Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks the program for the commemorative ceremony in Shanksville be printed in the Congressional Record, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, for purposes of completing the procedure, I intend to object after asking the bill be read the second time.

Mr. SPECTER. At this time, I submit on behalf of myself and 69 cosponsors a bill to authorize the President to award posthumously the Congressional Gold Medal to the passengers and crew of United Airlines Flight 93 in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on the United States on September 11, 2001.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, Senator Santorum, Senator Ensign, and I have just returned from memorial services in Shanksville, PA, commemorating the downing of Flight 93. It was truly an inspirational and emotional occurrence. The families of the victims of flight 93, the crew and passengers, were seated front and center, and then a large crowd was assembled, estimated in advance to be in the range of 20,000 to 30,000 people. Gov. Mark Schweiker, Governor of Pennsylvania, spoke, as did former Gov. Tom Ridge, now the Homeland Security Director. There was not a dry eye in the entire assemblage. The message delivered by Governor Schweiker and Governor Ridge was a moment of remembrance, a moment of commemoration, and a moment of hope for the future, with a determination that a united America will repel terrorists wherever terrorists exist and that the struggle for freedom will be maintained and will be won. Governor Schweiker went to the Shanksville Elementary School in advance of the ceremony and brought to the assemblage, especially the families of victims of flight 93, this message from the Shanksville Elementary School: If God brought you to it, God will bring you through it. That brought quite a response. Churchill was quoted, I think, so appropriately: Never was so much owed by so many to so few. I think that is especially applicable to the Members of the Senate and the Members of the House of Representatives because flight 93 was headed to the U.S. Capitol. That had long been the speculation, and it was confirmed 2 days ago in an article in the New York Times, quoting members of al-Qaida. Ms. Sandy Dahl, wife of pilot Jason Dahl, made an emotional speech and later came down and sat right next to where I was sitting and was holding her infant daughter, Michaela, who will be 2 at the end of September. It was quite a poignant picture of the widow, grieving for what happened a year ago today, but holding her child and looking forward to the future. The child was smiling, and so was Mrs. Dahl, looking at her infant daughter. It is my hope that the Congress will yet act on legislation which has been introduced to grant Congressional Gold Medals to the 40 who were crew and passengers of flight 93. As I moved through the assembled ladies and gentlemen who were families of the victims and spoke to them and heard of their grief, the common thread was: Please move ahead. Thank you for the legislation--thanking the Congress for the legislation authorizing the creation of a memorial at Shanksville, a national memorial site, but also asking that our legislation for the Congressional Gold Medals be completed. The family of Georgine Rose Corrigan presented me with this photo and the ribbons, red, white, and blue. These photos were worn by so many-- virtually all of the families of the victims who were in attendance. Yesterday, I spoke on the floor of the Senate and said that sometime before dusk today I would ask unanimous consent for the consideration of the bill S. 1434, which has 69 cosponsors, which would grant the Congressional Gold Medal posthumously to the victims of flight 93. This bill should have been moved a long time ago. I have taken it up with the appropriate Senators to get it moved, and it has not moved because of the interest of some in expanding it to cover other victims--the firefighters, the police, and others. I certainly think it would be appropriate to grant recognition to all of those people. However, I think the victims of flight 93 are in a special category because they saved the Capitol. In order to avoid the complications of having a bill discharged from committee, I have consulted with the Parliamentarian as to the procedures for having a bill held at the desk.

Mr. SPECTER. In the absence of anybody else on the floor seeking recognition, I ask consent that I be permitted to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I think I have the floor. If I might just comment, what I would like to do is speak on the bill.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I don't plan to offer any amendments or anything unusual. I want to make some comments on the pending bill. I don't plan to do anything that would require the presence of anybody here to safeguard their interests. I don't wish to do anything that would be construed as contrary to anybody's interest. I would like to have people here who are on the bill.

