Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is no doubt that major cities, such as Philadelphia, with airports and seaports and Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell, have much higher costs than cities which do not have these facilities. I have discussed the issue with Mayor Street. The letter which I have had printed in the Record is a succinct summary, so we can observe this very short time limit which has been agreed to. Similarly, I have conferred with Mayor Tom Murphy of Pittsburgh, who, again, makes the comment about the additional costs. I have had an opportunity--actually, I was called by Mayor Bloomberg of New York City about the very substantial increases in costs there, and during the markup in the Appropriations Committee earlier this week commented about these factors and have sought to increase the funding from the $100 million for high-risk urban areas to a total of some $600 million. Again, it would be highly desirable if we had more money, as suggested by Senator Schumer, but that simply cannot be accommodated within the current budget constraints. In the conversations with Mayor Bloomberg, he pointed out about the fact that police cost some $5 million a month, and there are other costs in the range of $8 million a month for the United Nations, with a very heavy imposition of costs on New York City, commenting in a way very similar to the mayors of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. There is no doubt these costs really ought to be borne principally by the Federal Government. In the bill, language was inserted by Senator Gregg and language by myself which would require the Secretary of Homeland Defense to make a report to the Congress within 60 days to identify what are the costs in safeguarding airports, seaports, landmarks such as Independence Hall, such as the Liberty Bell, and to make a recommendation as to an allocation by the Federal Government, and whether such costs, in part, should be borne by other entities. That will enable us to make a determination as to how this $600 million will be spent, and to have a rationale for what the expenses will be with the specification of the costs involved and an allocation between the Federal Government and other governmental agencies if it is determined that would be appropriate. Exhibit 1 City of Philadelphia, Office of the Mayor, Philadelphia, PA, April 2, 2003. Hon. Arlen Specter, 9400 Federal Building, Philadelphia, PA. Dear Senator Specter: In Fiscal Year 2002, the City of Philadelphia spent $21.2 million in increased domestic security costs. These costs include overtime incurred by the Police, Fire and Public Health employees associated with the formation of Rapid Assessment Teams. These teams, consisting of employees from each department responded to all critical incidents citywide. Additionally, $8 million was allocated for security improvements to city facilities. These improvements include installations of bollards around the perimeter of City Hall, installation of security access and surveillance systems in the One Parkway Building and installation of security cameras and metal detectors at other facilities. The Police Department enhanced coverage in Center City and provided enhanced security staffing at the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Red Cross Headquarters and the City's Emergency Operations Center. An intensive training was given to a team of police officers and supervisors that may be called upon to respond to a hazardous materials incident. Going forward, the Police Commissioner formed the Bureau of Counter-Terrorism absorbing the Detective Bureau's Organized Crime Unit as its foundation. The 76 member Bureau is developing new methods and initiatives to pursue counter- terrorism preparedness. These initiatives include strategic and tactical training, equipment purchase, inter-agency and regional cooperation and coordination, and community outreach. The Bureau meets regularly with task forces such as the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force, the US Attorney's Anti- Terror Task Force and the US Coast Guard Task Force to keep current with the latest counter-terrorism strategies. These initiatives are likely to cost about $10 million annually. Sincerely, John F. Street, Mayor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished chairman.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much of my 15 minutes remains?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the essence of my amendment is to provide additional funds for high threat urban areas. This amendment would add an additional $500 million over the $100 million currently contained in the bill for the protection or preparedness of high threat urban areas. This increase would be achieved with $200 million in additional funds added to the supplemental appropriations bill, and a reduction of $300 million in State and local grants for other accounts in the Office of Domestic Preparedness. The amendment which has been submitted by the Senator from New York would increase the appropriation for the Office of Domestic Preparedness from $2 billion to $4.3 billion. My amendment would increase the appropriation from $2 billion to $2.2 billion. And while there is no doubt the high-threat urban areas and the Office of Domestic Preparedness could use additional funds, the fact is, that increase of more than $200 million which is in my amendment would, in effect, tend to break the bank. The distinguished manager of the bill, Senator Stevens, is trying to keep this bill within $80 billion, and that can be accommodated with the addition of $200 million. The urban areas have very substantial risks involved. In very brief summary, the city of Philadelphia has had expenses of almost $30 million annually. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated April 2 from Mayor John Street to me be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that a chart be printed in the Record on a survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, dated March 27, 2003, on additional city homeland security spending due to the war high alert.

Mr. SPECTER. I ask that my amendment now be in order.

