Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I withdraw the question.

Mr. SPECTER. It was argued a few moments ago with a chart, 168 to 4 that only ``a far-right extremist militant'' would say that was an insufficient record. So my question to the Senator from New York is, Do you consider Arlen Specter a far right extremist militant?

Mr. SPECTER. Well, I do not know how the Senator from New York can say there is a defect in judgment when I have not asserted anything yet. All I asked, Mr. President, was a question as to whether he considered Arlen Specter a far right extremist militant. And he said, no, but sometimes there are lapses in my judgment. I will ask a followup question to the Senator from New York. In the absence of any assertion or statement of judgment, where are the lapses in my judgment at the moment?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon will have time to speak. We are in a 30-minute sequence. I would follow up the question to the Senator from New York: Did he disagree with my judgment on agreeing for the confirmation of Judge Paez, along with the Democrats, nominated by President Clinton?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. While the Senator from New York is on the Senate floor, I ask him to respond to a question, and that is, Does he consider this Senator a far-right extremist militant?

Mr. SPECTER. We have quite a number of people here who are already prepared to speak, and we will go on in regular order. But I asked the Senator from New York those questions because I think his assertion, when you hold up the chart with 168 to 4 and then say that only a far right extremist militant would question that, is grossly in error. I sought to illustrate it by asking the question as to whether Arlen Specter fits that bill of a far right extremist militant. The reality is that the 168 to 4 does not tell the picture. It is a misconstruction. Beyond the 4 who have been rejected by the filibuster by the Democrats, there are 5 others who are currently being filibustered; there are 14 others pending where the filibuster is imminent. President Bush has had only 63 percent of his appellate judges confirmed, whereas in similar circumstance for the past three Presidencies, there have been 91 percent confirmed. So the chart, which has been seen more often than the most activist commercials, simply is misleading. These filibusters have gone very deeply into the heart of the nomination power of the President. The tradition has always been that the President gets substantial latitude in selecting judicial nominees. And where you have a challenge in ideology, the Democrats have, in this proceeding, gone to a new level in filibustering circuit judges. It simply has never been done before. Last night, the Senator from Illinois made a comment that all the Republicans were doing here was theater. And I spoke shortly thereafter, and I agreed with him that this is theater. But it happens to be factual theater, and the theater is being utilized for a very important purpose; that is, to acquaint the American people with what is happening in the Senate on the politicization of judicial nominees. I outlined in some detail yesterday, and will summarize it only briefly, the business of it being difficult when the party in the White House is different from the party in the Senate, which is what happened during the last 2 years of President Reagan's administration, and all of the administration of President George Herbert Walker Bush, where the percentages were very low. Then, in the first 2 years of President Clinton's administration, the percentages were high because he had a Senate controlled by his own party. And when President Clinton made nominations in the last 6 years, the percentages again were low. So the fault has been attributable to both parties when one party controlled the White House and the other party controlled the Senate. But what has happened here more recently has been a new low. It has been a new low because for the first time there has been a filibuster of a circuit judge, which had never happened in the preceding 216 years of the Republic. And what we are doing here in this marathon--aptly named; it is not a filibuster, it is a marathon--is to call the attention of the American people to what has happened. I related the filibuster sequence back in 1987, which is worth repeating, because it illustrates the point about how these proceedings are effective in telling the American people what is going on. In 1987, there was a filibuster by Republicans on campaign finance reform. Senator Byrd was the leader of the Democrats. At about 2 a.m.-- one early morning--Senator Dole, the Republican leader, called us all back into the cloakroom, a few feet to the rear of where I stand now, and said he would request that no Republican Senator go to the floor, so as to compel the Democrats to maintain a quorum--51 Senators-- because in the absence of a quorum on the floor, any Senator may suggest the absence of a quorum and then there is no further business to be transacted. Senator Byrd then responded with a motion to arrest absent Senators, and the Sergeant at Arms, Henry Giugni, was armed with the warrants of arrest. The Sergeant at Arms started to patrol the halls, and the first Senator he found was Senator Lowell Weicker. Sergeant at Arms Henry Giugni was about 5 feet 6 inches and 150 pounds. Senator Lowell Weicker was 6 feet 4 inches and 240 pounds--in fact, still is 6 feet 4 inches and 240 pounds. The Sergeant at Arms decided not to arrest Senator