Mr. SPECTER. I am sorry the Senator from Nevada will not be here to hear my presentation, but there are 97 other Senators who could come. Counting the Presiding Officer and myself and the Senator from Nevada, that leaves 97 others. That is probably more people than are watching on C-SPAN 2, as a matter of fact, Madam President. Amendment No. 4513 The pending amendment seeks to speak to the provisions of the bill relating to a National Office for Combating Terrorism, and I believe the thrust of the provisions for this national office are well founded as a coordinating mechanism. But after discussing the matter in some detail with the author of the bill, the distinguished senior Senator from Florida, and considering the views of the President, who does not want to have a confirmed officer in the West Wing but is looking for an adviser, as former Governor Ridge who is now his adviser, as Dr. Condoleezza Rice is the National Security Adviser--it seems to me there are strong reasons for us to avoid this legislation to have a Secretary of Homeland Security who will be confirmed and then have a Director for the National Office for Combating Terrorism, because all of these duties, in my opinion, can be handled by the Secretary of Homeland Security. So the objectives which the senior Senator from Florida seeks to accomplish can be accomplished without adding this additional office. I know the President does not want another officer confirmed by the Senate. He didn't want one in the first place, and didn't want a Department of Homeland Security, but now has acceded. Senator Lieberman and I introduced the legislation for a Department of Homeland Security and a Secretary of Homeland Security last October, and eventually the President acceded to that necessity, and there is now a bill on the floor. But as I look over the responsibilities which the senior Senator from Florida has assigned to the Director of the National Office for Combating Terrorism, it is my view that these duties can be handled by the Secretary of Homeland Security. The responsibilities which are set out in section 201(c): To develop national objectives and policies for combating terrorism. I think that is an appropriate function for the Secretary. To direct . . . [the] assessment of terrorist threats and vulnerabilities to those threats . . . . Again, I think that is something that can be handled by the Secretary. To coordinate . . . the implementation . . . of the Strategy by agencies with responsibilities for combating terrorism . . . . Again, I think that is something the Secretary can do. To work with agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, to ensure that appropriate actions are taken to address vulnerabilities identified by the Directorate of Critical Infrastructure Protection within the Department. Again, that is something which the Secretary can handle. To coordinate, with the advice of the Secretary, the development of a comprehensive annual budget for the programs and activities under the Strategy, including the budgets of the military departments and agencies within the National Foreign Intelligence Program relating to international terrorism . . . . That can be handled by the Secretary. In fact, this provision calls for coordination with the Secretary. The provision does exclude military programs, projects or activities relating to force protection. This is a controversial item, as to whether there ought to be somebody with budget authority. I think it is a good idea. Right now there is diverse budget authority with a larger share of it on the intelligence agencies coming out of the Department of Defense. I believe it would be very useful to have that centralized. When I chaired the Intelligence Committee in the 104th Congress, I proposed legislation which would have brought all of the intelligence agencies under one umbrella, the Central Intelligence Agency. Now I think there is an opportunity to do that with the new Department of Homeland Security since we are taking a fresh look at this area. I know there are objections to giving budget authority to anyone on an overall basis, but it would be my hope that this provision would stay--but it would stay under the dominion of the Secretary of Homeland Security. The other responsibilities of the Director of the National Office for Combating Terrorism are: To exercise funding authority for Federal terrorism prevention and response agencies . . . . Stated simply, all of the functions of the Director of the National Office for Combating Terrorism, in my view, can be handled by the Secretary of Homeland Security. I think those objectives are sound. It is my hope that we will legislate here to put under the umbrella of the Secretary of Homeland Security the necessary authority to protect against terrorists. It is my judgment that had all of the dots been under one umbrella, there would have been a veritable blueprint for what happened on September 11 and that September 11 might well have been prevented. This is the time, with the new Department of Homeland Security to be established, that we have a chance to implement what so many people have proposed. My idea to bring all of the intelligence agencies under one umbrella in the legislation, which I proposed in the 104th Congress when I chaired the Intelligence Committee, is an idea which has been proposed by many. At the moment, there is on the President's desk a comprehensive proposal to accomplish just that. But the reality is that the turf wars involving the various agencies are so fierce that this is never accomplished. Now we have a chance to do