Mr. SPECTER. Similarly, the City of Pittsburgh has had increases in expenditures for the years 2001 and 2002 in excess of $10 million. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that chart be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. I send my amendment to the desk. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me. When you strip this argument down, it boils down to an effort by the other side of the aisle to rewrite the advice and consent clause of the Constitution. For more than 200 years, the President has had discretion in the nomination of Federal judges. And unless there is some reason not to confirm them, they then are confirmed. Miguel Estrada has an extraordinary record, Phi Beta Kappa, Columbia; magna cum laude, magna at Harvard, Harvard Law Review, 15 cases in the Supreme Court. The issue of wanting to see some of his writings is a red herring. The issue of wanting further amplification of his views on the Constitution is another red herring. This is simply an effort, when 41 Members from the other side of the aisle decide to oppose cloture, to continue this filibuster. It is my view that we are not going to resolve this matter until we have a real, live, honest to goodness filibuster, and that where the other side of the aisle has to talk. We haven't had one since 1987. The American people do not know what is going on inside the beltway and are likely not to find out until this issue is raised in the conscious level of the American people. Then I think we will find more than four Members of the other side of the aisle joining 51 on this side of the aisle to invoke cloture and to confirm this worthy nominee. I do believe there is going to have to be some dramatic action taken so that Americans understand the travesty going on in the Senate Chamber today. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. First, I thank the distinguished Senator from Texas for her comments and recognition of the valor of our troops. There was very good news yesterday concerning the rescue of a female soldier. There was great pursuit by her fellow comrades to bring her back. I think it is very important, as the war proceeds, to put the Iraqis on special notice that war crimes will be prosecuted and that when the war ends, it will not be over for those who have violated the requirements of the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Last Saturday, when four U.S. soldiers were murdered with a car bomb by an Iraqi soldier masquerading as a civilian, that constituted a war crime. Then Tariq Aziz, the Deputy Prime Minister, appeared on international television boasting about the incident and saying there would be many more who would come forward, with reports of some 4,000 volunteers willing to engage in such suicide bombing. It is important to put Tariq Aziz on notice that such conduct is a violation of international law, and it will be prosecuted. Similarly, it is important to put Iraqi Vice President Taha Yasin Ramadan on notice that this is a violation of international law. Today in the Hague the former President of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic, is on trial. In an international jail, the former leader of Rwanda is serving a life sentence for violation of international law. On Monday, I filed a resolution at the first available date to put the Iraqi leaders, as well as the Iraqi followers, on notice they will be liable for prosecution as war criminals. It is not a defense for the followers to say they have been operating under orders. I see the distinguished President pro tempore, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, is in the Chamber. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the absence of the arrival of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 101 is located in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I was alarmed over the past weekend to note the suicide bombing which was perpetrated on Saturday where four United States soldiers in the 3rd Infantry Division were murdered by a suicide car bomb, with a bomber driving a taxi filled with explosives to a highway checkpoint in central Iraq. This is the first such attack on American troops in this war, a war in which Iraqi forces have been accused of dressing as civilians and employing so-called human shields. In an interview which appeared on ABC Television on Sunday, March 30th, Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz stated that this was to be the policy of Iraq. This statement was in response to a question by ABC News correspondent Richard Engel, a question related to the comment by the Vice President of Iraq the preceding day, Saturday, March 29th, and then again by a Defense Ministry spokesman on March 30th, that Iraq is ``welcoming the use of [such] suicide attacks.'' I am today introducing a resolution which condemns this practice as a war crime, to put the government of Iraq on notice that the United States, Great Britain, and coalition forces will be prosecuting these atrocities as war crimes. Human Rights Watch commented on this matter, condemned the act in a press release issued just today, saying: ``Feigning civilian or noncombatant status to deceive the enemy is a violation of the laws of war. . . .'' On March 29, that is last Saturday, at a U.S. military roadblock near Najaf, an Iraqi noncommissioned officer, reportedly posing as a taxi driver, detonated a car bomb that killed him and four U.S. soldiers. Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan said in a Baghdad news conference that such attacks would become ``routine military policy.'' The executive director of the Human Rights Watch, Mr. Kenneth Roth, said: ``When combatants disguise themselves as civilians or surrendering soldiers, that is a serious violation of the laws of war. Any such blurring of the line between combatant and noncombatant puts all Iraqis at greater risk.'' International law prohibits attacking, killing, injuring, capturing, or deceiving the enemy by resorting to what is called perfidy. A ``perfidious attack'' is one launched by combatants who have led opposing forces to believe that the attackers are really noncombatants. Acts of perfidy include pretending to be a civilian who cannot be attacked, or feigning surrender. Surrendering soldiers cannot be attacked, so it is perfidious to use that protected status to attack as the opposing forces let down their guard as they try to take the ``surrendering'' soldiers into custody. Now, this technique, this tactic, has