Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Among the hearings our subcommittee has held since December of 1998, there were nine on stem cells, which burst upon the scene in November of 1998. The President has taken a significant step forward in authorizing Federal funding for all of the stem cell lines which were in existence as of August 9 at 9 p.m. Subsequent hearings by our subcommittee have disclosed the likelihood is high that will not be sufficient to have the kind of medical research which is necessary. The determination of that will await another day, candidly, as our country has been so heavily involved on the war against terrorism. In response to very legitimate concerns which have been addressed by many about the possibility of having life from those embryos which are discarded on in vitro fertilization, we have included in this bill $1 million as a starting project to have an embryo adoption awareness campaign. In in vitro fertilization, perhaps a couple will create a dozen of these embryos. Then there will be selected three or four of the strongest embryos for implantation, for in vitro fertilization. The bulk of the remaining embryos will be discarded. An issue has been raised about the possibility of adoption of these embryos. Certainly, if it were possible to bring all of these embryos to life, no one would suggest remotely they be used for research for stem cell extraction. But it is only because they are going to be discarded that it is concluded it is better to use them than to simply lose them and throw them away. In an effort to have the maximum utilization possible of these embryos if life can be produced, we have started on this embryo adoption awareness campaign and have allocated $1 million--not an enormous sum of money, but enough for a start. If it moves ahead, we will be revisiting this matter with increased appropriations in subsequent years. Our funding has been very extensive on other critical programs of the Department of Health and Human Services. The Centers for Disease Control, which is now very much in the headlines, was the subject of an additional $170 million last year for improvement of the plan. About 18 months ago, I made a visit to the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta because I could not believe the stories I was hearing about renowned scientists working in corridors with their desks under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. I went to Atlanta. I found that the conditions were even worse than had been described. Senator Harkin and I crafted $170 million for our budget for capital improvements which will exceed some $1 billion over the course of years. This year, we have added some $250 million to that program. We have had a substantial increase in Head Start, of some $400 million, and we are now at $6.6 billion. The Ryan White AIDS program has an increase of $75 million to $1.888 billion. Children's Graduate Medical Education, a very important item, has had an increase up to $243 million. On education on title I, disadvantaged youngsters, we have had the remarkable increase of $2.4 billion, or a total of some $11.8 billion. On the important item of teacher quality State grants, an increase of $930 million to $1.9 billion, we have had a virtual doubling of that important account. On special education, an item I hear about so often in my town meetings as I visit the 67 counties in Pennsylvania, we have had an increase of $1 billion, moving toward the goal of having the Federal Government fund 40 percent of special education. Pell grantees have been raised consistently. Now they are at $4,000, an increase of $250 over last year. Gradually we are moving them up and up and up. With respect to labor, the dislocated worker account, which is so important today with the economy having the difficulties which are so well known, we have an increase of $136 million, for a total of $1.5 billion. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, has an increase of almost $25 million; mine safety, an increase of almost $10 million; the National Labor Relations Board, an increase of $10 million to try to get them to cope with their very heavy backlog. That is a summary of some of the items in this bill. We think we have crafted the priorities in accordance with America's needs. These are three Departments of enormous importance. We have a substantial allocation for bioterrorism which we have addressed each year. That will be in our regular budget--$338 million. That is going to have an increase yet to be determined. We had a special hearing several weeks ago where the indications were a minimum of $1.5 billion, which was the request at that time. That is going to be substantially increased to enable us to cope with the very serious threat which confronts America today. That is a very brief summary. I urge my colleagues to come to the Senate floor. Now is a good time to offer amendments. There is no competition; Senators may offer amendments right at the head of the line. Exhibit No. 1 Diseases Alzheimers. Parkinsons.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the assistant majority leader for his statement about scheduling. It is my hope and it is my recommendation that we proceed very promptly with this bill, with the possibility of concluding it before the end of business today, or certainly no later then midday tomorrow. There has been ample time for Senators to consider amendments to this legislation. Last year, this bill was reported out of committee on June 30 and floor action was concluded on July 27, and because of scheduling this year, it has come at a later time, understandably. Senators have had an opportunity to consider whatever amendments they want to offer. There is real concern as to what may happen in the remainder of the legislative season, and there has been some talk and most of us, if not all of us, do not want to see a continuing resolution. Mr. President, the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education bill before the Senate today contains $123.1 billion in discretionary spending, the full amount of the subcommittee's budget authority allocation under section 302(b) of the Budget Act. This amount represents an increase of $11.4 billion over the FY'01 freeze level. The bill is within its outlay allocation of $107.7 billion. In addition, $300 million in emergency spending is also included for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. At this time, I want to take this opportunity to thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, the chairman of the committee, for his hard work in bringing this bill through the committee and on to the floor for full consideration by all Senators. The programs funded within the subcommittee's jurisdiction provide resources to improve the public health and strengthen biomedical research, assure a quality education for America's children, and offer opportunities for individuals seeking to improve job skills. I'd like to mention several important accomplishments of this bill. Few things are more important than a person's health and few things are more feared than