Weicker, which I think was a wise decision. I note the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, smiling. He was Senator Weicker's colleague at the time from Connecticut and I think would confirm the wisdom of not arresting Senator Weicker. So then the Sergeant at Arms started to knock on Senate doors. It is interesting how, when you tell a story, there is so much more attention paid to what is going on. People are snoozing here generally during this marathon. At any rate, Henry Giugni went to knock on doors, and he knocked on Senator Packwood's door, and Senator Packwood foolishly answered the door. Then Senator Packwood was carried, feet first, in through that door. I was in the Chamber at the time. They carried him feet first. This is a true story. You do not get many true stories out of Washington, but this is a true story. Even the pages think it is funny. It was really funny that night. It attracted a lot of attention. And that is what we seek to do here today, is to attract attention, because if the American people focus on what is going on with this filibuster, of the politicization of the judges, we think we can end it. And we are trying to make C-SPAN the channel of choice, to replace Jay Leno in the late hours. There are many people who are surfing as we speak. It is amazing how many people will even watch C-SPAN or get to C-SPAN inadvertently in surfing. And I would urge them to continue to listen because what is happening here is substantively important, and I think even more interesting than the soaps, or at least stay tuned for the next 20 minutes, until after Senator Smith and Senator Sununu have had an opportunity to speak. I want to cover one other subject very briefly before yielding to my colleagues, and that is the subject of the quality of the nominees who have been filibustered. I will cite only one in the interest of time, and that is Miguel Estrada. This is a young man who was born in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. He came to the United States as a teenager. Really, it is the great American story. He went to Columbia, where he was Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude, and that is a considerable achievement. He then went to the Harvard Law School where he was magna cum laude and on the Harvard Law Review. That is a unique achievement. He then was a law clerk to two distinguished Federal judges, one of whom was on the Supreme Court of the United States. He then had a distinguished career as a practicing lawyer. Then he went to the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York. And I can tell you from my own experience as an assistant DA, that is a very valuable experience. Then he was an Assistant Solicitor General and had really a remarkable record. He was rejected by the Democrats on a filibuster and ultimately withdrew, and it was really because he was potentially a Supreme Court nominee. And the reasons given: the reasons were that he was a stealth candidate. But any fair analysis of his responses to other nominees' would demonstrate that he answered the questions at least up to the standard level, and then the Democrats objected to his nomination because he refused--the administration refused to turn over memoranda he had written as an Assistant Solicitor General. But if those memoranda are to be turned over under that circumstance, every lawyer who is an Assistant Solicitor General or an assistant DA or in any legal position would be chilled by the prospect of having such memoranda disclosed at some time in the future when that individual was subject to the confirmation process. Now, it is my hope that these proceedings will produce something useful by way of focusing the attention of the American people. I was on a radio program in Fargo, ND, for about 25 minutes earlier this morning, and these ideas have been spread across the country. It is my hope that the American people will communicate with the Senators on both sides of the aisle, both Republicans and Democrats. I think when the American people focus on this issue, there will be great pressure to change, to take politics out of the selection of Federal judges. I now yield to my distinguished colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith. I ask the Senator, how much time would you like?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce a bill to authorize Federal funding for the rehabilitation of the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial. This memorial, an attraction for some 1 million visitors annually, is truly a national treasure and it has come under significant deterioration--threatening its very existence. I, along with my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, are introducing this bill to ensure that Federal funding is made available to preserve and protect our Nation's memorial to Benjamin Franklin, America's distinguished scientist, statesman, inventor, and diplomat. Unveiled in 1938, the memorial is located in the Memorial Hall of the Franklin Institute Science Museum of Philadelphia, PA--one of the Nation's premier science and technology museums. The Institute became custodian of the memorial in 1972 when Public Law 92-511 designated the Memorial Hall as the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial. In 1973, a Memorandum of Agreement was executed by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Franklin Institute and directed the Department to cooperate with the Institute in ``all appropriate and mutually agreeable ways in the preservation and presentation of