been sanctioned, as noted, at the highest level of the Iraqi government by the Vice President of Iraq and by Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. Minister Aziz has been the leading Iraqi spokesman for more than a decade, going back, actually, before the gulf war in 1991. When Minister Aziz speaks, there is no doubt that he is speaking at the highest level of the Iraqi government. The Iraqi government awarded the suicide bomber two posthumous medals and the Vice President said the suicide attacks will become routine military policy in Iraq and in the United States unless the Bush administration abandons the (then) 10-day-old war and pulls back its troops. The interview by ABC TV news correspondent Richard Engel went on to question Deputy Prime Minister Aziz about the nature of such attacks in the future, and Minister Aziz commented: ``There will be others. Iraqis, Arabs, maybe Muslims, yes. We welcome them.'' Minister Aziz took pride in pointing out: ``[T]he first one who did it was an Iraqi. He was not a foreigner.'' It is my view that this is one of a series of acts by the Iraqi Government in violation of the laws of war itemized in the Hague and Geneva Conventions, and that more and varied types of atrocities may be expected by the desperate Iraqi Government. That is why I have prepared today this resolution which calls upon: . . . the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, and other nations comprising the coalition conducting Operation Iraqi Freedom [to] prosecute by trial by tribunal each person in the Government of Iraq, each person in the armed forces of Iraq, and any other person, regardless of nationality, who orders, directs, solicits, procures, coordinates, participates in, or supports acts in violation of the international law of armed conflict (including the aspects of such law known as the Hague and Geneva Conventions) . . . . The resolution specifies a series of circumstances where there is: . . . abuse of places protected from military attack under international law, such as the use of mosques and hospitals as military headquarters or for other military purposes; . . . the ruse by which Iraqi combatants wear civilian clothing instead of, or over, uniforms to conceal their status as combatants and, while so clothed, attack coalition forces; . . . the ruse by which Iraqi combatants feign surrender to coalition forces to gain advantage used by the Iraqi combatants to attack personnel of the coalition forces; . . . the use of civilians or other persons protected under international law as human shields for Iraqi combatants on the battlefield; . . . assault, murder, kidnapping, or torture of civilians or other persons protected under international law in order to terrorize those persons or others or to prevent them from gaining the protection of coalition forces; . . . abuse, torture, assault, or murder of personnel of coalition forces entitled to treatment as prisoners of war or of civilians entitled to a protected status under international law; and . . . recruitment or encouragement of non-Iraqi foreign nationals to engage in violations of the international law of armed conflict. We are saying what has occurred in Iraq today are the actions of a desperate nation. I believe it is very important that the upper echelon of the Iraqi Government, people such as the Vice President, people such as Deputy Prime Minister Aziz, be put on notice that these acts in violation of The Hague and Geneva Conventions will be dealt with very forcefully by a tribunal which is yet to be established. I do not specify at this time the kind of tribunal. That will require some further analysis. It could be a military tribunal to try those offenses where the victims are soldiers of the U.S. Army, or of the British Army, or soldiers of the coalition forces. It might be an international tribunal such as that which was established for the former Yugoslavia, or Rwanda. It is worth noting, and the Iraqi officials ought to be watching, what has happened at The Hague and what happened in Rwanda. The former head of state of Rwanda is now serving a life sentence--notwithstanding that he was the head of state of Rwanda--for crimes against humanity. In a well-publicized case, former Yugoslavian President Milosevic is now on trial in The Hague for violations of international law and crimes against humanity. Many have been sentenced for criminal conduct, for violations of international law in Bosnia and in Kosovo. So at this early stage I believe it is important that the word go out to the Iraqi high command and to those who follow orders of the Iraqi high command that they will be prosecuted as war criminals. It is not a defense that someone says that he or she is operating under an order from a superior officer. In a very celebrated case in World War I, a German U-boat sank an Allied ship. As it went down, those in lifeboats were machinegunned by the submarine, which had surfaced. The perpetrator of the machinegunning entered a defense that the machinegunner was operating under superior's orders. That was soundly rejected. So the principle has been established as a matter of international law that it is no defense to say a person operates under superior's orders. Of course, it is not a defense at all for ranking officials such as the Iraqi Vice President and the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, who know better, who are engaging in these violations of international law. Those who carry out the orders of these Iraqis ought to be on notice, too, that these matters will not be over when we win the war, when the war stops, because these individuals will be pursued in trials just as the head of state of Rwanda was pursued and is serving a life sentence; just as former President Milosevic is being pursued and prosecuted; as so many others are being pursued. This word ought to go out in a very forceful way to the Iraqis that this conduct in violation of international law will not be tolerated. In 1998 I introduced S. Con. Res. 78 calling for a war crimes tribunal to try Saddam Hussein as a war criminal. On March 13, 1998, that was passed unanimously, 93 to nothing, by the Senate. So there is a demonstrated interest on the part of this body in acting very forcefully to give notice to, not only Saddam Hussein, but other Iraqi officials and those who carry out their orders that they will be prosecuted as war criminals if they continue to violate international law.