters. The 
business about filibusters and about gridlock is a problem on both 
parties. It is a matter for bipartisan blame. It is my hope we will 
find more Senators--Senator Menendez commented on my willingness to 
reach across the aisle. I did that on the other side of the aisle and I 
do that on this side of the aisle. When I came to the Senate in 1980 
there were many moderate Republican Senators who reached across the 
aisle. We had Senator Hatfield from Oregon--we were just discussing 
that the distinguished Presiding Officer brought me greetings from 
Senator Hatfield, the Senator from Oregon--and Senator Packwood, also a 
moderate from Oregon; Senator Danforth from Missouri; Senator Weicker 
from Connecticut; Senator Chafee from Rhode Island; Senator Stafford 
from Vermont; Senator Warner from Virginia; Senator Heinz from 
Pennsylvania; Senator Mathias from Maryland. I could go on and on. 
Today the moderates on the other side of the aisle, with my departure, 
can fit in a telephone booth. It is not good for the Senate and it is 
not good for the country.
  When I undertook the town meetings this year--I made it a practice, 
in my tenure in the Senate, 30 years, to visit almost every county 
almost every year. At the first county I went to in August, the first 
day I had an opportunity to travel when the Senate was not in session--
usually when I got to Lebanon County there were 85 or 100 people. On 
this occasion there were 1,200 people. They had live television 
transmission units from MSNBC and FOX and CNN. There was enormous anger 
about what was happening in America with the spending, what was 
happening with the deficit, what was happening with the national debt.
  Those are problems which we yet have to face. I get the question in 
my candidacy for reelection. I am seeking a sixth term. I want to 
follow Senator Biden, the most recent six-term Senator.
  People say: Why run now? Why, after serving for 30 years, being the 
longest serving Pennsylvania Senator? People notice I have a big 
birthday coming up. I was born on February 12, the same day as 
Lincoln's birthday. I was born 121 years after Abraham Lincoln was 
born. That is as close as I will come to talking about age.
  I believe with Satchel Paige, the great baseball pitcher, who was 
ageless. Satchel Paige made many famous statements. One of his most 
famous statements was: If you didn't know your age, how old would you 
think you were? I choose 37. I choose 37 because nobody would believe 
17. That was a happy year in my life. I think there is a psychological 
term called ``arrested development.'' That may have occurred to me at 
17.
  But why run now? Because there are so many things to be done. There 
are so many important problems. The experience and seniority and the 
knowledge I think can be put to good use for the 12 million 
constituents I have.
  There is a great facet on term limits--it is called losing at the 
polls. The people can say yes or no to a candidacy for reelection, but 
I am full of vim, vigor, and vitality, and there are a lot of things I 
want to do. My four granddaughters are very much on my mind, as will 
their children and their grandchildren be.
  We have health care reform which is still pending in the Congress of 
the United States. It has been a very difficult matter which has 
consumed this body and the House of Representatives for months. The 
House can pass it more quickly than can the Senate. We worked on it for 
the better part of 6 months and we passed it here. It is well 
documented that it took 60 votes because there was not a single 
Republican who would support cloture. There had to be 60 Democrats who 
would agree. That led to a lot of concessions being made to get the 60 
votes.
  Some Senators insisted on special consideration for their States. I 
think that was wrong. Why did I vote for the package? Because the good 
vastly outweighed the bad.
  I was asked, in Pennsylvania, why didn't I get some special 
consideration for Pennsylvania? I didn't because I thought it was the 
wrong thing to do. I was on a radio program last week, a critical radio 
program, for what is going on in Washington. But I got a compliment for 
not asking for special consideration.
  We have a new Senator-elect in Massachusetts and we ought not to do 
anything in the interim until he is seated. Then there will be 59, so 
not enough to shut off a filibuster by the Republicans. So the question 
is: Where do we go from here?
  President Obama has talked about a number of alternatives. A week ago 
last Wednesday, after the Massachusetts election, he was talking about 
a pared-down bill. I doubt that could pass the Senate. It would be 
unfortunate if all the work that has been done on the historic health 
care reform were to be nullified. The health care bill ran into great 
problems because of misrepresentations. There are no death panels in 
the health care bill. In my town meetings people were talking about 
death panels. I told them authoritatively and accurately, there were no 
death panels.
  There was a worry about a government takeover of health care. That 
was not the bill. There was a government option. I was for a robust 
government option, leaving the private sector in place but taking steps 
to give a choice to people who wanted to buy insurance. But to get 
insurance reform to eliminate preexisting conditions as a way for 
insurance companies to maneuver and decline to pay claims, or the 
cancellation of insurance when somebody got sick, or not covering 
children.

