Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. As promised, I yield back the remainder of my time. Vote On Conference Report Accompanying H.R. 3061

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to discuss language for a proposed constitutional amendment that would provide for the appointment of temporary Representatives by a Governor if fifty percent or more of the members of the House were killed or incapacitated. I place this language in the Record not with the intention of urging its passage this session, but rather to afford my colleagues an opportunity to offer their comments and suggestions, and to afford them the opportunity to consider co-sponsoring this proposed amendment. The events of September 11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks directed against members of Congress and other Americans highlight the very real possibility that the Senate and House of Representatives could suffer catastrophic casualties that would prevent either or both bodies from fulfilling their essential roles in the governance of our Nation. Despite the morbidity of such a scenario, it is essential that we put in place a contingency plan for the effective continuance of our democracy. The Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution allows for the temporary replacement of Senators by appointment by the Governor of their respective States. However, no such provision applies to members of the House. Only a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution would remedy this deficiency. The only means to replace members of the House is by special election. Article 1, Section 2, clause 14, states that ``[w]hen vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.'' My legislative language proposes that if at any time, fifty percent or more of the Members of the House of Representatives are unable to carry out their duties because of death or incapacity, each Governor of a State represented by such Member would have the power to appoint an otherwise qualified individual to take the place of the Member as soon as practicable after certification of the Member's death or incapacity. Article I, Section 4, clause I states that ``a Majority of each [House] shall constitute a Quroum to do Business.'' Accordingly, this extraordinary measure giving a Governor the power of appointment of a replacement Member would be triggered, when due to death or incapacity, the House would not have a quorum to conduct business. My proposed amendment requires an individual appointed to take the place of the Member to serve until a Member is elected to fill the vacancy by a special election to be held at any time during the 90-day period which begins on the date of the individual's appointment, except that if a regularly schuled general election for the office was scheduled to be held during such period or 30 days thereafter, no special election would be held, and the Member elected in such regularly scheduled general election would fill the vacancy upon election. Further, my proposed amendment allows for the appointed individual to be a candidate in the special election or regularly scheduled general election. The Governor would be required to appoint a person of the same party as the ``replaced'' member. This stipulation would ensure that the citizens of a congressional district would continue to be represented by a Congressperson from the same party. While I understand that this is an issue we would rather not grapple with, it is imperative that we deliberate and ensure that, in case of a catastrophe, our system of governance will continue to remain strong and stable. Similar legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives. I welcome comments from my colleagues in both the House and Senate and look forward to passing meaningful legislation when Congress returns from its winter recess.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation on behalf of Senator Rick Santorum and myself to name the newly remodeled lobby of the United States Courthouse at Sixth and Market Streets, Philadelphia, PA, in honor of Chief Judge Edward R. Becker of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. It would be impossible to find a Federal jurist in the United States more deserving of recognition than Chief Judge Becker. I say that from my intimate knowledge of Ed Becker for more than fifty years, since we first rode the elevated train from Northeast Philadelphia to the campus of the University of Pennsylvania in September of 1950 when he was a freshman and I was a senior. We studied together, debated together, socialized together, and married beautiful young women, Flora Lyman and Joan Levy, who sat next to each other at Olney High School. Ed was an honors student at Penn where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and similarly an outstanding student at the Yale Law School, where our law school studies overlapped for two years with Ed graduating in 1957. For thirteen years, he was a distinguished Philadelphia lawyer in partnership with his father, Herman Becker, and his brother-in-law, Lewis Fryman. During his legal career he was active in Republican politics. It is, of course, an open secret that nomination to the Federal Bench has a political aspect as well as the requirement for legal skills. After all, the President makes the appointments with some consideration for the recommendations of United States Senators. Ed Becker is an unusual example of qualifying for a seat on the United States District Court, where he was appointed in 1970, for being a Republican loyalist and political activist as well as an astute, accomplished lawyer. Most are appointed with only one of those two credentials. In addition to being counsel to the Republican City Committee, Ed took on candidacies for State Senate and City Council in Philadelphia which are kamikaze ventures except in rare and extraordinary circumstances. Judge Becker served on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania from December 1970 until January 1982 when he was elevated to the United States District court for the Third Circuit. On the Federal Bench, Ed's legal scholarship has been prolific and prodigious. His 958 opinions cover the cutting edge of evolving jurisprudential issues. He once wrote an opinion in rhyme. His opinion in the Japanese Electronics Case was more than 500 pages long replete with extensive footnote documentation, as is his practice. He was recently honored by the University of Pennsylvania Law Review in May 2001 which details his extraordinary judicial service. He is the fifth most senior active Federal judge in the United States. To name the Federal Courthouse Lobby for Chief Judge Becker would be a reciprocal honor. It would be an honor to Judge Becker. It would also be an honor to the Federal Courthouse Lobby.