Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I had not finished answering the question of the Senator from Kansas. I have been sitting here patiently listening to him at some length and again express a little surprise at having the Senator from Nevada take the floor when I step out for a minute and then ask unanimous consent not to have the amendment read, which is customary, but then the Senator always explains it. While I was up at the desk getting a copy of the amendment, the Senator from Kansas took the floor again. I do not think there has been any shortage of time for the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, the Senator from Kansas, in his introductory comments, announced what his amendment was not about, and then he proceeded to talk extensively about nuclear transplantation, otherwise referred to as therapeutic cloning, and about embryonic stem cells, and about adult stem cells. But coming back to the core issue on what the Senator from Kansas is offering on nonpatentability, my question is whether the Senator from Kansas is aware of a release by the Patent Office on April 1, 1998, which reads, in pertinent part: The Patent and Trademark Office is required by law to keep all patent applications in confidence until such time as a patent may be granted. However, the existence of a patent application directed to human/non-human chimera has recently been discussed in the news media. It is the position of the PTO that inventions directed to human/non-human chimera could, under certain circumstances, not be patentable because, among other things, they would fail to meet the public policy and morality aspects of the utility requirement. Now, this position by the Patent Office obviously, on its face, renders totally unnecessary the amendment that is being offered. My question to the Senator from Kansas is, Was he aware of this position taken by the Patent Office?

Mr. SPECTER. I would be glad to expound, Madam President. The amendment which the Senator from Kansas has offered was offered without any notice to this Senator, which came as a surprise, since the Senator from Kansas and I have been debating this subject very broadly for the past year or two. Having seen this amendment for the first time this evening, I was surprised that when I walked out for a telephone call, that opportunity was used by the Senator from Nevada to offer a second-degree amendment to foreclose this Senator from offering a second-degree amendment, although that may still be possible under certain procedural approaches. The arguments which I have heard the Senator from Kansas offer tonight, almost his entire presentation has not been about the patent issue but has been about therapeutic cloning, and embryonic stem cells. The Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services had some 14 hearings on the issues relating to stem cells and nuclear transplantation. There has been no hearing at all on this subject. Again, it is a little surprising to find it come up on a very important bill regarding Federal guarantees on insurance. The commercial world has been waiting for action on this bill and, to find this amendment here, again I say, is surprising. The core question which is raised by the Senator from Kansas has been answered by the Patent Office. I took from his comment that he had mentioned that I did not hear him refer to that at all, but I think his amendment is totally unnecessary in light of what the Patent Office has had to say. If the Senator from Kansas wanted to have hearings on his amendment in the regular course of business, he is a member of the Judiciary Committee--the Senator from Kansas is a member of the Judiciary Committee, as is this Senator--that would be an appropriate place to hear it. When the Senator from Kansas talks about the future of humanity, I agree with him about that. Nuclear transplantation offers an opportunity to save lives, to find a cure for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and heart disease, so that we really are on the threshold of some remarkable scientific achievements.

Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to support the amendment to add $500 million to fight global AIDS. When we take a look at the statistics, what has happened in the world, there are 40 million people who are living with HIV/AIDS, including 2,700,000 children. AIDS claimed the lives of an estimated 2,300,000 Africans last year alone. Africa is not alone in this struggle. Almost 1 million new infections were reported in south and Southeast Asia last year. These alarming statistics are reminiscent of the early stages of the epidemic in sub- Saharan Africa, and we cannot wait any longer. What is required is a global effort. It has to be worldwide. We know that it is a matter of leadership for the United States as the most powerful country in the world and as the world's leader to provide substantial funding. The estimates are that some $5.6 billion will be necessary over the next 5 years. There are commitments of only $2.1 billion, leaving a deficit of $3.5 billion. This deficit has to be fixed. The AIDS epidemic is decimating entire countries, leaving a power vacuum, leaving countries in turmoil. The human factor is overwhelming. As the lead sponsor, Senator Durbin, pointed out in the opening of his speech, what happens if you are diagnosed with AIDS, a killer. If you are