[[Page 623]]

  I think it would be unfortunate if all we did were nullified. One way 
to approach it would be for the House to pass the Senate bill--that 
would be my recommendation--and then to have immediate corrective 
legislation on a number of the points which went too far--on the 
special favors for certain States. I believe there would be support on 
the other side of the aisle and we could correct the abusive practices 
if the House were to adopt the Senate bill.
  But I respect the House. I read what the Speaker had to say about the 
disinclination to adopt the Senate bill. It has been a long time in 
coming to get reform. Legislation which is enacted is subject to 
modification. It has to move in steps. We could only get to the 1965 
Voting Right Act because we had the 1957 legislation and the 1964 
legislation. There are opportunities for changes and the abusive facets 
and the wrongful provisions in the Senate bill, if taken by the House, 
could be corrected. I think there would be support on both sides of the 
aisle for that.
  There are a great many items on my agenda. One of the concerns I have 
is the issue of imports, illustratively from China, where they are 
subsidized and take unfair advantage of the trade laws. I have appeared 
many times before the International Trade Commission--something I had 
done in private practice as a lawyer on appellate arguments in court. I 
won a big case preserving a lot of jobs several months ago on the tire 
industry, stopping China from sending tires into the United States 
which were subsidized.
  I won a big case in the ITC, that I was the lead advocate on, on the 
steel industry, to stop China from selling steel in the United States.
  I have been working on a project to deepen the Port of Philadelphia 
from 40 to 45 feet. Senator Heinz and I got authorizing legislation in 
1983. It took until 1992 to get the Corps of Engineers to say it was 
economically sustainable. Then I worked on the Appropriations 
Committee, with my seniority, to get more than $77 million 
appropriated. It has been contested by the State of Delaware on 
environmental concerns which have been answered totally by 
environmental impact studies. Recently, we were successful in getting 
the Secretary of the Army to invoke the supremacy clause.
  But there is still more work to be done on that. I am working hard 
for the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, working on 
manufacturing of vaccines. We have been short of vaccines and we cannot 
rely upon foreign sources. That is a multimillion dollar project 
working and has the promise of thousands of jobs for that area.
  I am working on northeast Pennsylvania to get a train from Scranton 
to Hoboken, ``Wall Street West''; working for the farmers on milk dairy 
prices; with General Electric to keep the GE plant open and jobs there; 
working, in my position on the Environment and Public Works Committee, 
on climate control; working on immigration reform.
  As chairman, I managed the bill through the Senate in the 2006. I am 
working on the issue of campaign finance reform. The Supreme Court, 
last week, came down with a decision to allow corporations to engage in 
political advertising to elect or defeat candidates which will, as 
Justice Stevens in dissent pointed out, open the door for widespread 
corruption and am considering the issue of a Constitutional amendment 
which would reverse that decision and allow Congress and States to set 
limits on campaign finance. I have been working for a decade to try to 
get the Supreme Court televised for transparency. They make all the 
cutting-edge decisions.
  I have been very active on foreign policy. There are many things I am 
working on at the present time. Within the last month, I made a trip to 
Afghanistan and Syria and India. My study of the situation in 
Afghanistan leads me to oppose the President's plan to send 30,000 
additional troops. I think we have to do whatever it takes to fight al-
Qaida because they are out to annihilate us. But why fight them in 
Afghanistan when they can just as easily organize in Yemen or Somalia 
or elsewhere?
  On the efforts to get help from the Pakistanis, not being very 
successful. In India, our Congressional delegation met with Prime 
Minister Singh. I put the question to him, would he be willing to have 
a limitation with Pakistan on the number of troops on the border, which 
would liberate Pakistani troops to help us fight al-Qaida in Pakistan.
  Prime Minister Singh said he would, if the terrorists would be 
stopped from coming into India, as they blew up the hotel in Mumbai 
more than a year ago. So there are many things to be done. Our 
Congressional delegation visited Syria. I have visited the Mideast, 
almost every area, during my tenure in the Senate. I am very much 
concerned about the security of Israel.
  In the visits I have had with Syria, I have gotten to know Bashar al-
Assad, the Prime Minister of Syria, and his father, Hafiz al-Assad, 
because I believe Syria is the key to the peace process there.
  Syria wants a return of the Golan. Only Israel can decide whether 
Israel wants to give back the Golan. But it is a different era today 
than it was in 1967, when the Golan was so important strategically. 
Today, rockets obviate the defensive posture of the Golan Heights. But 
only Israel can decide that for itself. But if Israel could get 
concessions for Syria to stop destabilizing Lebanon or stop supporting 
Hamas, that is an issue which ought to be considered.
  Well, the hour is growing late. We are keeping staff here. But I 
thought this occasion, on the 10,000th vote, as I said, I sat here for 
about 1 hour waiting for the vote to end before Senator Casey could 
make his comments, gave me a few moments to reflect on why I was 
interested in running for public office originally, what those 10,000 
votes meant to me with a very brief statement as to some of those votes 
during the administrations of President Reagan, the first President 
Bush, President Clinton, the second President Bush, President Obama, 
and what I would like to see done in the future.
  There is much to be done on so many lines. I have said to Senator 
Casey, who has been here only 3 years, I would like to be here to speak 
to him on his 10,000th vote. I do not entertain that seriously. But the 
issues I have talked about are ones that are very important to me and I 
think to the future of my State and I think to the future of my Nation.

                          ____________________