ill health. Medical research into understanding, preventing, and treating the disorders that afflict men, women and children in our society is the best means we have for protecting our health and combating disease. Since January 2001, the Labor-HHS Subcommittee has held 12 hearings on medical research issues. We have heard testimony from NIH Institute Directors, medical experts from across the United States, patients, family members, and advocates asking for increased biomedical research funding to find the causes and cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, ALS, AIDS, cancer, diabetes, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, heart disease and many other serious health disorders. The bill before the Senate contains $23.7 billion for the National Institutes of Health, the crown jewel of the Federal Government. The $3.4 billion increase over the FY 2001 appropriation will support medical research that is being conducted at institutions throughout the country. This increase will continue the effort to double NIH by FY 2003. These funds will be critical in catalyzing scientific discoveries that will lead to new treatments and cures for a whole host of diseases. The use of human embryonic stem cells for research has become an issue that is consistently debated in the press, on radio and television, and amongst people around the world. The fact that in fewer than 3 years, stem cell research has gone from an avant garde interest of a few select scientists to a common, contemporary issue reveals the immense potential that stem cells offer ailing patients. Yet coming to terms with the inherent moral and ethical issues of stem cell research is difficult. We struggle with the balance of our respect for human life against the compassion we have for those who suffer from diseases that could be cured by stem cells. On August 9, 2001, President Bush recounted his own struggle with this volatile issue. The President made a diligent, valiant effort to reach an accord that would satisfy all sides. I believe that limits on the use of Federal research money to only existing stem cell lines, will place barriers in the path of medical progress. We are just beginning to understand which researchers and companies throughout the world have ownership of these existing stem cell lines and we have little knowledge of their property rights, plans to share or license the use of those lines to other researchers, or whether the donors of those embryos have given the requisite informed consent. We know little about the quality of those existing stem cell lines, although up to one-third of them may be so fragile that they will be of no use to any researcher. We do not know how future therapies will be developed for our genetically diverse population from only a few select genetic lines. Perhaps most importantly, we are now learning that the existing stem cell lines may be inappropriate for producing any human therapies because of their exposure to mouse feeder cells while growing in culture. Since 1998, the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education has held nine hearings to explore the potential medical benefits of stem cell research. The subcommittee has heard more than 21 hours of testimony from some of the most preeminent scientists in the world who have described how stem cells have the potential to cure the most common diseases afflicting Americans today. We have heard from ethicists who have discussed the moral and social implications of pursuing this line of research. We have listened to company executives who recount their ideas and hopes for delivering therapies to patients and patent attorneys discussing intellectual property rights. But the most striking and most compelling testimony has been from patients who suffer from disease and disabilities that destroy lives. The Labor-HHS and Education bill before the Senate adds a new provision to the existing embryo ban (carried in the bill since FY'96). This language permits Federal dollars to be used--at the discretion of the President--for research on embryonic stem cells from embryos that meet the following criteria: created in excess of clinical need, will otherwise be discarded, and are donated with the written consent of the progenitors. This language for the first time, states that Federal dollars may be used for embryonic stem cell research. Since September 11, 2001, Americans have become acutely aware that our enemies will use any means to murder and maim large numbers of U.S. civilians. The use of biological agents is no longer a threat--it is a reality. The deaths of 3 individuals from inhalational anthrax and the infection of others with the cutaneous form of the disease has made all of us aware of the need to act quickly to provide the funds needed for prevention and treatment needs. The committee has included $338 million to coordinate state and local readiness, stockpile appropriate pharmaceuticals, and build our public health infrastructure to respond to any act of bioterrorism. The anthrax found in Senator Daschle's office and in the House and Senate mail rooms, at postal facilities in New Jersey and the District of Columbia and surrounding areas, in news and other media facilities proves that we must try and prevent, detect and quickly respond to any further acts of bioterrorism. Additional dollars to address bioterrorism needs will be considered during supplemental appropriations bills in November. For the first time, the committee has included $1 million for a public awareness campaign to educate Americans about the existence of spare embryos and adoption options. During stem cell hearings, we were made aware that there are 100,000 spare frozen embryos stored in in-vitro fertilization clinics throughout the United States. Many infertile couples could choose to adopt and implant such embryos if they were aware of that option. Since 1999, $2.9 billion has been devoted to programs to assist communities in preventing youth violence. This year the committee has included $1.542 billion to continue to address youth violence in a comprehensive and coordinating manner throughout the Federal Government. Funds will be used to improve research, prevention, education, and treatment strategies to identify and combat youth violence. To enable all children to develop and function at their highest potential, the bill included $6.6 billion for the Head Start Program, an increase of $400 million over last year's appropriation. This increase will provide services to 916,000 children in 49,420 classrooms across the Nation. To help provide primary health care services to the medically indigent and underserved populations in rural and urban areas, the bill contains $1.34 billion for community health centers. This amount presents an increase of $175.1 million over the FY 2001 appropriation. These centers provide health care to nearly 12 million low-income patients, many of whom are uninsured. Again this year, the committee has placed a very high priority on women's health. The bill before the Senate provides $818.7 million for programs specifically addressing the health