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation on behalf of Senator Rick Santorum and myself to name the newly remodeled lobby of the United States Courthouse at Sixth and Market Streets, Philadelphia, PA, in honor of Chief Judge Edward R. Becker of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. It would be impossible to find a Federal jurist in the United States more deserving of recognition than Chief Judge Becker. I say that from my intimate knowledge of Ed Becker for more than fifty years, since we first rode the elevated train from Northeast Philadelphia to the campus of the University of Pennsylvania in September of 1950 when he was a freshman and I was a senior. We studied together, debated together, socialized together, and married beautiful young women, Flora Lyman and Joan Levy, who sat next to each other at Olney High School. Ed was an honors student at Penn where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and similarly an outstanding student at the Yale Law School, where our law school studies overlapped for two years with Ed graduating in 1957. For thirteen years, he was a distinguished Philadelphia lawyer in partnership with his father, Herman Becker, and his brother-in-law, Lewis Fryman. During his legal career he was active in Republican politics. It is, of course, an open secret that nomination to the Federal Bench has a political aspect as well as the requirement for legal skills. After all, the President makes the appointments with some consideration for the recommendations of United States Senators. Ed Becker is an unusual example of qualifying for a seat on the United States District Court, where he was appointed in 1970, for being a Republican loyalist and political activist as well as an astute, accomplished lawyer. Most are appointed with only one of those two credentials. In addition to being counsel to the Republican City Committee, Ed took on candidacies for State Senate and City Council in Philadelphia which are kamikaze ventures except in rare and extraordinary circumstances. Judge Becker served on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania from December 1970 until January 1982 when he was elevated to the United States District court for the Third Circuit. On the Federal Bench, Ed's legal scholarship has been prolific and prodigious. His 958 opinions cover the cutting edge of evolving jurisprudential issues. He once wrote an opinion in rhyme. His opinion in the Japanese Electronics Case was more than 500 pages long replete with extensive footnote documentation, as is his practice. He was recently honored by the University of Pennsylvania Law Review in May 2001 which details his extraordinary judicial service. He is the fifth most senior active Federal judge in the United States. To name the Federal Courthouse Lobby for Chief Judge Becker would be a reciprocal honor. It would be an honor to Judge Becker. It would also be an honor to the Federal Courthouse Lobby.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the debate this afternoon has covered a good many issues of real importance and concern to the United States and to the world. However, I suggest that the preferable approach would be for the United States to participate, to try to make the rules of the International Criminal Court satisfactory to the national interests of the United States, and to establish a framework for the rule of law in the world. There is no doubt that the United States is going to act in what is in the United States' national interests. That is a fundamental rule of how nations behave and should behave. There are real problems which could be posed by an international criminal court and which are now present, for example, in the War Crimes Tribunal on Yugoslavia. It is not well-known that Carla del Ponte, the prosecutor at The Hague, considered a criminal prosecution against General Wesley Clark for targeting civilians and for being careless in the targeting of military installations which threaten civilians. That consideration was undertaken by the prosecutor at The Hague, the War Crimes Tribunal for Yugoslavia, on the initiation of Yugoslavia, backed by Russia. I had an opportunity last January to talk to prosecutor Carla del Ponte about that and expressed surprise that someone like General Clark, who was acting on behalf of NATO and carrying out air strikes that were authorized by this body, the Senate, could be subject to that kind of a criminal prosecution for what was essentially an action authorized by the United States, authorized by the United Nations, and authorized by NATO. That kind of power in the hands of the prosecutor is really extraordinary. As is generally known, I have had some experience as prosecuting attorney--having been District Attorney for Philadelphia for some 8 years, and having seen the kind of discretionary actions that a prosecutor can take when it is a matter of interpreting facts. When we talk about soldiers in the United States who are in harm's way being subject to criminal prosecution, that certainly is a problem, and a real problem. However, what we need to do, in my opinion, is work to structure an international criminal court which makes sense, which does not subject U.S. soldiers, or General Clark, or perhaps Senators who vote on a resolution to authorize air strikes, to criminal prosecution. However, the International Criminal Court, I believe, is coming. If 13 more nations ratify the International Criminal Court treaty, it purports to come into existence. Frankly, I do not think even if it comes into existence it is going to be able, as a matter of operational practice, to subject General Clark, U.S. soldiers, or U.S. personnel to prosecution unless somebody happens to be in a country and is detained somewhere. I think that would be a most extraordinary and unlikely event. However, we do see quite a trend in the international rule of law with the court for Yugoslavia and the court for Rwanda. It is my hope that we can find a way to see it structured so that it does not inappropriately subject people to criminal prosecution. The amendment of the Senator from North Carolina is very detailed. It prohibits extradition. I do not know if you need another law that prohibits extradition. If the United States does not have an extradition treaty with the International Criminal Court, or a body which