Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on a couple of subjects today. First is a subject that is very much in the forefront of the news, which is the proposal to try terrorists in military tribunals as opposed to trials in U.S. courts of law. The Attorney General of the United States is quoted in this morning's press as citing circumstances that the administration believes would require this change in procedure, and it is a matter that I believe ought to be considered by the Congress, because under the Constitution the Congress has the authority to establish military courts and tribunals dealing with international law. I have written today to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee suggesting that prompt hearings be held on this subject. We are going to be returning after the Thanksgiving recess, and we will have a chance to look into this matter. Events are unfolding very rapidly now in the war in Afghanistan, with major advances being made by the Northern Alliance, with U.S. commandos on the ground, moving in an effort to find Osama bin Laden. I have predicted consistently since September 11 that we would find him and, as President Bush has said, we would either bring bin Laden to justice, or we would bring justice to him. So the issue of military courts is something that may be upon us sooner rather than later. The Constitution provides that the Congress is empowered to define and punish violations of international law, as well as to establish courts with exclusive jurisdiction over military offenses. Under articles of war, enacted by Congress, and statutes, the President does have the authority to convene military commissions to try offenses against the law of war. Military commissions could be convened to try offenses, whether committed by U.S. service members, civilian U.S. citizens, or enemy aliens, and a state of war need not exist. So there has been a delegation of authority by the Congress. But under the Constitution it is the Congress that has the authority to establish the parameters and the proceedings under such courts. In World War II, in the case of Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, eight German saboteurs were tried by a military commission for entering the United States by submarine, shedding their military uniforms and conspiring to use explosives on unknown targets. After their capture, President Roosevelt proclaimed that all saboteurs caught in the United States would be tried by military commission. The Supreme Court of the United States denied their writs of habeas corpus, holding that trial by such a commission did not offend the Constitution. In World War II, we obviously faced a dire threat. The decision was made, understandably at that time, to have that kind of a trial procedure and not in regular civil Federal courts. Our current circumstances may warrant such action at the present time, but I do believe it is something that ought to be considered by the Judiciary Committee. I note the presence of the distinguished chairman of the committee in the Chamber. I just commented, Senator Leahy, that I have signed a letter to you on this subject. I thought it worthwhile to go far beyond the letter and to talk about this subject because I believe it is a matter of very substantial importance.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, Sunday is Veterans Day, a day dedicated to honoring the brave men and women who have served in the armed forces of this great Nation. Over 26 million men and women living today have answered their Nation's call to defend the ideals, values, and liberties we Americans hold dear. This Sunday will mark the 63rd anniversary of the creation of the first official holiday honoring veterans who, like my father, Harry Specter, served in World War I. Unfortunately, it will also mark the 3- month anniversary of the horrific attacks of September 11, attacks which were directed at the same ideals, values, and liberties millions of Americans have fought so bravely to defend. As ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I wish to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to the veterans of wars past--and to those who are engaged today in fighting this new war against terrorism. I am proud of what has been accomplished in Congress in recent years to honor America's veterans. We have expanded educational benefits, improved life insurance coverage, and opened new national cemeteries. And we have worked hard to increase funding for VA medical care. We intend to build on these accomplishments with further improvements in VA services and benefits. I thank my colleagues for their past support, and I urge them to continue in their steadfast support for veterans. Very few things we do here are more important. Whereas Memorial Day is dedicated to remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, Veterans Day is dedicated to acknowledging the commitment and devotion to duty millions of former soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines made to this great Nation. Veterans are the best of America--people who, through sacrifice, dedication, and love of country, protected our freedoms, liberties, and way of life. This Sunday I ask every American to join me in honoring them. I also ask that we take a moment to acknowledge and thank the warriors of today who are the veterans of tomorow.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I appreciate the chairman and Senator from Rhode Island for clarifying these points. It is important to note that this appropriations bill is not changing any of the rules or standards for government funding of religious organizations and we have funded the two programs in the President's Faith-Based Initiative that we believe are authorized.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee, for his extraordinary vote on this bill. I note for the record the speed with which we passed this bill and the concessions which were made by quite a few Senators to take complicated matters off this bill. We put aside the stem cell issue which I very much wanted to have resolved. We did so in the interest of concluding this bill. We have already started the conferencing issues with both staffs meeting early tomorrow afternoon and Members meeting a little later tomorrow afternoon. From our experience in the past, we have seen how difficult it is to conference this bill, so we are moving right ahead, and it would be my hope, with the example we have set with this complicated appropriations bill--on time, with people withdrawing matters to try to expedite the process--that we would move ahead and complete our work by November 16, which is when we should finish, and we can go home and take care of business in our States. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before we go to the vote, I ask to be recognized.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I join my colleagues in supporting this amendment. Senator Harkin and I have always tried to work together to make sure federal resources are directed toward helping children who otherwise might not have access to a high quality education. This amendment clearly furthers that objective and I am pleased to accept it as part of the managers' package.

