Pennsylvania TownHall -- Where the Voice of Pennsylvania is Heard!

Freindly Fire

One on One with Senator Arlen Specter

Part III

by Chris Freind

Freindly Fire recently interviewed U.S. Senator Arlen Specter in his Capitol office. The following is the last in a three part series with the longest serving Senator in the history of Pennsylvania.

FF: President Bush has recently unveiled his plans for an economic stimulus package designed to jumpstart the economy. You have also introduced legislation in this same regard. What does your
plan for stimulus and growth entail?
AS: I introduced two bills, both designed to spur new (business) investments through partial and full expensing. These bills would provide an immediate boost for the economy.

The first provides a two-year 50% bonus depreciation for all sectors of the economy. Companies would be allowed to expense fifty percent of the cost of new equipment in the first year (the asset is put to use). The remaining value would be deducted over the course of its useful life by using the Internal Revenue Code depreciation schedules. The long-term cost of this proposal is minimal because it accelerates a tax benefit that is already due over time.
The second bill allows a wide variety of sectors... to take advantage of 100% percent up-front expensing for new assets that are put into service during 2008 and 2009. This legislation would allow all equipment which is currently depreciated on the three, five, and seven year schedules to be fully expensed in year one.

Our economy is suffering from the housing crisis, (rising) oil prices, unemployment, a sagging stock market, and decreased consumer confidence, so these bills will provide immediate impact (for stimulating the economy).
(Under current law, when a company buys an asset that will last longer than one year, the company cannot, under most circumstances, deduct the entire cost and enjoy an immediate tax benefit. Instead, the company must depreciate the cost over the useful life of the asset, taking a tax deduction for a part of the cost each year. By allowing firms to deduct the cost of a new asset in year one, expensing spurs new investments quickly and drives immediate job creation.)

FF: Part of people's frustration with Congress is that it seems to focus (and at times grandstand) on issues of limited importance, ignoring the pressing problems in America. With a looming recession, several wars, and a health care crisis, why is Congress holding hearings on steroid use in baseball---when steroid use wasn't even against baseball's rules until 2005? Why did it hold hearings on Martha Stewart---and why did it have hearings on how the college football championship should be determined?

AS: Well, I think there is a value in having hearings on baseball and steroids because it's the basic point that athletes are role models and young people are using these steroids....I don't think a hearing on steroids ought to displace our hearings on tax reform or on the modification of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. We have time to do a lot more work around here than we do....we have a lot more capacity to work. In telling you that the steroids hearing is worthwhile is not to say that there aren't a lot of hearings that are not worthwhile. There are plenty of those! But not while I was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

FF: Last question. What legislative accomplishments do you want to be most known for achieving, so when children are studying American politics 50 years from now, what would you want them to read about you? What do you want your legacy to be?

AS: I have a standard answer to that: it's too early in my career to consider my legacy! But I'll rephrase the question...what have I done here that amounts to something?

I don't want to sound "boasty". I have given Pennsylvanians, I think, a sense of connection to Washington. I visit all the counties. When I go to a county, I send out a notice: "Come to the firehouse---you don't have to buy a ticket. It's not a fundraiser!". Last year I had nineteen town meetings, all covered by PCN (Pennsylvania Cable Network). I make a relatively short statement, five to eight minutes, then I ask for questions. In Westmoreland County, I was there for over two hours and answered forty five questions. So people see a lot of me in their locale.

Another thing I've done is contribute to real dialogue on constitutional law. What the constitution means. A lot of people were mad at me for Robert Bork. It's been twenty years, and sometimes a week goes by when I don't hear about Bork! I think it was very important in the Bork hearing to establish the parameter of the constitution. As (former Chief Justice William) Rehnquist agreed, (the constitution) changes with the times. (Rehnquist) was against Miranda early in his career, and voted to overrule it. And later (he changed his mind), saying it was embedded in the culture of our police.

And the Equal Protection clause---what did the Senate mean when it passed it in 1868? The galleries were segregated. Did they think equal protection meant integration? No, they didn't---not at all! I questioned Bork on the last day of the hearings for an hour and a half. I wanted to be for Bork. I met with him privately for five hours. I just couldn't do it.

Then you have (Justice) Clarence Thomas. He was challenged, and was entitled to have a factual determination as to what happened. They (Thomas and Anita Hill) were together in 1981, and he comes to (our) hearings ten years later, and she challenges him. Everybody has had the experience... you have a fight with your wife, and ten minutes later you can't remember who said what. Was it a dis-qualifier?

She went with him from the Department of Education, the EEOC...she went to Oral Roberts, she drove him to the airport, called him up when she came here. I don't know what happened, but I concluded it wasn't a dis-qualifier. Well all hell broke loose in the next year (of my campaign). Senator Strom Thurmond and Senator Danforth, Thomas' mentor, asked me to be Clarence's advocate. I told them the obvious: "I don't represent Clarence Thomas...I represent Pennsylvania." Would I question Anita Hill? Sure! I'm on the committee, I'll question her. I knew it was "poison"---you'd have to be deaf and blind not to know it was poison.

And then you have other justices. With every one of them, I've gone into great detail on constitutional doctrine. You saw what I did to (Senator Ted) Kennedy, when he challenged me as Chairman (of Judiciary) on Alito. There's (Chief Justice) Roberts...(getting confirmed).

Then there's a lot of legislation. There's the armed career criminal bill that was mine, from my experience as D.A.---moved the cases to federal court, (gave) life sentences for three-time major felons. I wrote the first anti-terrorism bill in 1984---it wasn't mine alone---; (it provided) for extra-territorial jurisdiction. Before the 1984 statute, if you kidnapped an American, or high-jacked a plane with Americans on board, you couldn't be prosecuted in American courts. Extra-territorial jurisdiction changed that. I wrote the Terrorist Prosecution Act of 1986. In 1985, during Christmas, terrorists strafed the Rome and Vienna airports and killed a lot of Americans, but there was nothing we could do about it. The 1986 statute changed that.

There was (legislation) mandating that universities have to report campus crimes. I've done a lot with health and education, which I could detail at considerable length. There's a lot in the Congressional Record (of what I've done). But right now, I'm at the top of my game. I can become Chairman of Appropriations. We did a hell of a job with Judiciary last term...bankruptcy reform, Class-Action Fairness Act, civil rights, the Patriot Act...as I mentioned, I introduced legislation on depreciation, which I've already sent over to (Treasury Secretary Henry) Paulson, I'm working on State Secrets bill, I'll do a trip report on the most recent trip I made...

This is a very challenging place to be, and if you work at it, there's a lot you can do.

Chris Freind can be reached at CF@TheBulletin.us