the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial Hall as a national memorial.'' To date, the Department has not provided any Federal funding to the Franklin Institute other than $300,000, which Senator Santorum and I secured from the ``Save America's Treasures'' program in the Fiscal Year 2000 Interior Appropriations Act to help improve accessibility to the memorial. Unlike other national memorials, the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial does not receive an annual allocation of Federal funds that provides for preventative maintenance or other important activities. The significant burden of maintaining this national memorial has become a challenge to the Franklin Institute. For example, under the terms of the 1973 Agreement, the Institute is required to admit the public to Memorial Hall free of charge. Accordingly, the Institute--a non-profit organization--has absorbed the sole responsibility for providing the funds necessary to preserve and maintain the memorial. The legislation that Senator Santorum and I are introducing today finally provides the Franklin Institute with the Federal support necessary to ease the financial burden of maintaining a national memorial--enabling the Institute to continue its duties as its custodian. The bill authorizes up to $10 million in Federal funds to provide needed rehabilitation and to help enhance the experience at the memorial through the addition of exhibition space for the proper display of the finest existing collection of Franklin artifacts. The Benjamin Franklin National Memorial at the Franklin Institute serves as the Nation's primary location honoring Franklin's life, legacy, and ideals. This was further solidified in July 2002, when President George W. Bush signed into law House Resolution 2362, which created the Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary Commission. This commission, which I chair, is charged with studying and recommending activities appropriate for the 300th anniversary of Franklin's birth in 2006. As we expect visitors to the memorial from throughout the world for this celebration, it is important that the Franklin Institute, as custodian of the memorial, begin the meticulous restoration and enhancement of it promptly. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to preserve this national tribute to Benjamin Franklin for years to come.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reserving----

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today, Veterans Day, we honor America's veterans. It is to serve as 85 years of recognition after armistice was declared on November 11, at 11 a.m., in 1918. We pay tribute to our veterans today, but I suggest to my colleagues and fellow Americans we ought to pay more tribute to veterans every day. The first veteran I knew was my father, Harry Specter, who was a veteran of World War I. My father had come to the United States as an immigrant, at the age of 18, in 1911. The Czar in control of Russia at the time wanted to send my father, among many others, to Siberia. My father chose instead to come to America. He literally walked across Europe, barely a ruble in his pocket, and traveled at the bottom of the boat to the United States to make a new life for himself. He did not know at that time that he had a round-trip ticket to France, not to Paris and the Folies Bergeres with the dancing girls, but to the Argonne Forest where he was wounded in action. My father carried shrapnel in his legs until the day he died. The U.S. Government promised the veterans of World War I a $500 bonus and, as has been the case so frequently with the U.S. Government, the promise was broken. The veterans then mounted a march on Washington in 1932 to seek redress, exercising their constitutional right to petition their Government, and also in petitioning their Government, to have the Government fulfill the promise the Government had made to pay the veterans a $500 bonus. Today, when there is a demonstration in Washington, the red carpet is rolled out. On that day, in 1932, the cavalry was rolled out with drawn sabers, led by MAJ George C. Patton. In command was the Chief of Staff of the Army, Douglas MacArthur. There is a famous picture of General MacArthur, with his aide de camp, MAJ Dwight Eisenhower. On that day, veterans were killed. It is one of the blackest days in American history. That was the way the U.S. Government responded to the pleas of the World War I veterans who were asking only for what they had been promised--their $500 bonus. In a sense, in a metaphor, I have been on my way to Washington ever since to get my father's bonus. I have not gotten it yet, so I am still here and running for reelection. When we honor the veterans today, we ought to make note of the fact that the medical services that are available to veterans are, realistically viewed, insufficient. We are about to take up, in the course of the next several days, the appropriations bill for veterans. We are endeavoring to get an additional $1.3 billion to help on veterans medical benefits. I have the honor to chair the Veterans Affairs Committee in the Senate. Later today, I will join President Bush at the White House for a bill-signing ceremony, where we are creating additional veteran cemeteries across America, so that the families of veterans can be near their departed loved ones and can pay tribute without traveling long distances. At the present time, families of veterans who live in southeastern Pennsylvania have to travel about 100 miles to Indiantown Gap, to Annville, to