needs of women. Included in this amount is $27.4 million for the Public Health Service, Office of Women's Health, an increase of $6.1 million over last year's funding level to continue and expand programs to develop model health care services for women, provide monies for a comprehensive review of the impact of heart disease on women, and to launch an osteoporosis public education campaign aimed at teenagers. Also included is $266 million for family planning programs; $124.2 million to support the programs that provide assistance to women who have been victims of abuse and to initiate and expand domestic violence prevention programs to begin; $167.2 million for sexually transmitted diseases; $195 million for breast and cervical cancer screening; and $39 million for the Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health. In FY'01, the Labor-HHS Subcommittee held several hearings to explore the factors leading to medical errors and received testimony from family members and patients detailing their experiences with medical mistakes. The Institute of Medicine also gave testimony and outlined findings from their recent report which indicated that 98,000 deaths occur each year because of medical errors and these deaths may cost up to $29 billion in excess health care expenditures and lost productivity each year. The bill before the Senate contains $60 million to determine ways to reduce medical errors, an increase of $10 million over the FY'01 appropriation. The bill maintains $2 billion for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. The amount, when combined with the additional $300 million in emergency appropriations, will provide a total of $2.3 billion for the LIHEAP Program in FY'02. LIHEAP is the key energy assistance program for low income families in Pennsylvania and in other cold weather states throughout the Nation. Funding support grants to States to deliver critical assistance to low income households to help meet higher energy costs. For programs serving the elderly, the bill before the Senate recommends $2.4 billion. Included is: $366 million for supportive services and senior centers; $561 million for congregate and home- delivered nutrition services; and $202.5 million for the national senior volunteer corps; $450 million for the community service employment program which provides part-time employment opportunities for low-income elderly. Also, the bill provides $909.1 million for the National Institute on Aging for research into the causes and cures of Alzheimer's disease and other aging related disorders; funds to continue geriatric education centers; and the Medicare insurance counseling program. The bill includes $5.1 billion for AIDS research, prevention and services. Included in this amount is $1.833 billion for Ryan White programs, an increase of $75.4 million; $781.2 million for AIDS prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control; and $2.375 billion for research at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. To enhance this Nation's investment in education, the bill before the Senate contains $48.5 billion in discretionary education funds, an increase of $6.3 billion over the FY'01 freeze level, and $4 billion more than the President's budget request. For programs to educate disadvantage children, the bill recommends $11.8 billion, an increase of $1.8 billion over last year's level. The bill also includes $200 million for the Even Start program to provide educational services to low-income children and their families; $36 million for the education of homeless children, and $30 million for migrant education programs. For school improvement programs, the bill includes $8.7 billion, an increase of $1.6 billion over the FY'01 appropriation. Within this amount, $3.039 billion will be used for a new state grant program for improving teacher quality. To assist States and local education agencies in developing education reform initiatives, the bill includes $410 million. Also included is $925 million for grants to local education agencies for emergency school renovation and repair activities. The committee recommendation includes $712.1 million for educational technology state grants, as authorized under the Senate- passed version of H.R. 1. This program consolidates the four current educational technology programs. For the 21st century After School Program, the bill provides $1 billion, an increase of $154.4 million over last year's level. This program supports rural and inner-city public elementary and secondary schools that provide extended learning opportunities and offer recreational, health, and other social services programs. The bill also includes language to permit funds to be provided to community-based organizations. For Impact Aid programs, the bill includes $1.130 billion, an increase of $137.1 million over the 2000 appropriation. Included in the recommendation is: $50 million for payments for children with disabilities; $954 million for basic support payments, an increase of $72 million; $68 million for construction and $50.5 million for payments for Federal property. The bill provides $516 million to assist in the education of immigrant and limited-English proficient students. This recommendation is an increase of $56 million over the 2001 appropriation. The $8.4 billion provided in the bill will help local educational agencies meet the requirement that all children with disabilities have access to a free, appropriate public education, and all infants and toddlers with disabilities have access to early intervention services. The $999.6 million increase over the FY'01 appropriation will serve an estimated 6.5 million children age 3-21, at a cost of $1,133 per child. While also supporting 612,700 preschoolers at a cost of $637 per child. To improve post-secondary education opportunities for low-income first-generation college students, the committee recommendation provides $805 million for the TRIO program, a $75 million increase over the 2001 appropriation. These additional funds will assist in more intensive outreach and support services for low income youth. For student aid programs, the bill provides $12.3 billion, an increase of $1.6 billion over last year's amount. Pell grants, the cornerstone of student financial aid, have been increased by $250 for a maximum grant of $4,000. The supplemental educational opportunity grants program has also been increased by $22.1 million, the work study program is held at the FY'01 level and the Perkins loans programs is increased by $15 million. In this Nation, we know all too well that unemployment wastes valuable human talent and potential, and ultimately weakens our economy. The bill before us today provides $5.5 billion for job training programs, $80.8 million over the 2001 level. Also included is $1.4 billion for Job Corps programs; $950 million for adult training; and $1.549 billion for retraining dislocated workers and $1.127 billion for youth training. The bill provides $1.422 billion for worker protection programs, an increase of $63.8 million above the 2001 appropriation. While progress has been made in this area, there