in Africa or in other Third World countries, it is hopeless, unless someone comes to the rescue. On humanitarian principles, something which the industrial countries ought to assume the responsibility for, when it comes to political considerations, and AIDS is decimating an entire country, it is a matter of a vacuum, where dictatorships breed, where there are terrorist bodies, where there is anarchy. That is very much contrary to the national interests of the United States. Beyond the humanitarian aspects, there is a definite national self- interest on the part of the United States. You might not necessarily call it national security, but if there is turmoil and you find al- Qaida taking hold of a country which has a power vacuum, it could be categorized broadly as a matter of national security. I believe this is an important debate, and I believe one way or the other the United States Government is going to come to a $500 million figure. When the figure was talked about as to $700 million, it seems to me, having spent 22 years in the conferences, in the negotiations with the House, with the $200 million we would have ended up with $500 million or perhaps less. The rule has been if the House comes in at $200 million, whatever the Senate comes in at, there is a tendency consistently to split the difference. That will leave the figure low. One most impressive statement was made by Senator Helms, who has not exactly been a proponent of funding for HIV/AIDS, for many reasons which we need not go into now. Senator Helms came out with a proposal to have $500 million. It seems to me that is a benchmark. One might say it is a minimum benchmark or one might say it is a maximum benchmark. When Senator Helms made the public statement with such feeling at a time, as he put it, when he was near the point of meeting his Maker, he wanted to take a stand on something that was very important for humanitarian purposes, and as a matter of basic fairness and basic decency that a country which can afford it should undertake. We are a very wealthy country with $10 trillion gross national product and a national budget of $2.1 trillion. With leadership on $500 million, that could be an inspiration for other industrial countries to come forward and do the right thing. That is why when Senator Durbin approached me weeks ago on this amendment, I told him to count me in. I urge my colleagues to support this figure. In closing, I thank my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, for generously yielding to me, although she has been here all afternoon. I have been occupied, as has the Presiding Officer, with the FBI Mueller- Rowley hearings. I thank the Senator and I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. This year, Mr. Chairman, the FY 02 supplemental appropriations bill that passed the House on May 24, 2002, does include two Medicare provisions which would reclassify some Pennsylvania and New York Hospitals.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chairman of the Committee. I intend to work out language in the conference that will be acceptable to all parties and include the reclassification provisions for these Pennsylvania hospitals. arkansas river bridge

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Byrd, in a colloquy regarding the inequities in Medicare reimbursement rates that many hospitals in Pennsylvania are experiencing. Many Northeastern Pennsylvania hospitals are facing substantial operating losses. This region's hospitals are extremely dependent on Medicare reimbursements and are experiencing one of the most rapid and dramatic shifts to managed care in the country. While almost no hospital in the Nation has been left untouched by the cost pressures inflicted by the Balanced Budget Act, hospitals in Schuylkill County, Scranton-Wilkes Barre-Hazelton, Williamsport and Sharon, Pennsylvania face unique situations. Scranton-Wilkes Barre-Hazelton and Williamsport are being reimbursed at 12% less than their neighbor--the Geisenger medical center--because Geisinger has been reclassified as part of the Harrisburg Metropolitan Statistical Area. The Sharon medical center is having difficulty hiring skilled workers because they are located only 12 miles from the Ohio border. The Sharon reimbursement rate is unacceptably low compared to the reimbursements received by the Ohio hospitals. Last year, during conference deliberations on the FY 02 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bills, the conference was prepared to include the provision to correct the inequities faced by these hospitals. However, during that conference, word came that if the provision was included, the conference report would be subject to a point of order under Rule XVIII and on those grounds, you objected to the provision. At that time, I left the conference and came down to talk to you. You understandably said that you could not agree to the provision because Rule XVIII had to be observed. At my request, you did state that you would give very serious consideration to including it in the FY 02 Supplemental Appropriations bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on vote No. 136, I believe I voted ``yea'' to table. It was recorded as a ``nay.'' I don't challenge the accuracy of the distinguished clerks, but I simply ask unanimous consent that I be recorded voting ``yea'' to table. The change will not affect the outcome of the vote.