it. Had the one umbrella been present to identify the FBI Phoenix memorandum--where there was a flight student with a big picture of Osama bin Laden and indicators of potential terrorist activity--had that, combined with the two men identified, who were later hijackers on September 11, in Kuala Lumpur where the CIA never told the FBI or the INS--had that been added to the records--the National Security Agency got it on September 10; it wasn't translated as a threat that something would happen the next day, perhaps later, until the 12th--especially with the information which could have been obtained, had a warrant been issued for the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui and for the search of his premises--there was a virtual treasure trove of information linking Moussaoui to al-Qaida. We have learned a very different lesson from 9/11. Now is the time for the Congress to change it. We simply have to override the various Federal agencies that are fighting for their turf. The stakes now are too serious. We have an enormous responsibility in the Congress to do everything we can to see to it that there is no recurrence of 9/11. We have action to be taken if there is a biological attack. We have worked on various antidotes for various biological weapons--smallpox and anthrax. But if we have to respond, it is a 99 percent loss. What we have to do is prevent it. The intelligence agencies that want to maintain their own sovereignty just ought to change that attitude. The legislation which has been proposed would put all of these analysis sections under the Secretary of Homeland Security. That is what ought to be done. That can be done in this bill. There was a meeting on July 31 with the President, Governor Ridge, and Members of Congress, where we talked about these ideas. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is a critical line on the letter I have written to Governor Ridge. I will read just a little bit of it. Dear Tom: I was very pleased to hear the President's affirmative response yesterday to the proposal to have analysts from every intelligence agency (CIA, FBI, DIA, etc) under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security with the Secretary having the authority to direct those intelligence agencies to supply his Department with the requisite intelligence data. This doesn't mean that Homeland Security will have authority over CIA agents. They will remain with the CIA. It doesn't mean the Secretary of Homeland Security would have the direction of the FBI agents or any other agents. They will all remain in their Departments. But the analysts will all come together under one roof. There will be nothing to stop the CIA from having analysts under the CIA roof. But they will have to be CIA agents under the roof of the Director of Homeland Security so that all of the analysts are there and can put the dots together in one place. The critical paragraph in the letter set forth is: Responsibilities.--The Directorate of Intelligence . . . . On behalf of the Secretary, subject to disapproval by the President, directing the agencies described under subsection (a)(1)(B) to provide intelligence information, analyses of intelligence information and such other intelligence-related information as the Directorate of Intelligence deems necessary. That is the critical part of it. The other way of articulating the idea would be to say that the President approves the Secretary having this authority. But it is unrealistic to expect the President to come in and make an analysis and take affirmative action. But it is effective to get the same job done if the problem is sufficient to have the matter disapproved by the President. I don't think you really have to have statutory language because the President directs anybody as he chooses. They are going to be bound to carry out his orders. But this would give the Secretary of Homeland Security umbrella authority, as I say, subject to disapproval of the President. Although I do think the senior Senator from Florida had a good idea and purpose in the National Office for Combating Terrorism, the better policy is to leave these responsibilities to the Secretary of Homeland Security, a separate Department. The President is then free to have an adviser on homeland security--as he currently does, a position filled in the West Wing by Governor Ridge. Exhibit I U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, August 1, 2002. Hon. Tom Ridge, Director of Homeland Security, Washington, DC. Dear Tom: I was very pleased to hear the President's affirmative response yesterday to the proposal to have analysts from every intelligence agency (CIA, FBI, DIA, etc.) under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security with the Secretary having the authority to direct those intelligence agencies to supply his Department with the requisite intelligence data. As I said in the meeting in the Cabinet Room yesterday, I think that had all of the intelligence information known prior to September 11th been under one umbrella, the terrorist attacks of September 11th might have been prevented. Senator Thompson, as I understood him, did not disagree with that ultimate approach except to express the view that he thought that changes in the structure of the intelligence community should await further studies. My own strongly held view is that we have a unique opportunity to make the changes in the intelligence community now because of the imminent terrorist threats; and, if we don't act now, we will go back to business as usual. As you and I discussed in our meeting of July 29, 