pay respects, where veterans are now interred, buried, from the southeastern part of the State. After a great deal of effort, going back about 6 years, I am paying tribute to former Congressman John Fox, who worked with me initially to introduce the legislation that was finally passed by both Houses of Congress. Jim Gerlach is the current sponsor in the House of Representatives--Congressman Gerlach-- and there will be a bill-signing ceremony today where President Bush will affix a signature and we will at least have done that for veterans. There are many issues pending to take care of America's veterans. We are currently in the Veterans Affairs Committee reviewing a proposal by the Department of Veterans Affairs to alter the hospital accommodations across America. We are determined to see to it that any changes which are made benefit rather than hurt veterans. Mr. President, on the subject of the proposals which are now pending, I am very much concerned, as chairman of the committee, for the entire Nation about what will happen to many of the facilities which are under review--facilities in New York, facilities in California, facilities across the country, and one very hotly contested facility in Waco, TX. I am concerned about what will happen in Pittsburgh where there are proposals to close Highland Drive. If that is done, there has to be an adequate accommodation so that the facilities are at least equal to, if not better than what is currently available. There are concerns about Butler, PA, Erie, PA, and across my State. A new facility is due in Lebanon. So on this day when we are concerned about veterans, when we pay honor to them, we ought to remember that the veterans have created the climate of freedom. When we pause and remember the veterans on Armistice Day of 1918, remember that it is a continuum of veterans who have served America since the Revolutionary War. My brother served in World War II, as did my brother-in-law in the South Pacific. I was in the service during the Korean war and served stateside. We now have many aging veterans from World War II and the Korean war who need more accommodations. We have veterans from Vietnam and the gulf war and from Iraq. As we pay tribute to the veterans for what they have done for America, America should reciprocate and see to it that the needs of veterans are adequately responded to.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if this is a unanimous consent request for more time, I would like to accommodate my colleagues. I have come to the floor with the expectation to speak at noon, which it is now, on the Syria Accountability Act, and actually I had some time on veterans as well. I have other commitments, such as, to go to the White House for the bill signing ceremony with the President. So I am glad to accommodate my colleagues, but if it is going to run for 28 more minutes, that is going to preclude my speaking on the Syria Accountability Act.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. President Assad then asked his representative in the United States, in Washington, his charge d'affaires--they didn't have an ambassador--to come and talk to me, and we had a discussion as to what was going on. It seems to me, after considering the matter and the gravity of the risks which our fighting men and women are undertaking in Iraq, and the risks to the Iraqi people themselves, that it is an appropriate time to make a formal demand on the Government of Syria to do more. If they do more and if they join in the fight against terrorism, there is ample opportunity for the President of the United States to take the appropriate action pursuant to this resolution and to lift the sanctions. I thank my colleague from Alabama for sitting overtime into the lunch period. I yield the floor and note we will now go into a noontime recess, to reconvene at 2:15. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, September 17, 2003. His Excellency Bashar Al-Assad, President, Syrian Arab Republic, Damascus, Syria. Dear President Assad: I write to inform you of growing concern in the United States Senate about Syria and the fact that the Syrian Accountability Act now has 76 co-sponsors. I had discussed this proposed legislation some time ago with your Ambassador to the United States. I had refrained from co-sponsoring the Syrian Accountability Act on the premise that we should try to work out the problems without resorting to legislation calling for sanctions. Yesterday, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton submitted testimony to the House of Representatives' International Relations Committee that Syria is permitting ``volunteers'' to pass over your border into Iraq where those so-called volunteers are intent on killing U.S. troops. This follows Administrator L. Paul Bremer's statement on August 20th that Syria is allowing ``foreign terrorists'' to cross Syria's borders into Iraq. When you met with Secretary of State Powell last May, there was an understanding that Syria would shut Damascus offices of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups. In June, Secretary Powell stated that Syria's efforts to shut these offices were ``totally inadequate''. The Bush Administration which had opposed the Syrian Accountability Act now is neutral, taking no position. After extensive dealings with your father, President Hafez al-Assad, since the 1980s and with you on our meetings in the past several years, I have tried to assist in finding answers to these difficult problems. With the Syrian Accountability Act gaining so much support, it is my hope that your Government will respond to the concerns outlined in this letter before the U.S. Government resorts to sanctions. I call these matters to your personal attention with the hope that prompt action can be taken by Syria to resolve these problems. The United States greatly appreciated the help that Syria provided to our intelligence services after September 11, 2001 in our flight against el-Qaeda. Sincerely, Arlen Specter.