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, in the absence of any other Senator in the Chamber, if no one is seeking recognition to talk about the bill, I ask unanimous consent I may proceed for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, at the outset, let me say I agree with my distinguished colleague from Arizona about striking section 1004. The purpose for my seeking recognition has been to address that subject. The Congress acted promptly, after September 11, to provide for $10 billion in loan guarantees because the airlines were hit in a very drastic manner. Obviously, after the attack on the World Trade Towers, the striking of the Pentagon, and the plane which went down in Somerset County, PA, my home State, air traffic stopped instantly. In fact, for several days you could not fly at all. The FAA grounded all the planes. With the closing of Reagan National Airport, a major airport in the United States, US Airways, which is hubbed in my State, Pennsylvania, was very heavily impacted. It was very difficult. So Congress acted to provide for $10 billion in loan guarantees. When this provision was put in section 1004, which limited the guarantees to $4 billion and not more than $429 million from being spent in fiscal year 2002, it sent shudders through the airline industry, including US Airways in Pennsylvania. US Airways is a great national and international carrier, very important for the United States generally, but of particular importance to Pennsylvania where there are some 17,000 US Airways employees, with hubs in Pittsburgh and in Philadelphia. When US Airways was having problems immediately after September 11, Mr. Stephen Wolf, Chairman of US Airways, called me and others in the Pennsylvania delegation to secure our help, which we provided. US Airways had not planned to make an immediate request for a loan but decided to defer until this summer when they are moving to reorganize the company. Yesterday, while I was traveling in Pennsylvania, I received a call that US Airways had asked me to introduce the amendment to strike section 1004. I immediately agreed to take the lead. Later in the day, I heard that the amendment would be authored by Senator Hollings, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and Senator McCain, ranking member, with the Aviation Subcommittee chairs joining to give it the impact of the full Commerce Committee which has authorization and jurisdiction. I am pleased to note this morning that Senator Byrd, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and Senator Stevens, the ranking member, have undertaken the amendment, which shows how the issue has escalated in a very brief period of time. For a while it was very onerous and very worrisome. Last week, during the recess, I traveled the State. I was in Pittsburgh, where 11,000 of the 17,000 Pennsylvania employees work. There was great consternation as to what would happen to US Airways. When I was in Erie, there was a similar concern. There was a similar concern in Altoona, a concern in Allentown, a concern in Wilkes-Barre, and a concern in Scranton. That is good news indeed, and not just to US Airways, but also other carriers, with the expectation that United may be applying for a substantial loan guarantee of $2 billion, and US Airways at $1 billion. Had this loan guarantee not been available, it would have been at a particularly bad time to US Airways, which is trying to restructure the entire airline. There has been a very difficult situation regarding cashflow this year. I am very pleased to see this amendment has been offered by the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. That has been done with their awareness of the tremendous impact it would have on the Nation when we had legislation to provide $10 billion in loan guarantees, that it should stand, and there had been reliance by the airline industry on those loan guarantees being available. So this amendment will obviously solve that problem. We still have to go to conference with the House, which, as I understand it, prohibits loan guarantees until fiscal year 2003, but would not reduce the overall amount of the loan guarantees available. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to talk briefly about a United States-Syria dialogue, which was held two weeks ago at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston, Texas. I attended the conference, characterized as a dialogue. It was directed at trying to find some way of improving United States-Syria relations. Quite naturally, the conversation focused on terrorism. I have had the opportunity to visit Syria on many occasions since the mid-1980s and have always believed that Syria was a key to a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East. During the course of those visits, I came to know President Hafez al-Assad. I saw, with almost yearly visits from the late 1980s until I attended President Assad's funeral in June 2000, a subtle but decisive shift in Syrian thinking so that Syria did attend the Madrid Conference in 1991. Syria was engaged in very extensive discussions with Israel at a time when Prime Minister Rabin was in office. Those negotiations were conducted in a somewhat curious way, through President Bill Clinton. Syrians would not talk directly to the Israelis. The Israelis made efforts to talk directly to the Syrians. However, whatever