Mr. SPECTER. I too, share the chairman's commitment to the higher funding level for the Title V program. Considering the need demonstrated by Hispanic-serving institutions, their collective contribution to their communities and to the nation, as well as the effective use to which they put these funds, I believe the funding increase is necessary and appropriate.

Mr. SPECTER. I echo the comments of Chairman Harkin. Programs such as VOA deserve the full support of Congress, and I am committed to working with Chairman Harkin to provide adequate funding for Healthy Start programs. hispanic serving institutions grants program

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if no one is speaking, this might be a good time for a vote.

Mr. SPECTER. I ask the Senator to yield me 4 minutes. Mr. President, I join the chairman of the subcommittee in opposing the amendment by the Senator from Arizona. I believe that impact aid is very important, beyond any question. We have the responsibility, as proponents of this bill, to make a lot of allocations. We try to do it as fairly as we can, recognizing all of the priorities which are present. Senator Harkin pointed out that we raised impact aid from $12.5 million last year to $68 million. It is difficult to follow all the matters. Another Senator approached us and has raised a concern. I made a statement that there would be an effort made in conference--that is always uncertain--to put back some of the money which was transferred by the amendment by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe. As Senator Harkin has already noted, last year we did make an allocation from school construction money. Basically, this is a dispute about the role of the Federal Government in school construction. We had a very spirited debate on the amendment by the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, earlier today. A margin of 54-45 on a hotly contested issue is a fairly decisive margin. It is my view that we will try to improve the position of impact aid which the Senator from Arizona wants once in conference, but the allocations which we have made here, taking the bill as a whole, represent a fair allocation. In dealing with a budget of this size, we have had relatively few amendments offered signifying relatively little opposition to the priorities which were established first by the chairman and the ranking member and then by the full subcommittee and then by the full committee. I oppose the amendment.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I concur with what the Senator from Nevada has said.

Mr. SPECTER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the language which will be stricken appears on page 91 and reads as follows: Subject to the provisions of section 510(a) and (b), Federal dollars are permitted at the discretion of the President solely for the purpose of stem cell research on embryos that have been created in excess of clinical need and will be discarded and donated with the written consent of the progenitors. That will be stricken. I have legislation pending which would permit the use of Federal funding to extract stem cells from embryos. The precise format of the legislation which I will propose will be determined, and I will give Senator Brownback ample notice as to what I intend to do. We will have the hearings on that, and we will have the hearings on the issue which Senator Brownback has raised with Senators. It is worthwhile making one comment on the nature of complexity as to concerns which my staff and I have had. I echo Senator Brownback's praise for Bettilou Taylor and also acknowledge the contribution of Dr. Sudip Parikh, an assistant with us, and also Mr. Rob Wasinger, who is with Senator Brownback. A concern expressed to me by many doctors has been whether there would be a danger of eliminating therapeutic cloning. Regretfully the words ``cloning'' and ``therapeutic cloning'' have given it a very bad name. What it amounts to--and this is an illustration--is taking a cell, for example, from a woman who has Parkinson's; take the nucleus out of the cell and take an egg from a woman donor whose nucleus has been removed, and put the nucleus from the cell of the woman who is the patient, put it into the egg where the nucleus has been removed. You wait 5 to 7 days, and then you have a blastocystic state of an embryo. The stem cell which is extracted can then be used on the patient, who is a woman, to cure Parkinson's. That is a very brief statement, but in the complexities of the amendments we might not have had that opportunity. We will be going into these issues and a great many others. I think had we debated it on the Senate floor today, as Senator Reid has said, it would have been very difficult to grasp these issues. When Members want to have penal provisions, jail sentences and fines, those are matters which require a lot of deliberation as to what is appropriate for deterrence and what is appropriate as a punishment. The arrangement we have worked out today is an important arrangement. Most fundamentally, it allows moving forward on this bill, conclude this bill, go to conference, and get it passed. To pick up on the conversation with Senator Lott, we show our willingness to make concessions on matters we would like to work on now, but it can wait until the February-March timeframe. I hope my colleagues in the House and Senate will undertake the same kind of consideration to decide what we have to decide now, move ahead with airport security and the stimulus package and the matters of absolute necessity, the appropriations bills. If matters can be deferred, as Senator Brownback and I have deferred until March, that should be the order of the day so we can go back to our States or districts and explain to people of America what is going on so they know with some confidence we do have a plan, we do have a program, and we are working in a constructive way in the Federal Government. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from Nevada for those comments. He is correct on the issue of holding the hearings. I have conferred with the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Harkin, who agrees we need to have the hearings. I have discussed it with Senator Brownback. These issues are extraordinarily complicated. We are going to have to have a whole series of hearings with regard to the complicated issues so we can know what we are doing on making public policy, especially in the context where Senator Brownback's amendments carry penal sanctions, jail terms and fines, so that we can know what we should be doing in the public interest but not stifling science. Senator Brownback and I have worked together over the years on a great many items, and we have had some lively television discussions. I think when we finally get around to this discussion it will be lively as well. I yield to my colleague from Kansas.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. With the assistant majority leader's suggestion we proceed to two votes, I raise no objection. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the second vote be a 10-minute vote.