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to speak to a $2.8 billion amendment on behalf of Senator Harkin, myself and others to increase the health function in this resolution. The amendment would add to the funding already included in the resolution for the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Health Resources and Services Administration as well as other health programs. The amendment is offset by an across-the-board reduction in function 920. This reduction would not cut programs, but simply reduce administrative expenses, travel, and consulting services by .36 percent. This amendment would provide NIH with a $2.3 billion increase over the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. As chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee for Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, I have said many times that the National Institutes of Health is the crown jewel of the Federal Government--perhaps the only jewel of the Federal Government. When I came to the Senate in 1981, NIH spending totaled $3.6 billion. The fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill contained $27.2 billion for the NIH which completed the doubling begun in fiscal year 1998. This money has been very well spent. The successes realized by this investment in NIH have spawned revolutionary advances in our knowledge and treatment for diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, mental illnesses, diabetes, osteoporosis, heart disease, ALS, and many others. It is clear that Congress's commitment to the NIH is paying off. Now it is crucial that increased funding be continued in order to translate these advances into additional treatments and cures. Our investment has resulted in new generations of AIDS drugs which are reducing the presence of the AIDS virus in HIV-infected persons to nearly undetectable levels. Death rates from cancer have begun a steady decline. With the sequencing of the human genome, we will begin, over the next few years, to reap the benefits in many fields of research. And if scientists are correct, stem cell research could result in a veritable fountain of youth by replacing diseased or damaged cells. I anxiously await the results of all of these avenues of remarkable research. This is the time to seize the scientific opportunities that lie before us. On May 21, 1997, the Senate passed a sense-of-the-Senate resolution stating that funding for the NIH should be doubled over 5 years. Regrettably, even though the resolution was passed by an overwhelming vote of 98 to nothing, the budget resolution contained a $100 million reduction for health programs. That prompted Senator Harkin and myself to offer an amendment to the budget resolution to add $1.1 billion to carry out the expressed sense of the Senate to increase NIH funding. Unfortunately, our amendment was tabled by a vote of 63 to 37. We were extremely disappointed that, while the Senate had expressed its druthers on a resolution, it was simply unwilling to put up the actual dollars to accomplish this vital goal. The following year, Senator Harkin and I again introduced an amendment to the budget resolution which called for a $2 billion increase for the NIH. While we gained more support on this vote than in the previous year, our amendment was again tabled by a vote of 57-41. Not to be deterred, Senator Harkin and I again went to work with our subcommittee and we were able to add an additional $2 billion to the NIH account for fiscal year 1999. In fiscal year 2000, Senator Harkin and I offered another amendment to the budget resolution to add $1.4 billion to the health accounts, over and above the $600 million increase which had already been provided by the Budget Committee. Despite this amendment's defeat by a vote of 47 to 52, we were able to provide a $2.3 billion increase for NIH in the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill. In fiscal year 2001, Senator Harkin and I again offered an amendment to the budget resolution to increase funding for health programs by $1.6 billion. This amendment passed by a vote of 55 to 45. This victory brought the NIH increase to $2.7 billion for fiscal year 2001. However, after late night conference negotiations with the House, the funding for NIH was cut by $200 million below that amount. In fiscal year 2002, the budget resolution once again fell short of the amount necessary to achieve the NIH doubling. Senator Harkin and I, along with nine other Senators offered an amendment to add an additional $700 million to the resolution to achieve our goal. The vote was 96 to 4. The Senate Labor-HHS subcommittee reported a bill recommending $23.7 billion, an increase of $3.4 billion over the previous year's funding. But during conference negotiations with the House, we once again fell short by $410 million. That meant that in order to stay on a path to double NIH, we would need to provide an increase of $3.7 billion in the fiscal year 2003. The fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill contained the additional $3.7 billion, which achieves the doubling effort. We have fought long and hard to make the doubling of funding a reality, but until treatments and cures are found for the many maladies that continue to plague our society, we must continue our fight. I, like millions of Americans, have benefited tremendously from the investment we have made in the National Institutes of Health and the amendment that we offer today will continue to carry forward the important research work of the world's premier medical research facility. While the budget resolution assumes some increases in chronic disease, health statistics and HIV/AIDS, cuts in other CDC programs total over $300 million. This amendment would add $600 million to the amount already assumed in this resolution. Several years ago, I visited the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was appalled at the deplorable conditions of the laboratories and buildings at the Atlanta campus. I found laboratory facilities with roofs that were leaking on high-technology equipment, equipment falling through rotted floors, and bathrooms that had been converted into labs and office space. The CDC, as the lead Federal agency responsible