format those negotiations took, they came very close to an agreement, with Israel committing to a return of the Golan Heights. Security arrangements had not been quite worked out and the precise boundary form had not been laid, but they were very close. Regrettably, with the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin and with other leadership in Israel, there was a time when the relationship was very difficult. In 1996, the Syrians had some maneuvers on their border near Israel at a time when Prime Minister Netanyahu said that Israel would hold Syria accountable for what was happening with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. At any rate, the peace talks disintegrated. When I had a chance to visit the new President, Bashar al-Assad, in March 2002, I suggested to him while the time might be not exactly right now, with the problems with Israel and the Palestinian Authority, those negotiations ought to be resumed at an early date. I reported that conversation to President George W. Bush and made the suggestion that President Bush might be determinative and influential, as President Clinton had been. While no commitment was made, that is something that would be considered by the Bush Administration when the time was right. Edward Djerejian had been Ambassador to Syria, and when he visited President Bashar al-Assad early this year, he had a discussion with President al-Assad about having this United States-Syrian dialogue, and the James A. Baker III Institute hosted it. Former Ambassador Djerejian is the executive director there. Their plan is to have another Syrian- United States dialogue in the fall. I made the suggestion to the Syrians in attendance, former Secretary of State James Baker, who attended, and also former Ambassador Djerejian, that a good time to schedule another dialogue would be right after the elections this November, perhaps the Thursday following the Tuesday election. That is about the only time Members of Congress are somewhat uncommitted. I received a comment that they might be willing to consider that. So, in addition to the Presiding Officer, any of my colleagues who may be listening on C-SPAN, may reserve the Thursday after the elections to join a congressional delegation to travel to Syria and participate in these important discussions. Regrettably, Damascus has not been a hot spot on congressional travel. However, I think that visits there could be very useful. At the conference two weeks ago, the focus was in trying to define terrorism. It seems to me pretty clear that when civilians are targeted, that constitutes terrorism and that is unacceptable. There is a disagreement on that subject, a disagreement which I had with the Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations, who visited Washington. I hosted a small dinner for him several months ago as part of an effort to have a visit by Parliamentarians from the House and Senate with the Iranian Parliamentarians, a suggestion which goes on again, off again. It is a little difficult right now with President Khatami responding in somewhat of an unfriendly tone to some of what the administration has had to say about Iran being part of the ``axis of evil.'' At any rate, the Iranian Ambassador to the UN emphasized the point that he thought Hezbollah had a right to undertake military activities against the Israelis because of what he terms ``the occupation.'' It is a discussion which needs a lot of work. I think ultimately there can be a definition of terrorism to include attacks on civilians. However, the issue of having a dialogue is one which is very important. The three-day session in Houston was closed to the press, but I think it is within the bounds to comment that terrorism was the focus of attention. It is always salutary when people get together and talk. It is my hope that we can have some influence on Syrian activities, having Hamas and Hezbollah and other organizations, which we consider terrorist organizations and on the terrorist list, to have them ultimately ousted. There has been a recognition by the State Department about Syria's help on al-Qaida. There has been a recognition that Syrian assistance has, in fact, saved American lives. Much, much more needs to be done, but the dialogue at the James Baker Institute is a good start. If we could get a significant congressional delegation to go to Damascus in the fall, I think it would help that very important effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, Senator Harkin has agreed to yield 5 minutes to me. I know Senator Dorgan is next on the list. He has agreed to let me come in at this point.