Mr. SPECTER. Then it is the suggestion that we proceed to two votes now?

Mr. SPECTER. I would. I think we should proceed with the business of the Senate. If I might ask my colleague from Nevada, what would happen then to those who want to make arguments in opposition to the Landrieu amendment?

Mr. SPECTER. I will accommodate the Senator from Massachusetts on that.

Mr. SPECTER. I have no objection.

Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object, may I inquire of the Senator from Louisiana how much additional time she wants?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana makes changes in the formula so that there are more funds targeted to poor areas, and States which have already targeted poor areas are going to receive more funding. Pennsylvania is a winner in this formula fight. I tend to support the amendment. Nobody has appeared in opposition to the amendment, and there are a number of States which are adversely affected. It is my hope that other Senators wishing to protect their interests will come to the floor to present their arguments. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. If we now go to a quorum call, the time can't be charged against the Senator from Louisiana because she has no time remaining. So is the time charged against the opponents of the amendment?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I join my colleague, Senator Santorum, in offering praise to Coach Joe Paterno for establishing a new record for being the ``winningest'' coach in football class 1-A schools. It was a tough first four games of the season this year when Penn State was defeated four times. Then his team came back in spectacular fashion to beat Northwestern 2 weeks ago and last Saturday to beat Ohio State to establish the new record. In the short time we have, I will share a vignette or two. Coach Paterno tells a story of his undergraduate days at Brown when he was a member of a fraternity which did not have any Jewish members. A young Jewish student sought to enter the fraternity. They passed the cup around and it turned out to have a blackball. Sometime later, the student made a second application and they passed the cup around again and it turned out to have a blackball. Then he made a third try, and again there was a blackball. At this point Joe Paterno, a student in the fraternity, jumped up and said: I have to admit, that was my blackball; I withdraw the blackball. Of course, it wasn't his blackball. But the blackballer didn't have the courage to stand up and acknowledge it as his blackball. That young Jewish student gained admission to the fraternity. One other short story. I am not sure how appropriate this is, but I will take a chance. I was campaigning for reelection. I am not sure if it was 1986 or 1992. Joe Paterno happened to come by. The newsman said: Coach, are you supporting Senator Specter for reelection? And Joe Paterno has a marvelous way of putting his foot down, pawing the ground, and looking down. He said: Well, if I had a running back in, and he was making yardage and he wasn't tired, I'd leave him in. I think I'd leave Arlen Specter in. I have had a few endorsements in my day, but that is the most memorable one I have had. Coach Paterno visited this Chamber with, I believe, the 1983 Penn State team. They filled the visitor's gallery. I made a reference to them, pointing out that the team was in the balcony, and I was later corrected by Senator Byrd who pointed out that I violated the Senate rules in pointing to that great national championship team. I point to them again today. I don't think Senator Byrd will admonish me because they are not in the balcony today, but there were great teams with Coach Paterno, going down in history as No. 1 in so many respects. I thank the Chair, and I thank Senator from Louisiana for yielding me this time.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we called those the ``Harkin hoops'' last year. They have to survive the Harkin hoops. If not, they go to local. Another comment is worth articulating, and that is, when we sit down and go over these accounts, it is no surprise that Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter have a lot of different views. We hammer them out, and we come to accommodations. This is a program that is very near and dear to Senator Harkin's heart. Again, to repeat, which I don't like to do, I supported it with Senator Carol Moseley-Braun many years ago. There are many accommodations in this bill where Senator Harkin was not so enthusiastic and I was more enthusiastic, so that when we come to the time of presenting the arguments and the position on the floor, I am going to stay with the agreements we reached in the subcommittee.

Mr. SPECTER. If my colleague will yield for a moment.