for promoting health and preventing and controlling disease, should have adequate facilities and equipment to carry out its mission. To address the facility and equipment needs, Senator Harkin and I included $175 million in fiscal year 2001 to begin renovations on campus. In fiscal year 2002, we included $250 million and the same amount was appropriated in fiscal year 2003. The amount assumed in the budget resolution is inadequate to continue the construction work needed to make the CDC safe for workers and ensure that the next public health emergency will not overwhelm the current capacities of the CDC to respond to a biodefense attack or other illness. Additional dollars are also needed for prevention and health promotion programs such as immunization, tuberculosis, cancers and cardiovascular disease. The budget resolution assumes a decrease of $785 million for the Health Resources and Services Administration. This amendment would add $400 million to restore some of the proposed cuts in health professions and provide for program increases in Ryan White AIDS, abstinence education and Children's Hospitals Graduate Medical Education. The increases included in this amendment are essential if we are to continue to carry forward the important work at the world's premier medical research facility, ensure that the CDC has equipment and laboratories to confront any public health crisis that may occur, and provide the Health Resources and Services Administration with the dollars necessary to fund community health centers, train health care professionals, and confront the AIDS crisis. I ask that you join Senator Harkin and me in supporting the amendment.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of the Byrd amendment to the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution to increase Amtrak's budget in fiscal year 2004 from $900 million to $1.8 billion because this level of funding is critical for Amtrak's continued operations next year. Without this additional funding, Amtrak would be forced to entirely shut down its operations. This amendment does not take funding from the President's $726 billion growth package. This additional $900 million is offset from the $600 billion in tax cuts over the 10 years just as the $1.8 billion, accepted by Senator Nickles, on the Kennedy amendment to add to the Pell Grants. I am committed to the specified tax cuts over the next 10 years and there will be ample time to reallocate the $900 million for Amtrak as well as the $1.8 billion for the Pell Grants.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am voting against Senator Dorgan's amendment, which proposes to add an additional $1 billion to VA discretionary accounts. I so vote because the budget resolution, as reported by the Budget committee, already makes significant additions in funding for veterans benefits. It is, I think, already a fair and just allocation of funding for veterans. It seems to be the case that no matter how much funding is made available in a budget resolution, someone will always propose additions. For veterans this year, the budget resolution, as reported, contains unprecedented increases in VA discretionary funding; it increases VA discretionary funding by $3.4 billion over fiscal year 2003 levels, a 13 percent increase. The Budget Committee-reported resolution more than doubles the administration's proposed VA medical care funding increase of $1.5 billion, adding an additional $1.8 billion to this most critical budget account, as urged by Senators Johnson and Ensign in the Budget Committee's markup. In fairness, it is accurate to conclude that funding levels approved by the Budget committee do not shortchange veterans. Senator Dorgan's amendment would add funds to non-medical care- related accounts, such as construction, research, veterans cemetery administration, and veterans benefits processing. These are important accounts--and they have been increased significantly in recent years. Since 1997, Congress has provided funds to support a 40 percent increase in staffing for compensation claims processing. VA medical research funding has increased by 47 percent Veterans cemetery administration funding has increased by 71 percent. Funding for the VA inspector general's office has almost doubled. And over 2.5 billion dollars' worth of major and minor construction projects have been funded. The present resolution will improve on this record by providing a 13 percent increase above 2003 enacted levels for such accounts. Construction funding alone will increase by 62 percent over the 2003 enacted levels. I would like to see even greater increases; it would always be nice to add more funding for various worthwhile purposes. But, in fairness, veterans benefits must be considered along with proposed increases in education, health care, environmental protection, and many other worthwhile Federal programs. Viewed in this context, I think the proposed budget allocation is fair and just.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I rise to join my colleagues in support of this resolution. I commend the President and our troops, including civilians and national security personnel. I believe it is important, once the conflict has begun, that there be full support for our troops in the field. Resolutions were passed by both this body and the House of Representatives by overwhelming majorities. I respect those who have disagreed with the action of the Congress and with the action of the President, however, once the Nation moves forward under our constitutional process, where in a representative democracy the Congress votes and authorizes the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces to move ahead, we should support this action. It is regrettable there was not a united UN because had that been done, I think it might have been possible to back Saddam Hussein down. I had an opportunity to meet with Saddam Hussein for more than an hour back in 1990, and while he is venal and brutal, I do not think he is insane or suicidal. However, the international dance and delay was such that he thought he could wear us down. Once the United States had more than 200,000 troops in the field, we were constrained by weather factors and our personnel were threatened by chemical and biological attacks, and so we simply had to move. Every action on Saddam's