2002, there have been many proposals to place the intelligence agencies under one umbrella, including legislation which I introduced in 1996 when I chaired the Intelligence Committee, and the current proposals which have been made by General Scowcroft. I suggest that Section 132(b) of the bill reported by the Governmental Affairs Committee be modified by adding at the beginning a new paragraph (1) to read as follows: (b) Responsibilities:--The Directorate of Intelligence shall be responsible for the following: (1) On behalf of the Secretary, subject to disapproval by the President, directing the agencies described under subsection (a)(1)(B) to provide intelligence information, analyses of intelligence information and such other intelligence-related information as the Directorate of Intelligence deems necessary. I am sending copies of this letter to Senator Lieberman and Senator Thompson so that we may all discuss these issues further. My best. Sincerely, Arlen Specter.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the absence of any other Senator on the floor seeking recognition on the bill or, for that matter, any other purpose, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to proceed as if in morning business to discuss legislation I have pending, S. 1434, a bill which has 69 cosponsors, which would give the Congressional Medal to all of the crew and passengers on flight 93 which crashed in Shanksville, PA, on September 11, 2001. As we know from cellphone conversations from passengers on that plane, the passengers took over the plane from the terrorists, at least to the extent of depriving the terrorists control where the terrorists, as was widely suspected, were headed for the Capitol of the United States. And the plane crashed in Shanksville, PA, killing all of those on board. It seems to me this is a unique place for the Congressional Gold Medal, because those passengers saved the Congress. Had that plane reached the Capitol, this Chamber would not now be in existence, nor the Rotunda, nor the House of Representatives. It is hard to say in the morning, perhaps midmorning, how many Members of the Congress of the United States and staff would not be here today. In seeking this recognition, it is a very unique opportunity to acknowledge those passengers. This bill has languished because it has gotten tied up, as it is not uncommon for legislation to be tied up for a variety of other reasons. There are some who want to give medals to everyone who died on September 11, which I think is a fine idea. There are some who want to give medals to all of those who were in the rescue squads from the police precincts or fire stations or the Port Authority. And there, again, I think that is a commendable idea. And all the ideas to recognize other people may be fine, but they can take their turn on legislation. But this legislation ought to be enacted before sunset tomorrow, before September 11, 2002, expires. I am now working with some of my colleagues in the Senate to accomplish that. If we cannot accomplish that, then I am going to ask unanimous consent to call up S. 1434, which has 69 cosponsors. It should have been discharged from committee a long time ago. With 69 cosponsors, that is 18 more votes than necessary to pass legislation in the Senate. There is a bill in the House of Representatives which approaches the issue slightly differently. The proposal in the House is to leave the decision up to the Attorney General of the United States. Well, that might be a good idea if there was something for the Attorney General to determine that we do not now know. But all of the knowable facts as to what happened on flight 93 are now known. The Attorney General cannot conduct an investigation and pinpoint any specific individuals. And it is doubtless true that some individuals were more responsible for taking control of the plane away from the terrorists than others. But all were present. And all of those who were present were accessories to heroism. They lent their support by their presence. Of course, they could not go anywhere else, but the passengers brought down the plane. And the passengers saved the Capitol of the United States. Interestingly, just yesterday, The New York Times published a release which contains confirmation from key al-Qaida operatives that flight 93 was, in fact, headed for the Capitol. That has been a fairly accepted conclusion, but this is what the New York Times story of yesterday, September 9, says: Yosri Fouda, correspondent for the satellite station Al-Jazeera, told The Associated Press that he was taken, blindfolded, to a secret location in Pakistan to meet Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh in a June interview arranged by al-Qaida operatives. The thrust of the story is that the al-Qaida operatives said that flight 93 was headed for the Capitol. So, in essence, I think we have waited long enough. I think this action ought to be completed before sunset on September 11, 2002. And I hope we can work out an accommodation from the Members who are now with varying points of view. But, as I say, I will ask unanimous consent that the bill be acted upon before sunset tomorrow. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this New York Times report identifying from al-Qaida operatives the fact that this plane, flight 93, was headed for the Capitol, be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Then I do call for the regular order.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I understand that on my call for regular order, we go back to the pending bill. Is that correct?