represents it, there is no extradition. You have to have a treaty for that which talks about letters of interrogatory, which I do not think is highly significant as an evidence-gathering measure. However, there is a provision here to free members of the Armed Forces of the United States and other persons who are detained, and a provision which says, ``The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person''--and it has a description. I do not know that we really want to be in a situation where the United States is going to go to war with the International Criminal Court, which is somewhat reminiscent of the resolution of the use of force, which we passed on the terrorism issue. The International Criminal Court was considered at some length in a resolution sponsored by the Senator from Connecticut and myself in the early 1980s, at a time when we were dealing with international drug trafficking, and we were finding it impossible to get Colombia to turn over drug traffickers to the United States for prosecution in our courts. It was a matter of national pride that Colombia and other Latin American countries were not about to turn their citizens over to the United States for trial in our courts. However, had there been an international court, I think that might have been achieved. We had a similar problem in the mid-1980s with terrorists when we could identify the terrorists. At that time, I urged that the United States take forceful action in international law to go and arrest terrorists, which we had a right to do as a matter of national self- defense. We had a right to arrest Osama bin Laden before September 11th this year based on the indictments which were obtained for murdering Americans in Mogadishu, Somalia in 1993, and for murdering Americans in the embassies in Africa in 1998. We were on notice that Osama bin Laden had threatened America with a worldwide jihad, that he was implicated in the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, and other acts of terrorism and sabotage. Thomas Friedman wrote an article which appeared in the newspapers about Osama bin Laden on June 28 that was a facetious memorandum from bin Laden to the world about how he had scared the United States out of Jordan and out of the Mideast; and, about his operatives talking on cellular phones. He was well known. We had a right at that time to bring him to trial in U.S. courts. Perhaps if there had been an international criminal court, there would have been some unity or some coalition with which we could have acted. There are many desirable uses for an international criminal court. It has been talked about for a long time. The Senator from Connecticut talked at length about the Nuremburg trials, which I will not repeat. When this court arrives with 13 more ratifications--and I remind the one or two people who might be listening on C-SPAN II--that the United States was formed under an arrangement where if nine of the colonies ratified the Constitution, it was binding on all. We should not be surprised if you have an instrument establishing a court, which is binding under its terms, if it is ratified by a specified number. Again, it is a different situation. You might say that the colonies had sovereignty. However, under the terms of the Framers of the Constitution, all 13 would be bound upon nine signatures. National sovereignty is a very precious item. I am not about to be one to give it up. I am not about to allow Carla del Ponte to indict Wesley Clark for what he did in carrying out the resolution passed by the U.S. Senate. However, we have an opportunity to influence what that document will be. I think the Senator from North Carolina serves a very important purpose in posing the threats to American national interests. The Senator from Arizona, and the Senator from Idaho have spoken about these matters. However, I do not think the answer is prohibiting U.S. action, which is what this amendment does. I think the answer is aggressive participation. If Senator Helms and Senator Kyl go to these conventions and participate--and Senator Dodd and I will stay at home--we can influence what these documents will be. I think it will ultimately be in our national interest, and certainly in the world's interest, if we had a criminal court so we can try international drug dealers and international terrorists. It might provide a forum for bringing to justice Osama bin Laden. My hope is that we will be participants to see that it is done right as opposed to prohibiting U.S. action to see that it is done right. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator yield for a question? Does the Senator not intend to press for a vote on the Stevens amendment first?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, at the outset, I commend the Senator from Alaska for the compromise amendment which he has proposed, I commend the Senator from West Virginia for all he has done to focus attention on the important problems of the nation on homeland security, and I admire his stamina on the presentation of a very extensive floor statement. I support and cosponsor the Stevens amendment. I divide my reasons into three categories: First, I believe there is sufficient funding to take care of the homeland security needs of America. Second, I think it is very important there be unity between the Congress and the President now as we fight the war against terrorism and have a major aspect of that war on homeland security. Third, I think it is very important the Senate act without having a stalemate and a gridlock, which is where we will be heading if we do not find a compromise, such as the compromise proposed by Senator Stevens. The reason there would be a deadlock is that for Senator Byrd's proposal to be adopted by the Senate, there will have to be 60 votes. I believe there is agreement there are not 60 votes present to have Senator Byrd's proposal passed by the Senate. Then the sequence which would follow would be virtually interminable. We are facing a situation where it is now December 6. Who would have thought we would be here this late with all the expectations of finishing at least by the end of October or before Thanksgiving? However, here we are. We now face a continuing resolution which is going to run until a week from tomorrow, the 14th. Beyond that, there will be a continuing resolution until January 3, if we do not resolve this issue and the matter of the stimulus package. These important items on homeland security should be advanced with the necessary funding on an appropriations bill, which could go through the conference