are still far too many work-related injuries and illnesses. The funds provided will continue the programs that inspect business and industry, assist employers in weeding out occupational hazards and protect workers' pay and pensions. The bill includes $395 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, an increase of $30 million over the FY'2003 appropriation. In addition to the core amount provided for CPB, the Committee recommends $25 million for the conversion to digital broadcasting. There are many other notable accomplishments in this bill, but for sake of time, I have mentioned just several of the key highlights, so that the Nation may grasp the scope and importance of this bill. Mr. President, I again want to thank Senator Harkin and his staff and the other Senators on the subcommittee for their cooperation. This bill has very substantial additional funding for education--some $4 billion more than last year. It has very considerable additional funding for the National Institutes of Health, which funding has been a priority, on which the distinguished chairman, Senator Harkin, and I have worked during his chairmanship in the early 1990s and mine for 6\1/2\ years, beginning in 1995 through earlier this year. If there is a continuing resolution, those increases will not be realized. I think there is also an appropriate point of emphasis with what is happening in the country. I believe other Senators share my belief that there is a real need for us to spend time in our States with our constituents, telling them what is happening in the world and telling them what is happening in America. We all know that all of this work should have been finished by September 30. Here we are on October 30. So I urge my colleagues, in furtherance of what the distinguished Acting majority leader has said, to let us know what the amendments are and offer to bring them. If we are not accorded that kind of consideration, it is my hope we will move to the third reading so that we can go to conference. This is not going to be an easy bill to conference. Unless we proceed with dispatch, we will not have the benefit of these very substantial increases in funding. I thank the Chair and my colleagues. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, the terrorist attacks carried out by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida on September 11 require a reevaluation of our national policy on what the government should be doing on its primary responsibilities: the security of the people. The United States was stunned by that diabolical attack. It was thought impossible to make the country, with special emphasis on the Congress, more ``fighting mad''; but that was done with the anthrax attacks. As a nation, we are determined to respond thoughtfully and forcefully to win the war against terrorism. This floor statement briefly reviews some of the responses by the U.S. to terrorism for the past two decades to learn from our mistakes of the past and to guide us on what to do in the future. The United States has been slow to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction to bring to justice terrorists who attack U.S. citizens around the world. Ordinarily, jurisdiction resides in the locale where the crime occurred; however, a nation may assert extraterritorial jurisdiction where its citizens are victimized on foreign soil which provides the nexus for jurisdiction beyond its boundaries. It was not until 1984 that the United States asserted extraterritorial jurisdiction to try terrorists who kidnaped or hijacked Americans abroad. Those provisions were contained in the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1984 which was added onto the appropriations bill for the Department of Justice. The Senate and House Judiciary Committees, led by feuding chairmen, could not agree on legislation, so an appropriation subcommittee took up the issues in an unusual way. The bill was passed in the middle of an all-night session, in which I participated along with Senator Warren Rudman on the Senate subcommittee, and Congressman Bill Hughes on the House subcommittee. That legislation still left a void on terrorism other than kidnaping or hijacking. On July 11, 1985, I introduced the Terrorist Prosecution Act of 1985, to establish extraterritorial jurisdiction for any attacks on any U.S. citizen anywhere in the world. Several months later, the need for such legislation became urgent when on December 27, 1985, 16 people, including five Americans, were killed by random terrorist strafings at the Rome and Vienna airports, and many others were wounded. This provided the impetus to pass the Terrorist Prosecution Act which became law on August 27, 1986, providing the basis for the indictments against Osama bin Laden for conspiring to murder 18 Americans in Mogadishu, Somalia, in 1993, and 12 Americans at the Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salam, Tanzania, Embassies in 1998. Although there were solid precedents for the United States to act against indicted terrorists, who were harbored in foreign countries, the United States declined to pursue an aggressive policy to enforce outstanding warrants of arrest. In 1886, in the case of Ker v. Illinois. 119 U.S. 436 (1886), the Supreme Court of the United States held that a prosecution could be validly pursued even where the defendant was abducted in a foreign country and brought back to the U.S. for trial. Ker, under indictment for fraud in Illinois, had fled to Peru. Illinois authorities pursued him to Peru and brought him back to Illinois for trial and conviction. The Supreme Court of the United States said: There are authorities of the highest respectability which hold that such forcible abduction is no sufficient reason why the party should not answer when brought within the jurisdiction of the Court which has the right to try him for such an offense, and presents no valid objection to his trial in such court. (Ker, 119 U.S. at 444.) That principle was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522 [1953], in an opinion by Justice Black, a noted civil libertarian. Based on my experience as district attorney of Philadelphia in pursuing indicted criminals, I thought some of those techniques could be applied to international terrorists. Those ideas were expanded after chairing the Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism. After studying ``Ker'' and ``Frisbie,'' I urged U.S. executive branch officials to consider abduction, if necessary, to bring back to the United States indicted terrorists. In hearings before the Judiciary Committee and the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, I questioned Secretary of State George Schultz, Attorney General Edwin Meese, FBI Director William Webster and State Department Counsel Abraham Sofaer on that subject. In testimony before the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism on July 30, 1985, Judge Sofaer raised a series of objections to such forceful action, saying: I would say that seizure by U.S. officials of terrorist suspects abroad might constitute a serious breach of the territorial