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to state my reasons for voting for the amendment offered to provide $5.9 billion in emergency relief to farmers due to flooding, drought and other natural disasters because I am concerned that numerous farmers across the United States and Pennsylvania may lose their livelihoods. The Pennsylvania agricultural community has been particularly hard hit by natural disasters in recent years. On September 3, 2002, Pennsylvania Governor Mark Schweiker requested a Natural Disaster Determination from the United States Department of Agriculture on behalf of 54 of Pennsylvania's 67 counties that are suffering due to this drought. These counties have been and continue to be under a drought warning or drought emergency. Due to these adverse weather conditions, Pennsylvania farmers have and will experience significant crop damage resulting in reduced harvests. The losses to these counties are projected at over $321 million in Pennsylvania. I am informed that situations similar to this are occurring across the United States. The funding in this amendment will provide $5.9 billion in relief for farmers for the 2001 and 2002 crop years. During consideration of the 2002 farm bill, I opposed the overwhelming costs that came as a result of the House and Senate Conference, an increase of $10 billion over the levels passed by the Senate and the House. However, funds are now warranted to combat continued natural disasters that have become an acute problem for farmers in Pennsylvania and across the Nation. The loss of crops that have come with these natural disasters have left grain farmers with a low yield. This low yield not only effects farmers producing grain but those who must use grain and account for the increased cost of production. The rising costs of grain to dairy farmers has created an intolerable situation where the costs of producing are increasing without the already low price of milk rising at a corresponding level. The addition of these increased costs to production is too much to be shouldered by the hardworking farmers of Pennsylvania and America.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I am unable to support the amendment by my colleagues Senator Smith and Senator Boxer to arm pilots on commercial flights because I am concerned that such a proposal would invite gun fights in the cockpit. I believe that federal air marshals are the individuals best suited to handle any terrorist situation which might arise on a flight, and am fully supportive of providing the financial resources necessary to hire additional air marshals. Although this amendment would provide significant training for pilots to handle firearms, I remain concerned that in an emergency situation their concentration should be focused on flying the plane, not dealing with attackers in the passenger cabin. I do strongly support the provision in the amendment which would provide self-defense training for flight attendants, however I simply do not believe it is worth the risk to have the availability of guns in the cockpit which could fall into terrorist hands.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to discuss the present grave concern in the United States, and for that matter, around the world, about the menace posed by Saddam Hussein and Iraq. I am pleased to note that the President has announced his intention to come to Congress to seek authorization before there is any military action taken by the United States as to Iraq. Senator Harkin and I had introduced a resolution back in July asking that congressional authority be obtained before any military action. The President, as Commander in Chief, under the Constitution certainly has the authority to act in times of emergency. When there is time for discussion, deliberation, debate, and decision, then under the Constitution, it is the authority of the Congress to act. The events are moving very fast. There have been briefings of Members of the Congress by the Administration and there is a great concern, which I have personally noted in my State, Pennsylvania, on a series of town meetings across the State. Everywhere I traveled there was concern as to what action would be taken as to Iraq. There was no doubt that the United States has learned a very bitter lesson from 9/11; we should have taken preemptive action against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. We had evidence against civilians in Mogadishu in 1993, and embassy bombings in 1993. In all of those events, bin Laden was under indictment. We knew about his involvement in the USS Cole and his proclamation for a worldwide jihad; preemptive action should have been taken. Taking preemptive action against a nation-state would be a change in policy for the United States. It is my view that we ought to exhaust every alternative before turning to that alternative--economic sanctions, inspections, diplomacy. We have seen a number of people very close to President Bush and to the first President Bush, come out and caution against action. We have seen General Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to President George Herbert Walker Bush, come out and raise a great many concerns about taking action without support from our allies. We have seen