and get to the President's desk next week so these important problems can be addressed. Most fundamentally, the substitute bill proposed by Senator Stevens provides the necessary funding. The subcommittee, which I had chaired for 6\1/2\ years and of which I am now the ranking member, has the appropriations responsibility for the Department of Health and Human Services. Senator Harkin, who is now the chairman, and I moved ahead very promptly to address these bioterrorism threats. Senator Harkin and I have worked on a bipartisan basis on that subcommittee, I think, to the benefit of the country. I found a long time ago in my Senate service, if you want to get something done in Washington, you have to be willing to cross party lines. Senator Harkin and I have done that. We have held a series of hearings on these issues to find out what is necessary for funding on bioterrorism. We had our first hearing on October 3, our second hearing on October 23, and our third hearing on November 29. In the hearing on October 3, the Secretary of Health and Human Services testified that he believed we were able to handle all of the problems of bioterrorism in America. He had made a statement on ``60 Minutes'' to that effect. A number of us raised questions--that we really were not at that point yet, and that it was not helpful to make such a statement. Senator Byrd, who attended the hearing, in a very direct and emphatic way, threw up his arms and said, ``I do not believe you.'' From that session we have moved ahead to push the Department of Health and Human Services to find ways to provide for antibiotics on anthrax. The Secretary signed the contract to provide Cipro. Then we had the hearing on October 23 and the issue was raised about where we stood on smallpox. The experts from the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health said we should not be prepared to inoculate Americans, that we had 15 million smallpox vaccinations, and that those vaccinations could be diluted 5 times to 75 million. In an exchange I had with Dr. Fauci of NIH, the discussion focused on whether it was the Government's responsibility to have sufficient vaccines so that people could make the choice themselves. I asked Dr. Fauci what the risk factor was. He said it was one to six out of a million. I said considering that smallpox had failed, my preference would be to see my grandchildren vaccinated. Before we finished the discussion, Dr. Fauci agreed that he would like to see his grandchildren vaccinated. The point is that as a result--I think fairly stated, as a result of this press--the Secretary of Health and Human Services has entered into contracts which will provide enough vaccines to take care of almost all of America, and not years down the line but by next September, so that we have moved ahead. Then, in our hearing on October 3, Senator Harkin and I pressed the Centers for Disease Control to give us a list of all the bioterrorist threats and to tell us what it would cost to meet the bioterrorist threats. And as usual, there was problems with the CDC getting clearance from HHS and getting clearance from OMB. By the time you work through the alphabet soup in Washington, it is very difficult to get anything done. However, we finally found out. When they testified on November 29, they testified in a very careful way to say that it was not an administration request, but it was their professional judgment as to what was necessary to take care of our bioterrorist threats. As a result of what Senator Byrd did in his questioning of Secretary Thompson and what Senator Stevens did--even though they are the chairman and ranking member of the full committee, they attended these hearings--we have been able to push up the funding far from what the administration requested, which was $1,445,000,000, so that we now have, under Senator Stevens' amendment, $2,300,000,000. When you take the $338 million which is now in the bill for Health and Human Services, the total funding comes to $2,638,000,000, which I believe to be adequate. When a group of Senators met with the President in his living quarters about 10 days ago, we had a conversation about bioterrorism. There was a discussion as to a downpayment. I made the point that we could not deal with a downpayment, that when there was talk about putting this in next year's budget, it wasn't right. Simply stated, that was too late. I do not speak for the President. I am a Senator and work under the separation of powers. However, I had the sense that the President was sympathetic to the view, although I explicitly say he did not say so. We are giving the President more money than he had asked for, but I believe he will sign the bill with the amendment offered by Senator Stevens. We face a very difficult time internationally, as everyone knows. The terrorist attack on the United States on September 11 was the most brutal, inhumane, barbaric act in human history, sending airplanes loaded with fuel as deadly missiles into the World Trade Center in New York killing thousands of people. Also, a plane crashed into the Pentagon killing more Americans, hundreds more. I believe the plane was headed to the White House. That plane's wings were perpendicular. This plane did not sink to crash into the Pentagon. That plane crashed into the Pentagon because it could not go any further. It was on a direct line for the White House. The plane which crashed in Somerset County, PA, I believe, was headed for the United States Capitol. Senator Santorum and I visited the crash site, and no one will ever know for sure, but we do know from cellular phone conversations that passengers on that plane fought with the terrorists and brought down the plane. There have been three alerts, and there is no doubt of the tremendous concern in America that there be adequate funding for homeland security. I believe the bill, the substitute which Senator Stevens has offered, gets that job done. There is the bioterrorism funding of $2,300,000,000, which, when added to the existing $338 million, brings the figure to $2,638,000,000. There is funding for New York, since the commitment was made by the Congress. There is funding for the FBI, Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the U.S. Marshals Service; for security for nuclear facilities; for additional security for the legislative branch, the Coast Guard, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Secret Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and the U.S. Customs Service; and food security; and on and on and on--postal security, cyber- security programs, etc. Right