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is before the Senate the so-called Syrian Accountability Act, which imposes sanctions on Syria. It recites a long list of circumstances where the Syrians have not taken sufficient action to fight terrorism, and then it calls for Syria to take corrective action, and in the absence of that corrective action, authorizes the imposition of economic sanctions, and it leaves with the President of the United States the authority to waive those sanctions if it is in the national interest. Sanctions are imposed by Congress with some frequency. At first blush, this appears to be a straightforward affirmative vote, but I believe the matter is more complicated than that, and I have come to that view after having traveled to Syria almost every year since 1984, and after having had considerable contact with the Syrian Government. After considering the matter at some length, I have decided that I will vote in favor of the Syrian Accountability Act because the problems of terrorism are so serious and because I believe that Syria needs to do more. The bill itself has a long recitation of background circumstances, but the events today in Iraq, where our fighting men and women are being subjected to terrorist attacks, casualties and fatalities, and where the people of Iraq are being subjected as victims of terrorism, I believe it is a fair demand that more be done. That would include more by Syria. There are, according to reliable reports, official statements of the U.S. Government that terrorists are infiltrating into Syria, coming from Syria into Iraq. More has to be done on that subject. It has to be noted that Syria has responded with a number of affirmative actions to be of assistance to the United States in our war on terrorists. The officials of the State Department have acknowledged that after September 11, 2001, that information was provided by Syria on al-Qaeda, which saved U.S. lives. It is also to be acknowledged there has been some improvement on the Syrian-Iraqi border, but clearly not enough. There were reports just this morning from the State Department about the porous Syrian border and terrorists coming into Iraq, again exposing U.S. personnel and the Iraqis themselves to terrorist attack. It ought to be noted that Syria did join in the unanimous resolution, U.N. Resolution 1511, and that when Secretary of State Powell traveled to Syria in April of 2002, there was some helpful action taken by the Syrian Government on the southern border of Lebanon. But when Secretary of State Powell went to Syria in May of 2003 and urged the Syrian Government to oust the terrorists from Damascus, that request was not acted upon. Recently, Israel moved against terrorist training camps within a few miles of Damascus. While all of these matters are subjected to controversy, and there are disputes by the Syrian Government, I believe the balance of the evidence supports the conclusion that those were training camps. I believe it is important that the U.S. Government continues in its efforts to negotiate with Syria to try to improve the situation, and that we ought to be mindful that there are opportunities to have frank discussions with the Syrian officials which have led to some beneficial results and which ought to be pursued. I urge my colleagues in the U.S. Congress, pursuant to our duties, for example, on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee on which I serve, or on the Foreign Relations Committee, to travel to Syria to engage the Syrian leaders because I think it can be productive. I make reference to my own experience in that regard. I made my first trip to Syria in 1984. As I have said, I have been to Syria almost every year since. I first met President Bashar al-Assad in January of 1988 and found him to be willing to listen and willing to have a dialog. My conversation at that time with President Assad lasted for some 4 hours and 35 minutes, talking about a wide range of issues-- the Israeli-Syrian relations, the Iran-Iraq war, which was still in progress at that time, U.S.-Syrian relations, the situations with the Jews in Syria. At that time, working with then Congressman Solarz, I urged President Assad to allow the Jews to have free immigration out of Syria. There were many Jewish women in Syria who could not find husbands of the Jewish faith. President Assad said to me, in one of our meetings, he would release any Jewish woman where somebody came from the United States--there were large Syrian-Jewish groupings in the United States--to come to claim a bride, and anyone who wanted to marry a woman in Syria who was Jewish, if a suitor came, the woman would be released. I reported back to a number of Jewish-Syrian enclaves in the United States. Nothing much happened about that. Finally, a few years later, President Assad granted free rights for the Jews to leave Syria at their choice, something he had resisted, but something which he finally was persuaded to do. During the course of the discussions I had with President Assad, I urged him to participate in discussions with Israel. At first, he