former Secretary of State James Baker raise an issue about going to the United Nations for inspections, which I think is a very sound point. It is my hope that President Bush will go to the United Nations and will press to have inspections of Iraq proceed. The obligation for Iraq to submit to those inspections is an obligation which runs to the United Nations. Iraq's commitments to the UN have been flouted. Former Secretary of State Baker makes the cogent suggestion that the United Nations ought to be called upon to take military action to enforce those inspection rights, if Saddam Hussein does not acquiesce. Certainly, if Saddam Hussein continues to stiff the UN, to thumb his nose at the UN, and thumb his nose at the international community, then there will be a stronger basis for the United States to act, if we decide that our national interests compel us to do so. There is an obvious difficulty in communicating to the American people all that President Bush and the intelligence agencies know about the threat posed by Iraq and posed by Saddam Hussein. There is a problem, as we have seen from our experience, in telling the Congress, even in closed session, even in top secret briefings, where that information, regrettably, is disclosed to the press. Leaks in Washington are epidemic. However, if the Congress is to discharge its duty to pass on the question of what is tantamount to a declaration of war, a resolution authorizing the use of force, we have to know the basis on which we are acting. There have been strong suggestions that there is very substantial evidence pointing to a clear and present danger now. We do know Saddam has chemical weapons. We do know he has used them on his own people, the Kurds. We do know he has used them in the Iran-Iraq war. There is substantial evidence about weapons of mass destruction and biological weapons. As best we know, Saddam Hussein does not yet have nuclear weapons, but how long it would take him to develop them is a question. For the Congress to act, we really have to have this information, and the President has intimated, really suggested, that more information will be coming to the Congress. So far, I do not think we have seen the indicators of a clear and present danger, but that is something which will have to be taken up. This is an issue which is now, obviously, on the front burner. There are indications that the President will seek a vote by the Congress before we adjourn. So it is a matter which will require very intensive consideration and analysis. However, it is my hope that when the President makes his speech at the United Nations next week, he will call on the UN to enforce the UN's inspection rights. Recently, Senator Shelby and I made a trip to Africa. Included in that trip was a visit to the Sudan. I had attempted to go there in the past and was advised against it because of the civil war, which has been raging in that country. We talked to U.S. intelligence personnel in the Sudan and found that they have worked out an arrangement with the Government of Sudan to make surprise inspections of weapons manufacturing locations and also on laboratories--going in with no notice, breaking locks, and taking photographs. They have concluded that, as to the installations they had identified and inspected, they were satisfied that there were no weapons of mass destruction being pursued by the Government of Sudan. That could be a model to go after as to inspections in Iraq. Of course, it still leaves open the possibility that there are some locations about which we do not know. It leaves open the possibility that some of the weapons of mass destruction could be transported, could be moved around. However, I think it would be a very significant step. Then, if Saddam and Iraq refused to honor their commitments, it would put us on the high ground to take action in our own national interest. I yield the floor. In the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to express my strong approval of the Senate's confirmation of Mr. Terrence F. McVerry who President Bush nominated for the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The American Bar Association has rated Mr. McVerry ``unanimously well-qualified'' to sit on the bench. Mr. McVerry received his B.A. degree from Duquesne University in 1962 and his J.D. from Duquesne University School of Law in 1968. After finishing law school, Mr. McVerry started his legal career in the Allegheny County District Attorney's Office. He prosecuted hundreds of bench and jury trials with a concentration on major felonies and homicides. After serving in the District Attorney's Office, he and two colleagues formed their own private practice. He went on to serve as a partner in several other prestigious Pittsburgh firms. Mr. McVerry has also served as a member of Pennsylvania House of Representatives and as a member of the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing. He served his country by joining the United States Army Reserve and the Pennsylvania Air National Guard. Former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge nominated him to fill a judicial vacancy on the Court of Common Pleas to Allegheny County. Currently, he serves as a Soldier for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, where