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to oppose the formation of a new commission to investigate the events of September 11, 2001. The suggestion has been made that such a commission should be modeled after the commission which investigated Pearl Harbor and the commission which investigated the assassination of President Kennedy. Having been assistant counsel to the Warren Commission investigating the assassination of President Kennedy, I have some background in the way the commission was organized. I can say, with that experience, that it would take a very long process to form a new commission. The Warren Commission was compelled to go out and hire staff. They hired lawyers from around the country--mostly young lawyers, like myself, back in 1964. The difficulty to obtain investigators was a very paramount one. They had to turn to the FBI, something which could not be done on an investigation of September 11 because the FBI itself is under scrutiny. It is my view that it is important that we proceed on an expedited basis to have the appropriate oversight. We now know, with the revelation of the Phoenix memorandum, that on July 10, 2001, there was some substantial cause to be concerned about an attack by Osama bin Laden from the air. We know from the information available back in 1996, from the Pakistani terrorist Abdul Hakim Murad, who had connections with al-Qaida, that at that time there were plans to fly a plane into the CIA headquarters or other tall buildings. We know that with the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui, on August 17, 2001, that it was not really a matter of putting the dots together. However, as Senator Graham, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, pointed out recently: I believe that if all the information that was known about the plans of Osama bin Laden, to train persons in the United States in aviation and understand the way in which the commercial aviation system in the United States operated--had all those been available to one set of analysts, it is possible that they could have put those pieces together. Senator Graham went on to point out that: . . . handled differently, it might have been a different outcome. From my own experience as chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the 104th Congress, and from chairing the Judiciary subcommittee on Department of Justice Oversight, there is experience in those oversight committees which cannot be duplicated by a commission. We have had on the Judiciary Committee, which does have oversight responsibility on the FBI on reorganization, the grave difficulties of getting information from the FBI. We know their procedures. What is evolving, in rather short order here, is a showing that it is really not a matter of putting together the dots, but just a matter of knowing what information was in the files, because of the variety of warnings about bin Laden, hijackings of commercial airliners, and flying into tall buildings. This ought to be handled on an expedited basis. There is considerable experience in the Intelligence Committee and in the Judiciary Committee with experienced attorneys, former prosecutors, and investigators. It would be a major mistake to be diverted to a commission on the analogy of the Warren Commission or the Pearl Harbor Commission. I say that especially as to the Warren Commission where I saw personally the grave difficulties of getting organized. The Intelligence Committee has primary jurisdiction over the events of September 11. There is some authority and oversight by the Judiciary Committee, as we had hearings recently with FBI Director Mueller on reorganization and as we have had closed-door sessions. However, as more of this information is coming out, it is apparent that there is a need for oversight and for some direction to be sure that these failures do not repeat themselves. With the imminent possibility of another terrorist attack--as the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the FBI Director have said that there is an inevitability of another attack--the experience and institutional knowledge of the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee ought to be used to oversee the FBI and CIA so that we can take action to stop another attack. I thank my colleague from North Dakota for permitting me to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask my distinguished colleague from Minnesota to yield 5 minutes.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to speak in support of the pending amendment of which I am a cosponsor. In my view, it is a modest request to ask that health benefits be extended to this category of steelworker retirees for a period of 1 year because these steelworkers, men and women, have been victimized by unfair foreign trade--subsidies, dumping, subsidized and dumped steel, which has come into the United States in violation of U.S. trade laws and in violation of international trade laws. I compliment the President again, as I have on many occasions, for his invocation of tariffs which give the steel companies in America an opportunity to regroup and to reorganize. The tariffs will also give the steel companies an opportunity to compete with steel manufacturers and steelmakers around the world, which are much larger. We have seen the demise of more than 30 steel companies in the past several years, which have gone into bankruptcy proceedings because they simply cannot compete with steel that is dumped and steel that is subsidized coming into the U.S. markets. I am pleased to say that two weeks ago yesterday when I visited the Irvin Steel plant in Pittsburgh, they were in full capacity. They had hired some 65 additional steelworkers and they had plans to hire more steelworkers because the tariffs have given them some relief. However, in order for the steel industry to reorganize and reconstitute itself, there is going to have to be something done about these so-called legacy costs for health benefits for retirees. These are obligations of the steel companies which are in bankruptcy reorganization proceedings. The plan is to have one steel company