sovereignty of a foreign state, and could violate local kidnapping laws--that is, the people who do the seizing could be, in fact, criminals under local law. Such acts might also be viewed by foreign states as violations of international law incompatible with the foreign extradition treaties that we have in force with those nations. It may be that those hearings, urging the application of ``Ker'' and ``Frisbie,'' led to action by U.S. law enforcement officials against Fawaz Yunis, although his case did not involve abduction in a foreign country, but the principle was close. In June 1985, Yunis and other terrorists hijacked a Jordanian airliner with two U.S. citizens in Beirut, Lebanon. In September 1987, a joint operation of the FBI, CIA, and U.S. Military led to the capture of Yunis, who was lured onto a yacht off the coast of Cyprus with ``promises of a drug deal.'' Once the yacht entered international waters, Yunis was arrested and returned to the U.S. for trial where he was convicted of conspiracy, aircraft piracy, and hostage-taking, and then sentenced to 30 years in prison. The hearings on ``Ker'' and ``Frisbie'' may have also led the DEA-- the Drug Enforcement Administration--to abduct from Mexico Dr. Alvarez- Machain who was implicated in the kidnaping and murder of a DEA agent in Mexico in 1985. After the DEA unsuccessfully negotiated with Mexican authorities for Alvarez-Machain's surrender, DEA officials offered a reward to a group of Mexican citizens for delivering Alvarez-Machain to them in the United States, which was done in April 1990. The trial court dismissed the case because the DEA agents had violated the extradition treaty with Mexico, and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. When the case reached the Supreme Court of the United States, the Court reversed the lower courts and stated this principle of law: The power of a court to try a person for a crime [exists even if] he had been brought within the court's jurisdiction by reason of a forcible abduction. (United States v. Alvarez- Machain, 504 U.S. 655, 661 (1992).) And now onto Osama bin Laden's longstanding record on terrorism against the United States. The cases of Ker, Frisbie, and Alvarez-Machain provided ample precedent for the United States to have acted against Osama bin Laden prior to September 11, 2001. For a decade, Osama bin Laden had been prosecuting a war of terrorism against the United States. In 1992, he issued a religious declaration, known as a fatwah, urging that United States troops be driven out of Saudi Arabia, and the fatwah was extended in 1993 to demand expelling U.S. troops from Somalia. The terrorists convicted for bombing the World Trade Center in 1993 were trained in al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan. In 1996, al-Qaida called for a jihad against the United States. In February 1998, bin Laden and al-Qaida issued another fatwah, calling for the murder of U.S. citizens wherever they were found in the world. In May 1998, bin Laden announced the need to possess a nuclear weapon against ``Jews and Crusaders.'' In indictments returned in November 1998, Osama bin Laden was charged with conspiring to murder U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and Somalia and for being directly involved with the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998. In June 1999, bin Laden called for the killing of all American males. And then bin Laden was involved with al-Qaida in the terrorist attack on the USS Cole. Notwithstanding demands by the United States and the United Nations, the Taliban refused to turn bin Laden over to U.S. authorities. In harboring bin Laden, the Taliban, the de factor government of Afghanistan, was an accessory after the fact. In his September 20, 2001 speech to a Joint Session of Congress, President Bush equated those who harbor terrorists with the terrorists themselves. From all that, it was readily apparent that bin Laden and al-Qaida were at war with the United States even prior to September 11. Then, on September 11, in addition to murdering 7,000 Americans, bin Laden and al-Qaida sought to destroy our symbol of economic achievement by leveling the twin towers of the World Trade Center and to decimate the White House and U.S. Capitol with planes which crashed into the Pentagon and in a Pennsylvania field. In a Senate floor statement the following day, September 12, I said-- and it is worth repeating now: [T]here have been many declarations that what occurred yesterday with the Trade Towers and the Pentagon were acts of war. And there is no doubt about that. Similarly, what bin Laden did in Mogadishu in 1993 and in the Embassies in 1998 were acts of war. At this time, while the Congress should never act precipitously, I do suggest that consideration be given to a declaration of war against the political entity which harbors and has given aid and assistance to bin Laden's terrorist organization and bin Laden and his co-conspirators, based on the indictments which already have been handed down . . . It was my view on September 12 that even though we could not prove at that time that bin Laden was responsible for the terrorism of September 11, that a basis already existed for declaring war on Afghanistan and the Taliban for harboring bin Laden based upon the indictments which had already been returned establishing probable cause for acts of war which bin Laden and al-Qaida had committed against the United States. On September 13, when the President met with Members of Congress from New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, which were the impacted States, I urged President Bush to consider a declaration of war against Afghanistan and the Taliban on the basis of the outstanding indictments against bin Laden and the Taliban's refusal to turn him over. The President made no response at that meeting to my suggestion. President Bush declined to ask for a declaration of war, but he did request a resolution authorizing the use of force which was passed unanimously in the Senate and 420-1 in the House. Presidential executive orders have provided that: ``No person employed by or acting on behalf of the U.S. Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.'' But in April 1986, President Reagan ordered the bombing of Tripoli, Libya, and Muammar Qadhafi after intelligence intercepts implicated Libyan intelligence operatives in the bombing of a disco in Berlin, resulting in the death of two American soldiers. Similarly, President Clinton ordered a missile attack on Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in August 1998 after the Embassy bombings. In an interview with Tom Brokaw on NBC News on September 18, 2001, former President Clinton said: We had quite good intelligence that he [bin Laden] and his top lieutenants would be in his training camp. So I ordered the cruise missile attacks, and we didn't tell anybody, including the Pakistanis, whose airspace we had to travel over, until the last minute, and unfortunately we missed them, apparently not by very long. We killed a number of terrorists, destroyed the camp, but we didn't get him or his top lieutenants. And I made it clear that we should take all necessary action to try to apprehend him and get him. We never had another chance where the intelligence was as reliable to justify military action. He's very elusive. He spends the night in different places, often stays in--in caves. There were times when he tried to hide among a lot of women and children. It's a tough . . . nut to crack. But the world is changed now, and . . . the pressure that President Bush and the administration is putting on the Taliban and also on the Pakistanis, and the statements the Pakistanis have made, and the unity we've got around the world--we finally got other countries as concerned about this as we are. . . Now to a discussion of Israel's response to terrorism. It is worth noting what Israel has done in its war against terrorism. Israel has adopted a policy on what could be called ``executions'' after its own determination of terrorists' guilt. After the massacre of the 11 Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich in 1972, it is reported that Prime Minister Golda Meir and Defense Minister Moshe Dayan authorized the executions of 9 of the terrorists whom they identified as being responsible for the Munich murders. One person, killed in Norway, was reported misidentified as a terrorist. Such executions have also been carried out by Israel against terrorists who were principals of the PLO, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Hamas whom the Israelis found involved in murders of Israeli civilians. The terrorism of September 11 should make us more understanding of the perils faced by Israel for five decades. Since the second Intifada began in September 2000, Israel has sustained 165 deaths from the killings. On a proportionate basis to our population, that would translate into over 7,000 Americans, a virtual equivalency to the mass murders on September 11. Should Israel be expected to respond differently from the way we responded to September 11? Just as the United States must find a way to stop terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens, a way must be found to stop the violence which has killed 714 Palestinians as well as 165 Israelis. In seeking to organize a coalition against bin Laden and al-Qaida, the United States has urged, even pressured, Israel to temper its responses against Palestinian terrorists. In so doing, the United States should consider whether it is applying a double standard between what we are doing and what we ask Israel to do. What is the difference between the United States demand on the Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden contrasted with Israel's demand on Chairman Arafat to turn over the assassin of the Israeli tourism Minister Rehavam Zeevi. The usually perceptive Thomas L. Friedman in his October 23 New York Times column applied such a double standard. Asking Israel to pull its punches against Palestinian terrorism to stop ``. . . inflam[ing] the Arab-Muslim world in order to avoid . . . seriously undermining our [the United States] coalition against bin Laden,'' Friedman calls for Israel to subordinate its security interests to those of the United States. Friedman then asks Prime Minister Sharon whether ``. . . you (know) how serious this war is for America''? Is the war against Palestinian terrorism any less serious for Israel? In seeking the assistance of Arab countries in the coalition, the United States has been careful not to ask for more than can reasonably be expected. Similar consideration must be extended to Israel. During the gulf war in 1991. Prime Minister Itzhak Shamir and Israel cooperated with the United States by taping their windows, wearing gas masks, and not responding to Iraqi Scud missile attacks. Israel has made serious, good-faith efforts to negotiate with Arafat notwithstanding the Intifada violence. Prime Minister Barak made the Palestinian authority a very generous offer in January 2001. Foreign Minister Shimon Peres has engaged in extensive negotiations until those talks were interrupted by outbursts of Palestinian terrorism. There was a real question as to how much control Chairman Arafat can exert over Palestinian terrorism. Last April 16, I met Chairman Yasser Arafat in Cairo near midnight at the precise time Israel was responding to Palestinian mortar attacks. As we talked, aides brought Arafat communiques describing the fighting. I asked Chairman Arafat why he had not accepted then Prime Minister Barak's generous offer earlier in the year. Chairman Arafat responded that he had, but he was obviously oblivious to the fact that he imposed so many conditions it was, in fact, not an acceptance. I then called on Chairman Arafat to make a clear statement calling for an end to Palestinian terrorists attacks. He said he had done that at the Arab summit on March 29, 2001. The transcript of his speech refuted his statement. That speech was another example of his longstanding tactic of sending contradictory messages. Chairman Arafat is famous for saying one thing in English to one audience and the reverse in Arabic to another audience. In assessing Chairman Arafat's ability to reign in Palestinian terrorism, we must take into account that today he is not the man he was when he shook the hands of Prime Minister Rabin and Peres on the White House South Lawn on September 13, 1993, in the presence of President Clinton. Shortly thereafter, I met Chairman Arafat in Cairo in January 1994 traveling with a congressional delegation. At that time Arafat was healthy, robust, and forceful. Seven years later, when I again met him in Cairo, he was shaky, hesitant, and spoke mostly through his aides. The recent challenges to his authority by Hamas, resulting in Chairman Arafat's firing on and killing Palestinians in early October, shows his diminished authority and raises serious questions as to whether he can be effective in ending the Palestinian violence even if he wants to. This April, Secretary of State Colin Powell criticized Israel's response to Palestinian terrorism saying Israel's military action was ``excessive and disproportionate.'' In hearings before the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations on May 15, 2001, I challenged Secretary Powell's characterization and said: While Israel did respond very, very forcefully, Israel could have responded much more forcefully and is facing a situation where everybody is sort of at wit's end. And I believe that the calculation is made that if they hit them hard enough within reason that they will--that the Palestinians perhaps will stop the terrorism although that is very complicated with Hamas and Islam Jihad and the others. Then Secretary Powell sought to justify his comment by saying that we tried to be ``even-handed''. He then referred to ``the cycle of violence.'' The comment on ``cycle of violence'' suggests some sort of parity or moral equivalency between the purpose and level of force between Palestinian terrorists and Israel's reaction in self-defense. There is, realistically viewed, no moral equivalency. Terrorism, the killing of innocent victims, is totally reprehensible, repugnant, and