now, the President of the United States has provided much needed leadership for the free world. The President has said he will veto the bill if it has the extra $15 billion in it. I think it would be calamitous if the Congress of the United States submitted a bill to the President in the face of that expressed veto threat, and then the President vetoed it. There is no doubt about his determination. I saw blood in his eyes when he said that to a group of visiting Senators. It would be a sign of disunity between the President and the Congress, which would have a devastating effect on our war effort against terrorism. It simply ought not to happen. In my 21 years here, I have been party to a lot of conferences. When we have had a threat from the President for a veto, we acknowledge that there is time for compromise. My distinguished colleague, Senator Stevens, has given me the audible to abbreviate, so I shall do that, although there is quite a bit more I would like to say. I will conclude with a comment about the desirability of not having gridlock in the Senate. When the stimulus package came up, it was a party-line vote. I think America is sick and tired of bickering on party lines and on partisanship. I believe that if we divide on party lines again, it will be bad for this institution and bad for the war on terrorism and bad for the funding which we need now to fight the war against bioterrorism. It is my hope that we will find a bipartisan resolution here. I concede it is not quite as much money, but the President is the leader. He has asked for an opportunity to present to Congress the funding which he and his Director of Homeland Security believe to be adequate. The Congress has rejected the notion of waiting until next year. I believe the President will respect the accommodation, the compromise which we have made. It is my hope that we can come together. There is legislative anarchy and legislative chaos if the Stevens compromise amendment is not enacted and if, instead, we are left to the points of order where nothing will be accomplished, and we will be returning here in January without having completed our work and without having appropriated funds necessary now. These funds can be made available next week with a bill signed by the President if we come together on a bipartisan basis and adopt the Stevens compromise. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alabama for yielding me a brief period of time to comment about an omission from the appropriations conference report involving a constituent company of mine, Traffic.com. There had been an arrangement worked out in previous legislation. This would have given Traffic.com a followup contract for some $50 million where they have devised systems for monitoring traffic on the highways so the people can be informed where there is traffic congestion. The first contract was awarded to Traffic.com under an arrangement where the second would follow through. There was competitive bidding for the first contract. The Department of Transportation wanted clarification, which was added in this Chamber on an amendment which was accepted to give the followup contract to Traffic.com. Then when we went to conference last week, I was informed a few minutes before the conference began that the provision had been dropped. There had been no notification. When I raised the issue in the conference, I was advised there was legislation which prohibited this arrangement which they characterized as ``sole source contracting,'' but, in fact, it was not because the first contract had been competitively bid with the understanding that the second contract would follow. In any event, our research in the interim since the conference committee met last week, to today, shows there is no legislative prohibition against this arrangement, even if it were sole source contracting, which, I repeat again, it is not. We then discussed at the conference the approach of having it included in the supplemental appropriations bill, which we are working on now. The Appropriations Committee is meeting this afternoon. I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Murray, and the distinguished ranking member, Senator Shelby, for commenting at that time they would support the effort to get it in the supplemental appropriations bill so we hope we can be cured at that time. I did want to make the brief statement on the record at this point. I thank Senator Shelby for yielding me the time. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on Sunday, December 9, 2001, at 12 Noon, a commemorative plaque will be cemented into the sidewalk at the southeast corner of 13th and Locust Streets in Philadelphia, PA to mark the 20th anniversary of the murder of Police Officer Danny Faulkner at that site. Officer Faulkner lost his life protecting the people of Philadelphia from the scourge of violent crime. Our society owes a great debt of gratitude to the Thin Blue Line, the police officers of America who fight criminal violence on the streets of our Nation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and 52 weeks of the year. From my experience as District Attorney of Philadelphia, I know the extraordinary risks faced by law enforcement officers. One of the most difficult aspects of my District Attorney's duties was the attendance at the funerals of police officers who were killed in the line of duty. Following the terrorist attack on September 11, America has been focused on the courage and bravery of the police and firefighters. There is now a better understanding of the risks and performance of firefighters and police for their heroic efforts on September 11. The commemoration of the 20th anniversary of Officer Faulkner's murder should inspire us to redouble our efforts to fight all forms of criminal violence, including terrorism, and to pay tribute to the memory of Officer Faulkner and all the police and firefighters of America.