in the United States take over all of these steel companies which are tottering, and to reorganize and regroup, with one steel company emerging as a powerful steel company to compete with enormous steel companies in foreign countries. They cannot take over these companies if they have to take over these legacy costs. That is why, one way or another, we are going to have to work it out. I believe in the long run it will be cheaper for the Federal Government to undertake these legacy costs; that is, to pay unemployment compensation, trade assistance, the many other benefits, and Medicare which will be paid in any event. I regret we could not get the cash loan from ANWR proceeds. However, that is yesterday. There is no use crying over that spilled milk. The steelworkers in America have taken it on the chin. Not long ago, there were 500,000 steelworkers in the United States. Today, there are fewer than 140,000. Pennsylvania, my State, is the cradle of the steel industry. In western and central Pennsylvania, there are many steel companies. In Bethlehem, PA, there is the Bethlehem Steel Company. These retirees are hurting. When we are considering legislation for trade promotion authority for the President, I think the President is right, he needs trade promotion authority to negotiate trade deals to increase prosperity all around the world. In so many countries, it is so much better to have trade than to give them foreign aid. Trade promotion authority will also help the economy of the United States. It is not without some problems with NAFTA, and some other problems as well, however in the long run, trade promotion authority will be very helpful. Just as this bill takes up trade adjustment assistance, it is fair and reasonable that this modest approach for a single year ought to be incorporated in this bill. I think the amendment is very well placed. I thank my colleague from Minnesota for yielding time. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment about the failure of the FBI to act on the Phoenix memorandum in a timely way--that memorandum had reasonably explicit warnings about a terrorist attack, al-Qaida, and a sneak attack--and especially about the failure of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to call that matter to the attention of the Judiciary Committee as a matter of oversight. We have since learned that the FBI had information, in 1995 and 1996, which referenced the possibility of a hijacking and hitting the CIA headquarters or some other building in Washington, DC, and apparently that information was not transmitted to the White House. It was not transmitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee either at that time because I chaired the Intelligence Committee in 1995 and 1996. According to reports, when the President was briefed on August 6 of last year, there were only generalized warnings given, and the CIA, which reportedly gave the briefing, did not have the information about the matters known to the FBI back in 1995 and 1996. It is my view that the Director of the FBI ought to be called upon by the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer some very fundamental questions. I say the Judiciary Committee because the Judiciary Committee has the primary responsibility for oversight on the FBI. It was the Judiciary Committee which confirmed Director Mueller, and I spent considerable time with Director-designate Mueller before he was confirmed, meeting with him in a so-called courtesy call, and then questioned him at some length before the Judiciary Committee. At that time we received commitments that the new Director would not make the same mistakes which had been made in the past by the FBI and would, in fact, turn over his own information which was proper for Judiciary Committee oversight. One of the subjects I discussed with Director-designate Mueller at that time was a key memo in the FBI file going back to December of 1996 when the Department of Justice was pulling its punches because of concern that Attorney General Reno might not be retained for President Clinton's second term. It was my view that this memo should have been turned over on a voluntary basis as a matter of appropriate disclosure. The Judiciary Committee did not receive that memorandum until a subpoena was issued by a subcommittee that I chaired, and not until April of 2000. While the Intelligence Committees do have the primary responsibility for investigating the intelligence failures of September 11, 2001, the Judiciary Committee has the responsibility on FBI oversight and on the question of reorganization of the FBI. There are major issues that have to be answered as to why the FBI did not tell the CIA about the 1995 and 1996 incidents so that the CIA would have that material available when they briefed the President. This is reminiscent of a major intelligence failure that goes back to September of 1997, when the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee was investigating campaign finance reform. At a joint hearing with the FBI and CIA, the CIA disclosed what the FBI had in its files, which the FBI had not disclosed, saying they had not realized it was in their files. So there are some very fundamental questions to be answered, which do not get into any of the confidential memos and any sources and methods; and that is why Director Mueller of the FBI did not turn over the