morally unjustifiable. Self-defense in response to such terrorism is morally justifiable and is authorized under international and natural law. When United States pressure on Israel increased, Prime Minister Sharon bluntly told the Bush Administration ``do not try to appease the Arabs at our expense'' and analogized the situation to the allies sacrificing Czechoslovakia in the Munich Pact of 1938. The Bush administration replied in kind calling Sharon's comment ``unacceptable.'' In limiting the freezing of terrorist assets to individuals and groups connected to the al-Qaida organization and the Irish Republican Army, President Bush did not extend United States efforts to ``every terrorist group of global reach,'' as articulated in his September 20th speech. Perhaps he left out Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestine Liberation Organization and other Arab terrorist organizations to maximize the chances to get Syria and other Arab countries into our coalition. Israel's battle against Palestinian terrorism would have benefited by our freezing the bank accounts, of Hamas, Hezbollah and the PLO, just as we did with terrorist organizations connected to Osama bin Laden; but United States national interests at the moment may have differed-- just as Israel's national interest may differ. Israel cannot be blamed for the September 11 terrorism. Senator John McCain was right when he said on NBC's ``Meet the Press'' on October 21: So if Israel were taken off the face of the Earth tomorrow, we would still be facing the same terrorist problems we have today. Osama bin Laden's hatred against the United States, is rooted in events which preceded Israeli's existence. His videotaped statement broadcast on October 7 cited, ``what America is facing today is something very little of what we have tasted for decades. Our nation, since nearly 80 years is tasting this humility.'' He raged against the United States for our military action against Iraq and Japan. The two references to Israel were minor compared to his diatribe against America as the ``head of international infidels.'' His disregard for human life was palpable in minimizing ``a few more than 10 were killed in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam.'' The intensity of hostility was demonstrated by a statement by Ayman al Zawahir, one of his close associates, on the same videotape: American people, can you ask yourselves why there is so much hatred against America? The New York Times on October 7 characterized bin Laden's anti- American attitude: Mr. bin Laden, born in Saudi Arabia, has typically focused his anti-American statements on the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia, declaring it a violation of Islamic holy places. Now, in keeping with the rest of the Arab world, he shifted focus to the Palestinian uprising that began in September 2000, as officials believe. A minister of the United Arab Emirates is reported to have warned the United States that if Israel continued killing Palestinians, ``most of us will certainly have to reconsider our role in the coalition''. The United States was obviously seeking to assuage Arab objections when Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld skipped Israel in his recent mid-East trip and Secretary of State Powell emphasized that Israel would not be part of any military coalition. Hezbollah and Hamas are now reportedly accelerating their terrorism on the expectation that Israel may be reluctant to respond out of concern for Arab participation in the coalition. That is a prelude to the most important part of this somewhat lengthy statement, and that is a focus on dealing with terrorism in the future. The conduct of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida prior to September 11 should have put the United States on notice that we were facing a ruthless, powerful enemy engaged in a religious war with the capacity to inflict enormous damage. By 20/20 hindsight, the United States should have taken whatever action was necessary to, as President Bush later put it, either bring bin Laden and al-Qaida to justice, or to bring justice to them. The point is not to attach blame for what happened in the past; but to learn from this bitter experience how tough and determined we must be from this day forward in fighting terrorism. After September 11, it is obvious that the civilized world faces decisions on how to deal with terrorism which threatens our survival. Self defense, acknowledged as a person's most primordial motivation, is recognized as a fundamental principle in international law. Congress, in conjunction with the President, has the responsibility to conduct hearings, deliberate, and establish our national policy on how to deal with terrorism. As a starting point, Congress should conduct oversight hearings to determine whether our intelligence agencies were at fault in failing to provide warnings of the September 11 attacks. If so, Congress must act to cure such deficiencies and to do whatever is necessary at whatever cost to reorganize our intelligence agencies and provide the resources to be as sure as possible that we will not be again caught by surprise. The oversight hearings on the adequacy of our intelligence should be deferred until next year so as not to distract the intelligence community from using its full resources to detect current threats. Congress, in conjunction with the President, should consider the public policy behind the Executive Order banning ``Assassinations.'' As a starting point, we should consider whether the pejorative term ``assassinations'' is accurate or whether we are really dealing with ``executions,'' even if they are based on a non-judicial determination of guilt. It is one thing to prohibit the CIA from involvement in the killing of a leader of a foreign political faction or from the killing of a foreign leader contrasted with the CIA implementing a Presidential finding to take bin Laden into custody or kill him if there is no alternative. The use of force in war or against terrorism does not require the same level of proof to convict in a U.S. court of law. Without prejudging Israel's nonjudicial determinations of guilt and the following ``executions,'' Congress must decide what quality of proof and what level of force is necessary to assure our Nation's survival. It was concluded that the Executive Order banning assassinations did not preclude President Reagan's order to bomb Libya and Qaddafi or President Clinton's order for a missile attack against bin Laden and al-Qaida in Afghanistan in August of 1998. In 1976, the Church Committee on Intelligence Operations concluded: . . . short of war, assassination is incompatible with American principles, international order, and morality. It should be rejected as a tool of foreign policy. The Church committee's interdiction against assassination, ``short of war,'' raises the obvious question as to when war begins or whether terrorism isn't in fact, war. When it becomes a matter of survival, I suggest the pristine rules of the Church committee may have to be superseded, again depending on the