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. As I was starting to say, Advanced Cell Technology came out with a news release which has received publicity including a U.S. News and World Report cover which has raised concern about human cloning and reproductive cloning, and I do not believe that is realistic at this time because we know cloning exists. All of the embryos that were created in the Massachusetts experiment by Advanced Cell Technology died before they even grew to aged cells. I note in the morning's press Senator Brownback at his news conference yesterday--and I respect his right to have a news conference and respect his position--said he would like to have the debate now, would like to have action before the end of the year. Speaking for myself, it is fine to have the debate now and to have action by the Senate before the end of the year. We will not have the benefit of the three planned hearings which we have had, but the Senate can act without additional hearings. But it is not going to be an easy matter. When Senator Brownback and I talked about this several weeks ago when the appropriations bill was in the Chamber, it was obvious to me it would take several days. And as the manager of the bill, if I had been in a position other than manager of the bill, Senators who have issues, things they would like to raise, sometimes without too much regard for what happens to a bill--if it takes a little more time, so be it. But a manager is in a somewhat different position. I have spoken at some length because I think it is very important that there be a public understanding that somatic cell nuclear transfer does not relate to cloning, and the people who called it therapeutic cloning are creating a lot of confusion because it is not cloning at all. And it is certainly not reproductive cloning. Scientists are, as I say, up in arms about the prospect of having a prohibition of this kind of research which has the potential to cure millions of people who have Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, heart disease, or cancer or many other maladies. So the public ought to understand that the opposition to cloning a human being is not in issue when we talk about somatic cell nuclear transfer. And I am delighted to proceed to debate the issue, to vote on it at the earliest possible time. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. No, I will not yield. I have been here for more than an hour. There is an issue which I want to raise; that is, a response to very extensive publicity on the cloning issue where there is generalized agreement, which this Senator concurs, in that there should not be human cloning. There is a confusion. I have sought recognition and, as I said, I have waited an hour to note the distinction on what ``therapeutic'' is and what is frequently used with cloning under the name of therapeutic cloning, which is, in fact, not cloning at all. More accurately, it is denominated by the scientists as somatic cell nuclear transfer, which, while in the loose jargon is sometimes called therapeutic cloning is, in fact, not cloning at all. Yesterday, the President spoke out against reproductive cloning. I am entirely in agreement with that. My distinguished colleague from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, and I have had a number of discussions on this issue. I told Senator Brownback that I was going to come to the floor at 10:30 to seek recognition because I wanted him to have the opportunity to be present. I am sorry I said 10:30. I should have said 11:30 to save an hour of time. But I think this is a distinction which needs to be made. What is involved is a technique which involves taking the genetic material out of an unfertilized egg and inserting, in its place, the DNA of an adult cell. In theory, the egg then uses the genes from the adult cell to direct its development to turn an embryo into an exact genetic copy of the donor of the adult cell. This is done for the purpose of therapy. If someone has Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, or if someone needs a stem cell replacement related to cancer or to heart disease, this procedure then enables that individual to get a stem cell which is consistent with the body which will not have an adverse impact on the person who is being treated. Where you talk about the issue of embryos which then produce life, I would never support any approach which took an embryo that was capable of producing life or destined to produce life. This issue of stem cell research came upon the scene in November of 1998. Then the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education took up the issue, which I chaired at the time, to take a look at what was involved with embryos being created for in vitro fertilization where, customarily, approximately a dozen are created, and three or four might be used. The rest would be subject to being discarded. The controversy arose because of legislation that had been inserted in an appropriations bill, which originated in our subcommittee, which prohibited Federal funding to extract stem cells from the embryos. But under the ruling of the Department of Health and Human Services several years ago, Federal funding could be used on the research of stem cells after they were extracted. There had been considerable sentiment in the Congress, including the Senate, to use Federal funding on stem cell research because of the tremendous funding which is available to the National Institutes of Health. Therefore, some 64 Senators last spring and summer signed letters in one form or another saying that they thought there ought to be Federal funding on these stem cell lines. In addition to those 64 Senators, some 12 other Senators had expressed privately to me their view that there should be Federal funding on the stem cells but thought it not advisable, from their own point of view, to put it in writing. A fair sized ground swell was noted in the Senate to that effect--64 and 12, 76. The President then, as well known, on August 9 at 9 p.m. came down with the decision that the 64 stem cell lines then in existence would be used with Federal funding for stem cell research, and that drew objections from people who thought it went too far on Federal funding to utilize the product of embryos, and others thought it did not go far enough, questioning whether those 64 stem cell lines really would support the necessary research. What we are dealing with here is stem cells which have the capacity to be used for people who have Parkinson's, to replace diseased cells and cure Parkinson's or, in Alzheimer's, to replace diseased cells and delay the onset of Alzheimer's, if not to cure it, or who have heart disease, to take these stem cells and inject the cells in place of diseased cells, and the potential to save millions upon millions of lives where these embryos were otherwise going to be discarded. For those who have said these embryos have the potential to create life, my response has been to insert in our appropriations bill $1 million as a starter to promote adoption of these embryos so that if these embryos can be used to produce life, that would be the highest calling, and if they could all be adopted and used to produce