Phoenix memo to the Judiciary Committee on their own before it was sought after, and why the FBI did not tell the CIA this fundamental information so that the CIA would have it when they were briefing the President. Last Thursday, I wrote to FBI Director Mueller calling on him to answer these questions, and I sent a copy of the letter to Director Tenet of the CIA asking him similar questions. When I saw the reports in the New York Times on Saturday morning about the information from 1995 to 1996 which, I repeat, I had not been told about when I chaired the Intelligence Committee, I called Senator Leahy and Senator Hatch and urged that we have hearings very promptly to find out these basic questions about communications. It is not even necessary to see the Phoenix memorandum to question why it was not disclosed, to find out why the FBI does not communicate with the CIA. I then called Director Mueller to ask if he would be willing to come in to testify early this week. He said he would have to take the matter up with someone else and get back to me. In a second telephone conversation on Saturday, he said he was not prepared to testify until there had been negotiations completed between the Judiciary Committee and the Department of Justice about the disclosure or production of certain documents. I replied that it was not a matter of production of documents; these fundamental questions ought to be answered and ought to be answered promptly for the American people, for Congress, and for the Judiciary Committee in our oversight function. I then reminded Director Mueller that he had a 10-year term. The Congress has given the FBI Director a 10-year term so that he does not have to ask permission from anybody--not the Attorney General, not the President, not anybody--when it comes to a matter where there may be a conflict of opinion between congressional oversight and what the Department of Justice may have in mind. It is up to Director Mueller to make an independent judgment. That is why he has a 10-year term. I did not tell Director Mueller he was subject to a subpoena. That is a matter only for the committee. I did discuss that possibility with the chairman, Senator Leahy, and with the ranking member, Senator Hatch. I then called all of my Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to discuss the situation and discuss the possibilities of a subpoena. However, I did not--I repeat, I did not--talk to Director Mueller about a subpoena. That is a matter for the committee to decide and on which to take the lead. It is not something that I would do. Nor did I ask Director Mueller, or anybody else, for a copy of the notes of the briefing materials that went to President Bush in the purported briefing back on August 6, 2001. No request was made for that. My view--and it is a very strong one, as you can tell from my tone-- is that the FBI has questions to answer, and it is a matter for the Judiciary Committee because we confirmed Robert Mueller. We are the ones who asked him the questions and laid down certain parameters for his expected conduct as Director of the FBI, the most important of which is to tell the Judiciary Committee on his own when there are matters such as the Phoenix memorandum; just as the FBI should have told the Judiciary Committee about the Department of Justice memorandum in December of 1996, which was a smoking gun, with the Department of Justice pulling its punches on the campaign finance investigation because of the concern of Attorney General Reno's retention in the second term. I make these comments very briefly this morning, and I know the assistant majority leader is waiting to proceed to the business at hand. I think these matters are of the utmost importance; the American people need to know about them. I hope Director Mueller will appear promptly before the Judiciary Committee and not wait until after our lengthy recess to take up the issues that require answers now. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to acknowledge my constituent and friend Alan B. Miller of Gladwyne, PA, who on Sunday, May 19, 2002, will be honored with the George Washington University's prestigious President's Medal. This award, which has been bestowed upon such distinguished and varied figures as Soviet statesman Mikhail Gorbachev, renowned journalist Walter Cronkite, and political humorist Mark Russell, will serve to recognize Alan's many achievements as a leader in the health services industry. In 1978, Alan founded Universal Health Services, Inc., based in King of Prussia, PA, which was then the third-largest proprietary hospital management company in the Nation and now operates 100 facilities in 22 States, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and in France. He currently serves as the company's president and chairman. Alan is an authority on hospital management and has served as health care adviser to the Federal Mediation and Coalition Service. Among the pioneering activities developed under his direction was the founding of an industry mutual insurance company that provided malpractice insurance to over 200 hospitals at a substantial savings, thereby lowering health care costs. He is a graduate of the College of William and Mary in Virginia and earned his M.B.A. at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, where he now serves on its executive board. He also holds an honorary doctorate from the University of South Carolina and is the recipient of the Federation of American Health Systems' Industry Award and the Anti-Defamation League's Americanism Award. He was named Entrepreneur of the Year in 1991 and C.E.O. of the Year in Hospital Management in 1992. He serves on the boards of Broadlane, Inc., CDI Corporation, the Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company, and is chairman of the Opera Company of Philadelphia. He served his country as Captain in the U.S. Army's 77th Infantry Division. For his accomplishments and many contributions to the corporate community, I salute him, and I congratulate Alan for the distinctive honor that will be bestowed upon him this coming Sunday.