he is the chief legal officer and director of a governmental law department comprised of 36 attorneys. In this capacity, he is responsible for the representation of all branches and departments of a county government that has approximately 7,000 employees and responsible for nearly 1.3 million inhabitants. Pennsylvania is fortunate to have an extremely well-qualified nominee like Mr. McVerry. This success is due to the bipartisan nominating commission which Senator Santorum and I have established. This commission reviews all federal judicial candidates and recommends individuals to Senator Santorum and myself. We then recommend these individuals to the President. I thank my colleagues for their confirmation of Mr. Terrence McVerry to sit on the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I am glad to see the legislation on homeland security on the floor. This is historic legislation. As the distinguished Senator from Connecticut has said, this is maybe the most important bill that will come out of his committee during his tenure. It is my hope we can move through the bill, go to conference, and have legislation on the President's desk which the President can accept. One of the key points at issue is the way the analysis of intelligence is going to be structured, and it is my hope that we will be able to take a step at this time on reforms which have long been in the making. When I chaired the Intelligence Committee in the 104th Congress, I proposed legislation which would have brought under one umbrella the CIA and all of the intelligence agencies. There is on the President's desk now a similar proposal. It would be acceptable to this Senator to have that umbrella control really anywhere, but the turf wars which are well-known to be endemic and epidemic in this city have prevented that kind of umbrella or overview. The proposal which I think is indispensable is not to change the operation of the CIA or the FBI or the Defense Intelligence Agency or National Security, but when it comes to analysis, to bring it all together so that the analysts are under one umbrella. I believe that had there been an umbrella prior to September 11, 2001, there is a good chance that 9/11 could have been prevented. We know by hindsight about the FBI report out of Phoenix, and about the young man who had Osama bin Laden's picture on his wall while studying flight training, as well as other indicia of connections to Osama bin Laden. We know about the application for a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of Zacarias Moussaoui, which would have yielded very substantial information about his connections to al-Qaeda. We know about the two at Kuala Lumpur, known to the CIA, but not communicated to the FBI or Immigration and Naturalization Service in a timely way. We know of the information from the National Security Agency on September 10, a threat, that was not translated until September 12. There are other factors at issue here where we could have connected the dots, as the metaphor is used. This bill is a very substantial undertaking. I discussed the matter on a number of occasions with the distinguished Senator from Tennessee who raises a valid consideration that this bill may be going too far in the sense that it takes in a great deal of territory. It does that. However, the question is, When will it be done, if not now? The business of consolidating Federal agencies is a Herculean task facing all sorts of obstacles, and it is only the event of 9/11 and the threat of another 9/11 which is a motivating factor to make these enormous changes. Earlier today I heard the Senator from Tennessee say next year would be time enough to study the intelligence agencies. There is one big problem with that: The Senator from Tennessee will not be here next year. We need to take advantage of his skill this year. Perhaps almost as important as the skill of the Senator from Tennessee is the momentum which we have. I have offered to give him some tips on his new job. I saw a headline in the paper the other day, ``Senator Thompson Demoted to District Attorney.'' First of all, I do not know that it is a demotion because I have held that position. However, that is what the headline said, Senator Thompson demoted. I was surfing on Sunday. It is hard to surf and not see Senator Thompson or Senator Lieberman, or both of them. Senator Thompson was in a heated exchange with former Secretary Eagleburger, and then the program was interrupted for some entertainment. I thought Secretary Eagleburger and Senator Thompson were entertaining. They put on a portion of this television show. I wonder how many ex-district attorneys in the Senate turned down that television contract before Senator Thompson got it? At any rate, Senator Thompson was sitting behind a big desk in a dimly lit room and two assistant district attorneys approach him. I could not get the gist of it entirely, but I guess the thrust of it was someone in the room was in favor of legalizing drugs. The comment was made: What about our war on drugs? This District Attorney Thompson said: We have to have a war on something in Congress for people to be elected. It seemed a little cynical for him to turn on his colleagues even before he is on his new