life, then there would not be any embryos available for stem cell extraction, and that would be the preferable course. If there are to be discarded embryos that are going to be thrown away, then it seems to me obvious it would make better sense to save lives as opposed to discarding. When the appropriations bill came up to the Senate floor, a provision was inserted on my motion that the President of the United States would have the authority to designate the use of Federal funding on existing stem cell lines. Now that was precisely what President Bush had done. But I wanted to codify it. He had taken the position, to repeat, on August 9, that Federal funding could be used on the existing 64 stem cell lines, which was a step beyond what the Federal Government had done before and I think, candidly, was in response to the ground swell of the 64 Senators who had signed letters and, as I represented, another 12 Senators who thought that medical research ought to be undertaken. Senator Brownback, with whom I have had a difference of opinion on a cordial senatorial level, on a number of debates in the Chamber and a number of appearances in the media, objected to that provision because some future President might have a different view. President Bush had said he was not going to allow Federal funding on stem cell lines created after August 9, at 9 p.m., which is the time he made his speech. But there might be another President after President Bush's two terms who might take a different point of view, which I think was the motivation for the opposition to this codification of what President Bush had done. Senator Brownback then proposed a series of amendments to prohibit cloning and also to prohibit somatic cell nuclear transfer--which has been inappropriately named as therapeutic cloning, which has created a confusion. To repeat, that we are opposed to reproductive cloning to make another human being but if these scientific procedures are to be used to create cells which can be accepted by a patient, for example, who has Parkinson's without having an adverse reaction, this was the line which I thought and many thought ought to be maintained. And the scientific community is up in arms about the prospect of having somatic cell nuclear transfer prohibited because there is some mistaken name calling, calling it therapeutic cloning which is mistaken for reproductive cloning. So Senator Brownback--and I wanted him here to hear me make this presentation--said to me he would withdraw his amendments if I would delete the provision in the bill which codified what President Bush had done. And I decided to agree with that proposal which Senator Brownback made because, as the manager of the bill, it seemed to me it would take many days of additional debate if we were to resolve the issue. Then, with the majority leader and the Republican leader, an agreement was worked out--and it is on the record--that we would have a freestanding bill in February or March. I wanted it earlier rather than later, but the majority leader would not commit to February but said it would have to go to March, and so it was February or March. And then in the interim, our subcommittee has planned a series of three hearings to go into some detail as to what is really involved, to have some public discussion and public understanding that what is called therapeutic cloning is not cloning at all and certainly in no way related to reproductive cloning. Then we had the event last weekend----

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to make a substantive----

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to do so, I would like 1 minute when the Senator from Kansas finishes to make a comment or two.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think this last brief exchange points up the complexity of the issue as to what we are dealing with. When Senator Brownback comments about what may occur next, they are matters of enormous concern. I do not like cloning in any form, and it may be when we have the debate and when we have the hearings, if the bill is not going to be called up--I was not prepared to propose Senator Brownback call up the bill. I am prepared to debate this, and Senator Brownback may persuade me and may persuade others. I do think it is a more orderly process to give the scientific community an opportunity to present their case, but if Senator Brownback will get the procedures to have a vote now and a debate and really explore the matter--the sole purpose I have made in this presentation is to raise a distinction between reproductive cloning and what others have called therapeutic cloning, which, as I understand it, is not cloning at all. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask the majority leader to stay in the Chamber for just a moment, if he would accord me that courtesy. I have sought to raise a procedural inquiry because of what has just happened. I have been in the Chamber for a little more than an hour waiting my turn. The majority leader took care of very important calendar business as we started the process, and then moved on to other important matters. I have been here for 21 years, and I know that who has the floor may yield for a question. There are also artful ways to ask a question. I have sought a procedural ruling on whether they really were questions because when you make a statement for a protracted period of time and then end it with a question, the Chair may sustain that, especially when the majority leader is involved. But I want to make a point with the majority leader's presence and one of the other Senators who was asking questions as a matter of our fair play and procedure. I don't think Senators have to wait for an hour while there are other people who gain recognition where there really aren't questions but speeches. I thank the majority leader for staying to listen to my point because it is just possible that this may reoccur sometime in the future.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, is the Senator from Illinois asking a question or making a statement?