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for working this out for morning business. I have sought recognition to comment about two matters. First, I compliment my colleague from Oklahoma for the comments he has made about the need to move ahead with nominees. It would be my hope that from the current disagreement we might work out a permanent protocol to solve the problem which exists when the White House is controlled by one party and the Senate by another party. The delays in taking up judges has been excessive. This is the 1-year anniversary where some nine circuit judges, well qualified, have not even had hearings. But in all candor, a similar problem existed when President Clinton, a Democrat, was in the White House and we Republicans controlled the Senate. I have advocated a protocol. Within a certain number of days after a nomination, the hearing would be held; within a certain number of additional days, there would be action by the Judiciary Committee on a vote; and within another specified time, there would be floor action, all of which could be expanded for cause. And an additional provision, not indispensable, is that if there were a strict party-line vote in committee, the matter would automatically go to the floor. I thank the Chair. I yield back the remainder of that time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, once again, the principal reason I have sought recognition has been to comment on my ``no'' vote on the farm bill, which was passed yesterday. Even though there are some parts of the farm bill which I liked, I have, on balance, decided to vote ``No'' because of the excessive cost which favors big corporate farmers and provides unreasonable subsidies to cotton, soybean, wheat, rice and corn. When I voted for the farm bill in the Senate, the cost was $73.5 billion over current spending for farm programs. However, the conference report came in at $82.8 billion for a total of approximately $190 billion total over 10 years which is, simply stated, far too expensive. The United States no longer enjoys a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion over the next 10 years. In fact, there is a deficit of $130 billion expected by the end of this fiscal year. Projecting the costs of this farm bill, it may be necessary to invade the Social Security trust fund, probably abandon plans for adequate prescription drugs for senior citizens and encroach on necessary appropriations for many priority items, including defense, education and health care. When I chaired the Appropriations Subcommittee for Labor, Health & Human Services and Education, and now in my capacity as ranking member, I have seen the great need for funding for the National Institutes of Health and other health programs as well as education and worker safety. Without enumerating many other programs, there are obviously high priorities which will be impacted by the costs of this Farm Bill. I am especially concerned about payments to large corporate farmers. The distinguished ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Lugar, has stated that more than $100 billion will go to farm subsidy payments over the next 10 years, with two-thirds of payments going to just 10 percent of the largest farmers who grow primarily corn, soybean, wheat, rice and cotton. This policy will likely encourage further market concentration. This bill encourages over-production with the resultant consequence of yet lower prices leading to more subsidies. This Bill will further have an adverse impact on international trade by providing expanded and unpredictable levels of support, which increase the likelihood that the United States might breech the farm subsidy limitations it agreed to in the 1994 world trade agreements. Further, the bill's expanded supports have caused our trading partners to question our sincerity on future reductions in farm spending. There are some portions of the bill which I favor, such as the new national dairy program, expanded Food Stamp Program, including providing food stamps to legal immigrants, and the many positive environmental and conservation measures that are very effective in Pennsylvania. I am pleased to see the new national dairy program, but it falls short of the proper legislation which is embodied in my bill, S. 1157, which would create permanent dairy compacts in the Northeast, as well as the South, Northwest and Inter-Mountain regions. While the dairy provisions will be of help, Congress is missing an opportunity to create a long-term dairy policy through the compacts which would have no cost to the taxpayers.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Regular order, Mr. President.