part was a delay. So whether there was agreement or disagreement up to this point, now is the time for unified American action. This resolution commends Prime Minister Tony Blair and his government, and I believe the coalition of the willing will be doing the work really of the entire free world. It is our hope and expectation that the efforts will be swift and the casualties will be held to a minimum. With success I hope that those who have dissented in the United Nations will come forward because victory will be ours on the battlefield. However, that is not sufficient. Iraq must be rebuilt and our international alliances must be reinstated. This is the first step today, by having a strong vote, hopefully a unanimous vote, in supporting our troops and supporting the action of the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Marsha Berzon responded that the matter was settled, regardless of what her views were. A similar response was given by Judith Rogers to questions by former Senator Cohen. With respect to Miguel Estrada's work as an Assistant Solicitor General, seven former Solicitors General wrote to Senator Leahy, laying out the fact that it is of ``vital importance of candor and confidentiality in the Solicitor General's decision-making process that Miguel Estrada's work should not be disclosed.'' I am delighted that we have been joined by a number of Senators from the other side of the aisle. It is my hope that we will yet get five additional Senators who will break the deadlock and we will move to cloture and we will end this debate. This controversy is poisoning the Senate beyond any question. It is distracting the Senate from other very important business. I hope we will find a way out promptly and ultimately establish a protocol so many days after a nomination is submitted, a hearing by the Judiciary Committee; so many days later, a committee vote; so many days later, floor action; so that regardless of what party controls the White House and what party controls the Senate, the public business will be attended to and the partisanship will be taken out of the selection and confirmation of Federal judges. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I begin by taking direct issue with the arguments by the Senator from Massachusetts. The advice and consent function set forth in the Constitution has been consistently interpreted for 216 years to confirm Presidential nominations, unless there is a reason not to. That has been the practice. Now we have a new position advocated by the Democrats, saying if there are 41 obstructors, then the Democrats want an equal share in the process of judicial selection. The Senator from South Dakota raised the consideration that no one on this side of the aisle had spoken up, when in effect the shoe was on the other foot when the Democrats controlled the White House and Republicans controlled the Senate. There were those on this side of the aisle who spoke up and said worthy nominees submitted by President Clinton should be confirmed. I was one of them. We did confirm a number of contested nominations: Judge Richard Paez, Marsha Berzon, Roger Gregory, and others. So it is true there have been delays when one party has controlled the White House and the other party has controlled the Senate. And Republicans are not blameless in this process. But I submit that in the 107th Congress, with President Bush in the White House and the Democrats in control of the Senate, the process has been carried to great extreme. This year, with the Republicans controlling both the White House and the Senate, we have had the unprecedented position of a filibuster on a judge for the court of appeals. In the history of the judicial confirmation process, there has been only one prior filibuster, and that was on Justice Abe Fortas, nominated to be Chief Justice. That involved an issue of integrity, and that was a bipartisan filibuster. We had, perhaps, the most bitter contest on confirmation when Circuit Judge Clarence Thomas was up for confirmation to the Supreme Court. Within 50 minutes, let alone 5 minutes, I could not begin to summarize the contest there on the bitterness of the proceedings. Justice Thomas was confirmed 52-48. But no one suggested there ought to be a filibuster. The regular rule was followed. Even though there was a tie vote in the Judiciary Committee, which would not customarily, under Judiciary Committee rules, permit the matter to be advanced to the full body, it did come to the full Senate and there was no filibuster, and Justice Thomas was confirmed. When the Democrats--and I very much deplore the partisan nature of this debate, but it is a matter of Democrats versus Republicans, and it is my hope we will find a way to solve it. When the Democrats raise issues about Miguel Estrada answering more questions, or raise the contention that his work as an assistant Solicitor General ought to be disclosed, they are, pure and simple, red herrings. A long litany of nominees have come before the Judiciary Committee who have declined to answer questions and have been confirmed. In the judicial process, judges are not expected to give opinions until there is a case in controversy, until there are facts, until briefs are submitted, until there is oral argument, until there is deliberation among the judges, then a decision is made--not to answer a wide variety of hypothetical questions that are posed in nomination proceedings. On the confirmation process of Merrick Garland, I asked the question: Do you favor, as a personal matter, capital punishment? Mr. Garland replied: This is really a matter of settled law now. The Court has held that capital punishment is constitutional and lower courts are expected to follow the rule. Because of time limitations, I shall not go into detail on that. When Marsha Berzon appeared before the committee, she was asked by Senator Robert Smith about the abortion issue. Marsha Berzon was later confirmed. I ask for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to submit a resolution along with 52 of my colleagues to designate March 25, 2003, as ``Greek Independence Day: A Celebration of Greek and American Democracy.'' One hundred and eighty two years ago, the Greek people began the revolution that would free them from the Ottoman Empire and return Greece to its democratic heritage. It was, of