took the position he would not be a party to any discussions which were sponsored just by the United States but only if they were sponsored by all five of the permanent members of the Security Council. Finally, President Assad made a change and sent representatives to Madrid in 1991 to participate in those discussions. When Prime Minister Netanyahu was elected in 1996, Prime Minister Netanyahu initially made some statements that he was going to hold Syria accountable for Hezbollah on the southern Lebanon border. That resulted in a very tense situation with Syria realigning their troops along the Syrian border. Prime Minister Netanyahu knew I was about to travel to Syria and asked me to carry a message to President Assad and Foreign Minister Shara, that Prime Minister Netanyahu wanted peace and was prepared to personally engage in discussions and would urge President Assad to engage personally, but that was not a condition. I relayed that message to President Assad. While he was not willing to engage in negotiations with Prime Minister Netanyahu, it was later reported there was an easing of those tensions. On many occasions, I would urge President Assad to have discussions with the Israeli Prime Minister. I soon developed a relationship where I was able to take it in a somewhat lighter vein and said to him when our pictures--he met with me in his office, with the large traditional chairs and a small stand in between to hold the tea or coffee--I said tomorrow there would be a picture in the Damascus newspaper of our discussion, but that if he would meet with Prime Minister Shamir, which I urged in the early 1990s, the picture would appear on the front pages of the New York Times and the London Times and across the world. When the Nobel Peace awards were given to Prime Minister Rabin and Foreign Minister Perez and Chairman Arafat, I urged President Assad to engage in negotiations with Prime Minister Rabin. I said he would be honored at Oslo, and he responded in a light vein that he might be honored at Oslo but he would not be allowed back in Damascus. I told him I did not think that was true, and he commented notwithstanding what some might think, the public opinion in Syria was a matter of some substantial concern to him. I attended the funeral of President Assad in the year 2000, accompanying Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. On that occasion, I had a chance to meet his successor, President Bashar Assad. I visited Syria on two occasions, in 2002 and last year in 2003, and have had lengthy conversations with President Bashar Assad. They are conversations which are candid and sometimes critical. For example, at the Arab summit, when President Bashar Assad made a comment that Zionism was the same as nazism, I said I thought there ought to be a change in his attitude on that because there was no comparison between the brutality of nazism, their destruction, their attacking neighboring countries, their Holocaust, murdering 6 million Jews, and the aspirations of the Zionists to have a homeland in Israel. He listened and talked. To what extent there is an imprint, who knows. It is better to have it said than to have him thinking he can simply equate nazism and Zionism without an objection. President Bashar Assad also made a comment at the Arab summit that it was fair to target civilians in the Golan Heights, and I disagreed with him. He said, well, the civilians are armed. I said, they have to be armed because there are attacks on the borders. I urged him that the right response was to engage in diplomatic talks with the United States. The essential conclusions which I have reached are there is some substantial opportunity to deal with Syria. In Bashar Assad there is a new leader, a man in his late 30s, English educated, willing to meet with the House of Representatives or the Senate, willing to listen. Notwithstanding my many exhortations of President Hafez al-Assad and President Bashar Assad, they continue to harbor terrorists in Damascus. Both the father and the son respond that the people live there have been exiled from what was formerly Palestine, they cannot be in Israel so they live in Damascus. I responded I thought that was an insufficient answer. Although some progress has been made, I do believe Syria needs to do much more. Syria is the de facto controller of Lebanon, and Syria needs to do more to stop Hezbollah and their rocket attacks on Israel, with the tremendous armaments which Syria has. There are reliable reports about Syria developing bacteriological warfare, a lot of chemical warfare, and extending the range of their missiles, and some incipient efforts at nuclear weapons, so they would have to submit to international arms control regimes. Most of all, I believe Syria has to do much more in the fight against terrorism. President Bush has said, and I think accurately, he who harbors a terrorist is a terrorist himself; he who harbors a terrorist in the eyes of the law is an accessory before the fact. Today, the problem of terrorism is so acute there cannot be any halfway measures. Syria needs to do a great deal more on the border to stop terrorists from coming into Iraq. There are reports about al-Qaida being in Iraq. I am not vouching for any of those reports. I think we have to be very careful what we say about terrorism and who the terrorists are and where they come from, but there is no doubt Iraq has been a magnet for young men and young women who do not like the United States, who do not like U.S. support of Israel, who do not like what we have done in Iraq, and they are coming into Iraq. There are daily attacks on our men and women. There are daily attacks on the Iraqis themselves. There is a state of tremendous violence. Every day, when we look to the news media, we wonder if there is going to be another report about a helicopter being shot down or about United States soldiers being attacked or about Iraqi civilians being attacked. That means the effort against that kind of terrorism has to be absolute. That is why I believe the Syria Accountability Act is one which ought to be passed by the Senate. When the Syria Accountability Act was gaining in cosponsors, I wrote to President Bashar al Assad on September 17 of this year. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I call up the Syria Accountability Act.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I was lead signatory of the letter. No Senator had received a reply, until today, when we were given a copy of a letter dated August 13, 2003--that is a date stamp, not the date of the letter, which purports to respond to that letter. In effect, the letter from J.B. Penn, Under Secretary, Farm and Foreign Agriculture Services, concedes that the law was not being followed. The relevant portion reads, in part: [W]e appreciate your concern that many dairy sector representatives believe that cheese manufacturers are reluctant to sell to CCC, which, in turn, causes monthly Class III milk prices (milk use for cheese) to fall below the $9.90 per hundredweight price support level. Omitting some language not directly relevant, the concluding sentence of the paragraph is: The perception is that these additional requirements and the requisite costs lead to the reluctance. I ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, the consequence has been that the class III price of milk used to make cheese has been below the $9.90 support price 17 times since January 2000 and has been as low as $8.57 in November 2000 and $9.11 in February 2003. The Secretary might make an argument that the average price isn't at $9.90, but factually that argument could not be made. What we are doing essentially is asking the Secretary of Agriculture to observe the law. It doesn't seem to me that that is too much to ask. We are not trying to rewrite the substantive law on milk pricing because it was enacted in 2002. But we are utilizing this appropriations bill to require that the Secretary observe the law, with the interdiction that she cannot spend any money under this bill unless she does observe the law with respect to this milk price. We have had a considerable discussion back and forth as to whether the amendment would be accepted. I am prepared to vote on it, but I don't want to burden the record with a vote. I say to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee of the distinguished Appropriations Committee, where I have served with the Senator from Utah for the past 13 years, in the absence of a recorded vote, which I think would be overwhelming, I am prepared to accept a voice vote. But I would like assurances that the manager will fight to keep this in conference.

Mr. SPECTER. This may be risky, but I direct the same question to the distinguished ranking member, the Senator from Wisconsin, my longstanding friend, Mr. Kohl.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, this amendment provides that none of the funds made available by this act may be used to pay the salaries or expenses of employees of the Department of Agriculture to allocate the rate of price support in a manner that does not support the price of milk in accordance with section 1501(b) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. That bill provides, in unequivocal terms, that the price of milk shall be supported at the rate equal to $9.90 per hundredweight for milk containing 3.67 percent butterfat. On July 8, 20 Senators wrote to the Secretary of Agriculture calling on the Secretary to observe the law with respect to that pricing. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. I ask for the voice vote on the amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SPECTER. That is very assuring. I am delighted to proceed, as I have discussed with the managers, to have a voice vote and have the amendment in effect accepted, if that is still agreeable to the distinguished Senator from Utah.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I thank the Chair and the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we now consider my amendment No. 2080, which is pending.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Yes. I support this approach proposed by my colleagues from the Energy Committee and assure them that, given a sufficient allocation, I will support funding for education in the FSM and RMI through the new supplemental education grants authorized in their amendment to H.J. Res. 63.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. NutriCore Northeast would be a self-managed and ultimately self-sustaining not-for-profit corporation existing in Pennsylvania working in a cooperative research and development agreement with the United States Department of Agriculture to provide a 50-year road map assessing progress toward a healthy and fit populace. Additionally, Geisinger Rural Aging Study is a USDA Agricultural Research Service cohort study of 21,646 rural older Pennsylvanians that would assist them with proper dietary intake as well as formulate a longitudinal nutrition database. I am hopeful that we can work together to consider these requests as you complete action on the bill.