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I wish to make one more point before yielding the floor, and that is another amendment which I am considering offering on the stimulus package. That is an amendment which would add $350 million for capital grants to be made by the Secretary of Transportation for the rehabilitation, preservation, and improvement of railroad tracks, including bridges, roadbed, and related track structures to short-line railroads. Legislation has been pending in the House of Representatives on this subject which has more than 100 sponsors. Legislation is pending in the Senate which has 7 sponsors. This would be a tremendous stimulus because it would immediately put many people to work on the reconstruction of the short-line railroads in the short run, providing very extensive jobs, and in the long run, by improving the infrastructure which would be enormously helpful to the economy of Pennsylvania and similarly to other areas where there are short-line railroads. At my request, the McFarren Group prepared an extensive analysis of proposed railroad costs to be included in the Federal stimulus package. Because of the shortage of time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a limited portion of this report be printed: The executive summary and the third page of the summary, together with a summary of factors in support of this amendment and a copy of the amendment itself.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on another subject of great importance to Pennsylvania, on two amendments which I am considering offering on the stimulus bill, one relates to the reclassification of the Scranton- Wilkes Barre-Hazelton metropolitan statistical area and also the reclassification of the Williamsport metropolitan statistical area, and the reclassification of the Sharon metropolitan statistical area. These areas' hospitals are in dire straits because the Medicare reimbursement formulas allow them less compensation than that to which they should be entitled. This matter was considered near the end of the last Congress, and there were quite a few areas which wanted to have a reclassification. All were omitted. The pain for these areas in my State has become more intense. An appropriate vehicle would be the stimulus package because these reimbursement shortfalls have a direct bearing on the economies of these three very important areas. There has been a great problem which has resulted from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and these areas have a much lower reimbursement rate than adjacent areas. For example, if you take the Scranton-Wilkes Barre-Hazelton area, they receive $6,010 in Medicare payments per case compared to Monroe County, an adjacent county, which receives $7,390, more than $1,380 more, an enormous differential. What is the result? The nurses and the medical personnel go from one area to the higher paid area. The Allentown area, again adjacent, receives $6,665 compared to the $6,010 for the Scranton-Wilkes Barre- Hazelton area. The Williamsport area, which is in the same region, is similarly disadvantaged, and so is Sharon, PA. I ask unanimous consent that a 2-page summary on reclassification of these areas be printed in the Congressional Record since there is relatively little time remaining, and the summary will explain in some greater detail the reasons, and also a copy of the proposed amendment which Senator Santorum and I are considering offering when the stimulus package comes before the Senate.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for those comments. These are issues of very considerable moment. These are matters which need to be analyzed very carefully. The war against terrorism is a very vital war. Some suggestions have been made there might be a concern about convicting bin Laden, but I remind them, he has been under indictment since 1998 for killing Americans in Mogadishu in 1993 and the blowing up of our embassies in Africa in 1998, and there evidence against him linking him to the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. So there is considerable evidence. However that may turn out, this is a matter which should receive deliberation by the Judiciary Committee because there are very weighty issues to be considered. There is not a great deal of time. We are scheduled to have a recess to get a secret briefing later today on what is happening in Afghanistan. So I ask unanimous consent to print in the Congressional Record a CRS Report for Congress, dated October 29, 2001, on ``Trying Terrorists as War Criminals,'' which outlines some of the key considerations.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from Vermont for those comments. I think the Attorney General would come up on an invitation. We are due back here on the 26th. I think it would be in order to make this the first order of business of the committee on the 27th. That would be 12 days' notice. I note that there is a very extensive Executive Order implementing this procedure. This matter is not something which burst upon the scene yesterday. It has been under consideration. I noted that a key Member of the House of Representatives was quoted in this morning's press as not having been consulted. I noted the chairman is also quoted in the press as having not been consulted. That is the President's right. He can take his action, but under the separation of powers we have our own rights. The Congress has the authority to make those determinations. That is what the Constitution says. We have the authority to decide how those trials will be conducted. Of course, we are in a very difficult situation. We face a struggle for survival with what happened on September 11. The executive branch is entitled to great deference, but we are entitled to know the reasons for the President's order and its scope. Such a military tribunal need not have a trial by jury, which would be expected. Not to have a trial by jury is a military court-martial. There is no explicit privilege against self-incrimination. That is something we have to consider. There is even no right of the defendant to choose his counsel. I don't think that would be the case in every tribunal, but these are powers that are very broad, and just as we found it necessary to take some time on the terrorist bill, our job is to take a look at it. And the executive will be immeasurably strengthened if the Congress backs the President.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to follow my distinguished colleague from Alaska, who has been here for 21 years. I can personally attest to that and take an affidavit to that fact because I came here on the same day that he did. We have worked together over the years and we have a curious relationship, in the sense that he is senior to me in the Republican caucus because it was done alphabetically, and ``M'' comes before ``S.'' I am senior to Senator Murkowski in the Senate because I come from a State that is somewhat larger population-wise but not geographically. But it is always a pleasure to follow Senator Murkowski on the floor or any other time.