course, the ancient Greeks who developed the concept of democracy in which the supreme power to govern was vested in the people. Our Founding Fathers drew heavily upon the political and philosophical experience of ancient Greece in forming our representative democracy. Thomas Jefferson proclaimed that, ``to the ancient Greeks . . . we are all indebted for the light which led ourselves out of Gothic darkness.'' It is fitting, then, that we should recognize the anniversary of the beginning of their efforts to return to that democratic tradition. The democratic form of government is only one of the most obvious of the many benefits we have gained from the Greek people. The ancient Greeks contributed a great deal to the modern world, particularly to the United States of America, in the areas of art, philosophy, science and law. Today, Greek-Americans continue to enrich our culture and make valuable contributions to American society, business, and government. It is my hope that strong support for this resolution in the Senate will serve as a clear goodwill gesture to the people of Greece with whom we have enjoyed such a close bond throughout history. Similar resolutions have been passed by the Senate since 1984 with overwhelming support. Accordingly, I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting this important resolution. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to pay tribute to Mr. Fred Rogers, the beloved host of the Public Broadcasting Service, PBS children's television program, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood. For more than 30 years, America has been fortunate to have one of the most caring and dedicated neighbors in Mr. Rogers. His soft-spoken and patient manner put viewers at ease and allowed Mr. Rogers to courageously address adult topics such as death, divorce, and anger. The neighborhood of make believe residents helped to illustrate differences in people and teach children the importance of cooperation. From King Friday and Queen Sara Saturday to Henrietta Pussycat and Daniel Stripped Tiger, diversity, tolerance, and problem solving were not only taught, but celebrated. Mr. Rogers is a role model for people and parents everywhere. His ability to communicate with children offered them a place, every morning, where they felt accepted and understood. Mr. Rogers, dressed in his signature cardigan sweater and tying his tennis shoes, often sang the song ``You Are Special'' in which he said, ``You are my friend. You are special to me. You are the only one like you. Like you, my friend, I like you.'' I cannot think of a more important lesson to teach children than the lesson of self-esteem. Mr. Rogers taught self- esteem, but he was never limited in his lessons. Just as importantly, he helped his viewers explore subjects they were curious about and develop their own sense of self and creativity through imagination, all the while helping to teach self-discipline. Mr. Rogers was much more than simply a great neighbor. Born in Latrobe, PA, on March 20, 1928, Fred Rogers began his television career in New York City in 1951. With a music composition degree from Rollins College, Mr. Rogers served as an apprentice at NBC managing the musical selections for some of the network's earliest shows. In 1953, after marrying college sweetheart Sara Joanne Byrd, Mr. Rogers returned to Pennsylvania to develop programming at WQED in Pittsburgh. It was at WQED that Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood really flourished. After working as a puppeteer, Mr. Rogers had the opportunity to develop his own 15 minute segment that eventually became the Mr. Rogers Neighborhood that America knows and loves today. Over thirty years and almost 900 episodes later, the messages that Mr. Rogers delivered are as vital now as they were in 1960. Mr. Rogers' accomplishments reach far beyond the boundaries of the neighborhood. Ordained by the Pittsburgh Presbytery in 1962, Mr. Rogers was active in child and family advocacy on all levels. In 1972, Mr. Rogers formed Family Communications, Inc. to produce educational entertainment for children and families and resources for teachers. Mr. Rogers most recently partnered with the Western Pennsylvania Caring Foundation to establish the Caring Place for grieving children in an effort to make sure that children who experienced a loss did not feel so alone. During his career of service to children, families, and communities, Mr. Rogers was the recipient of two George Foster Peabody Awards, four Emmys, and two ``Lifetime Achievement Awards'' from the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences and the TV Critics Association. In July 2002, Mr. Rogers was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom--the Nation's highest civilian honor--for his dedication to the well-being of children and for a career that demonstrates the importance of kindness, compassion, and learning. All of these awards added to the 30 honorary degrees that Mr. Rogers received throughout the years. Mr. Rogers was no stranger to Capitol Hill. After testifying before the Senate in 1969, Mr. Rogers made an almost annual visit to Capitol Hill to express how deeply he believed in the importance of education. I was honored to have Mr. Rogers as a guest in my office during his many visits to the Senate. While walking around the U.S. Capitol with him, my Senate colleagues and their staff flocked to Mr. Rogers as if he were royalty, which he most certainly was. Always kind enough to stop and say hello or pose for a picture, Mr. Rogers truly epitomized the quintessential teacher, father, friend, guide, and neighbor. Mr. Rogers' ability to talk about the things that really matter in childhood have made him an inspiration to two generations of children already, and to countless generations to come. Our nation's children are better today for having had the counsel and wisdom of Pittsburgh's own Mr. Rogers. All of us were truly fortunate to have had the best neighbor in Mr. Rogers.