payroll. I trust the Ethics Committee would not let him be on the payroll yet, although he is doing those shows. Back to a serious vein, this is the time to do it. I talked to Governor Ridge after a meeting he had with the President today. I have supplied him with language and I sent a copy of it to Senator Lieberman and a copy to Senator Thompson. The President wants to be sure that the President has the authority to continue to work with the CIA as he always has. Absolutely, he should have that authority. He does have that authority. There is nothing we can do in legislation that would change it. The change in the language was made to have the analysis groups under one umbrella, subject to the President's direction to the contrary. An earlier draft stated the reverse, that the President can direct all of these intelligence agencies to coordinate. You cannot wait for the President to make a direction. He is too busy to do it. The generalization has to be that they will be working together under one umbrella, and they will be coordinating the analysis, but this must be made explicit in statute. If the President wants to change that, of course he can. I do not think he needs that authority in the statute, but I am pleased to eliminate any question about it. It is my hope we can find some common ground on that question. Washington, DC, has a way of having matters slide if we do not strike while the iron is hot. It is hard to get anything done in Washington, DC, while the iron is hot. However, when it cools off, it is extraordinarily difficult. It has been a long time and many efforts have been made to bring these agencies together. It is a limited juncture to call on the analytical sections to be under one umbrella. Homeland security will do a lot in response to another 9/11, but if that happens, it is really a very sad situation. Ninety-nine percent of our effort needs to be made to prevent it. If we have to respond to another 9/11, we are in deep trouble. Maybe something even more serious may occur--not that 9/11 was not serious enough, but it may involve weapons of mass destruction. Who knows what it may involve. We have a very heavy responsibility to do everything we can to prevent it. When we look at what was known before, with the dots there, and the possibility of putting them together, that is what we have to work toward. I have worked a lot with the principals on this issue. I had the opportunity to serve on the Governmental Affairs Committee. I know the work of Senator Thompson, who was chairman, and Senator Lieberman, who is now chairman. We have structured this to accommodate all of the competing interests. I think it will probably be a long day before Senator Lieberman will make an ex parte invitation for me to speak again. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Senator Lieberman and I went to the same law school, and I think he knows one can rescind an offer, but not after it is accepted. At that point, it is too late.

Mr. SPECTER. The Senator could, but not after it has been accepted.

Mr. SPECTER. I had not expected to address the Senate on this issue, but I never turn down an invitation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, we debated the issue of Judge Smith's qualifications extensively last night. But by way of brief summary: He has an excellent educational background. He practiced law for 8 years. He served as district attorney of a major county in Pennsylvania. He was a State court judge for 4 years, and in 1988 the bipartisan judicial commission, which Senator Heinz and I had organized, found him qualified. He has served in a very distinguished way for the past almost 14 years on the Federal court in Pittsburgh. He is now the chief judge of the Western District Court. His reputation is excellent. I have known him for the past 14 years and can personally attest to his integrity and his qualification. When an issue is raised about not resigning from a club and the contention has been made that there was false testimony under oath, that simply is not supported by the facts. When Judge Smith came up for confirmation in 1988, he made the statement that he would resign if he could not change the rules of the fishing club, which was viewed at that time as discriminatory because women were not permitted to join. In 1992, there was a definitive ruling that a club which did not have business purpose--which is the kind of club that this was--did not practice what is called invidious discrimination. Since the club did not practice invidious discrimination, Judge Smith did not have to resign. Certainly it cannot be said that somebody made a false statement under oath in 1988 when he had an intention at that time to do precisely what he said. When later circumstances arise, where there is a change of circumstance, nobody can say that what he testified to in 1988 was incorrect at that time, because the circumstances had changed. When the argument is made that he resigned when a vacancy arose on the Third Circuit, there were lots of vacancies on the Third Circuit in the interim, so that if that was a motivating factor, he could have resigned at an earlier time. Judge Smith has brought to Washington a virtual army of people who have supported him, including many women.