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, after the sudden and untimely death of our colleague--and my friend--Senator John Heinz, in 1991, his wife, Teresa Heinz, set about devising a suitable and characteristic memorial to his memory. As she has said, such a task is especially difficult when the goal is to honor someone as complex and multi-faceted as Senator Heinz was. She realized that no static monument or self-serving exercise in sentimentality would do, and that the only tribute befitting Senator Heinz would be one that celebrated his spirit by honoring those who live and work in the same ways he did. Those of us who had the privilege of knowing Senator Heinz remember, with respect and affection, his tremendous energy and intellectual curiosity; his commitment to improving the lives of people; and his impatience with procedural roadblocks when they stood in the way of necessary progress. For Senator Heinz, excellence was not enough; excellence was taken as a given. What made the difference was the practical--and, yes, pragmatic--application of excellence to the goal of making America a better nation and the world a better place. Although John Heinz thought and worked on a grand scale, he understood that progress is more often made in small increments: one policy, one program, even one person, at a time. We also remember the contagious enthusiasm and palpable joy with which he pursued his goals and lived his life. Teresa Heinz created the Heinz Awards to celebrate and carry on these qualities and characteristics--five awards in each of five categories in which John was especially interested and active during his legislative and public career: Arts and Humanities; the Environment; the Human Condition; Public Policy; and Technology and the Economy. In each of these areas, the Heinz Awards recognize outstanding achievements. In fact, the annual Heinz Awards are among the largest individual achievement prizes in the world. The six men and women who are being honored with this year's Heinz Awards--the ninth annual Awards--have just been named and were honored last night. They are a distinguished and accomplished group of men and women whose lives and work have truly made a difference. This year the Arts and Humanities Heinz Award is being presented to Dr. Bernice Johnson Reagon. Dr. Reagon's deep commitment to civil rights and song has led her down the path of activism, the arts, and academics. Dr. Reagon's experiences in Albany, Georgia during times of segregation led to her founding the women's vocal ensemble, Sweet Honey in the Rock, which is celebrating 30 years of struggle, action, and triumph. As a curator at the Smithsonian Institution, Dr. Reagon has worked tirelessly to ensure that the tradition and story of African- Americans in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries are not forgotten. In addition, Dr. Reagon spearheaded the museum's efforts to preserve the oral history of the Civil Rights Movement culture and African-American sacred music and worship traditions. This year the Heinz Award in the Environment is being shared by Dr. Mario, J. Molina and Dr. John D. Spengler. Dr. Molina, an expert on ozone depletion at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, shared the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on the effects of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and was one of the most vocal scientists that led the charge to have CFCs banned in 1979. He is currently one of the most influential and respected voices in environmental policy. Dr. Spengler of Harvard University's School of Public Health is being commended for his efforts in understanding the consequences of indoor and outdoor air pollution on public health. His findings that indoor air quality had a tremendous impact on overall health guided the focus of air quality standards toward a holistic approach, as opposed to a singular focus on outdoor air pollution. As the vice chairman of a National Research Committee that ultimately recommended the 1986 airliner smoking ban, Dr. Spengler solidified his reputation as an expert in his field as well as a dedicated advocate for public health. Dr. Spengler currently serves as an adviser to the Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization. Dr. Paul Farmer receives the Heinz Award for the Human Condition. As a physician and medical anthropologist, Dr. Farmer, of Harvard Medical School, has unfailingly committed himself to the study of HIV and tuberculosis treatment around the world. Dr. Farmer has spent the better part of his career opening the world's eyes to the abject inequalities in public health as well as developing practical programs that deliver life-saving services. His efforts in public health have led the World Health Organization to reconsider its position on treating HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. The Heinz Award for Public Policy is being awarded to Ms. Geraldine Jensen of Toledo, Ohio. Ms. Jensen founded the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support (ACES), the largest child support enforcement organization in the United States with over 50,000 members nationwide. After a divorce that left her and her children with very few opportunities, Ms. Jensen rallied single parents experiencing the same hardships to stand up for themselves and their children and demand justice. A committed advocate for children and families, Ms. Jensen's work has resulted in the passage of three federal laws on child support and safeguards to ensure that fewer children will become victims of poverty. Dr. Paul MacCready receives the Heinz Award for Technology, the Economy and Employment. Named the ``Engineer of the Century'' in 1980 by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Dr. MacCready invented and built the first flying machine powered solely by a human, the Gossamer Condor. Dr. MacCready, however, did not stop there. He also helped to create non-fossil fuel automobiles, the first solar powered car, and the first viable mass-market electric car, among his many other inventions. A generation later, Dr. MacCready's ideas on the relationship between advancing technology and preserving the earth's resources continue to impact the field of engineering and will not doubt continue to do so for years to come. I know that every Member of this body joins me in saluting Teresa Heinz for creating such an apt and appropriate way of honoring the memory of our late colleague; and also in congratulating these distinguished Americans, recipients of the ninth annual Heinz Awards, for the way their lives and contributions have--and continue to--carry on the spirit and the work of Senator John Heinz.