circumstances. Judicial determinations of guilt are not required as a basis for the use of deadly force in war and should not be the basis for action against terrorists. Israel has long considered itself in a war for survival facing being vastly outnumbered and surrounded by hostile armies in wars in 1949, 1956, 1967 and 1973, and some of those nations still have a state of war technically against Israel. In moving against the Munich murderers and Palestinian terrorists, Israel has adopted an activist policy of execution after a nonjudicial determination of guilt. All of that I suggest is worth studying. In President Bush's speech to the Joint Session of Congress on September 20, he said: The war on terrorism . . . will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. Congress, in conjunction with the executive branch, must also decide what action should be taken against every nation which sponsors, supports, or harbors terrorists in order to meet President Bush's goal. We must determine what national security and survival require in evaluating a policy on abducting or executing terrorists in foreign countries and taking tough action against these who harbor them. Consideration should also be given to the detention of individuals where there is reason to believe they are part of al-Qaida or some other group which is actively planning terrorism against the United States. Under existing law, membership or an affiliation with such a group without more is not a basis for arrest or detention. The standard for detention should not require the level or probable cause necessary for a warrant of arrest or a search warrant but it should be more than mere surmise. It is obviously a difficult line to draw. A case was reported after September 11 where a suspected terrorist was detained when he tried to gain entry to the United States from Canada, but was released when there was not sufficient evidence to arrest him. He was reportedly later identified as one of the pilots on a September 11 hijacking, which illustrates the point that if we let them go when we have reason to detain them, they may come back to kill us. Twenty-first century terrorists do not wear uniforms. Study must be undertaken to determine an appropriate standard for detention on the analogy of detaining prisoners of war. The issue of detention of aliens received considerable attention during the debate on the terrorism legislation which was signed into law by President Bush on October 26. That legislation answers part of the problem but not all of it. Poignant scenes from ``Saving Private Ryan'' illustrate the problem. In the movie, U.S. forces captured a German soldier behind enemy lines as they were making their way on their mission to save Private Ryan. The German soldier pleaded for his life. The American soldiers did not have the capacity to take him with them as a prisoner, so they had the alternative of killing him or letting him go. When he promised to move to U.S.-held territory and surrender himself, the American soldiers relented and released him. In a later scene, that German soldier confronts the same American soldiers and kills several of them. That sequence illustrates American generosity and our natural instincts to be merciful. It is a lesson worth noting that we, as a nation, must reevaluate our level of ``toughness'' if we are to survive. In this Senate floor statement, I have sought to raise issues which must be decided after congressional hearings and deliberations rather than to provide definitive answers. Now, Mr. President, I come to the crux of what I have had to say. In summary, these are the issues to be decided by Congress in conjunction with the President, after hearings, deliberation, and consultation. These are some of the issues which have to be considered. I do not say they are all inclusive, but these are the ones on my mind now. First, should the United States revise its policy against assassinations to acknowledge that war and terrorism warrant executions under some circumstances? Second, should such executions be authorized based on a nonjudicial determination of guilt, recognizing that responses to war and terrorism have traditionally not required the level of proof to indict or convict in a U.S. court of law? Third, what level of our national leadership should be invested with the power to make such nonjudicial determinations of guilt? Fourth, what are the standards for the quality and quantity of proof to make such a nonjudicial determination of guilt? Fifth, should the United States be deterred from going into another sovereign nation to abduct or take forceful action against a terrorist when the host nation fails or refuses to turn over such terrorists? Sixth, to what extent should the United States act against foreign nations or their officials who harbor terrorists? And seventh, should individuals be detained where there is some basis to believe that they are non-uniformed members of al-Qaida or another terrorist organization on the analogy of incarcerating prisoners of war? If so, what should be the standard for such detention, and who should make the determination? My sense is that America will maintain its resolve in carrying on the war against terrorism regardless of how long it takes. The steadfastness and durability of the coalition is another question. In my opinion historically, ``Remember Pearl Harbor'' will be a mild declaration or exhortation to ``Remember September 11th!!'' That concludes my statement. I thank my colleague, the Senator from Alaska, for his patience, and in fact he was patient. He came in at the latter part of my statement, and I have taken considerable time until Senator Stevens arrived, and there is no other Senator who sought recognition. I appreciate the opportunity to make the statement which has been the product of considerable work on my part. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SPECTER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the full committee, Senator Byrd, and the ranking member, Senator Stevens, for their assistance in moving ahead with this very important amendment. Parity for mental health has been an objective of about two-thirds of the Senators for many years. Through today's action, I think we are on the road to getting that accomplished. So I salute my colleagues and thank my colleagues for their cooperation and good work.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleagues from Missouri for bringing this important issue to the Senate's attention. I support their efforts and encourage CMS to work in good faith with the State to find a resolution to this matter that allows Missouri to continuing making progress in providing health insurance to its citizens.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we urge colleagues, if they have amendments to offer, to come to the floor and do so now. In the absence of any Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. What time does he think we might go to third reading?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to state my support for the pending legislation. This is very important legislation in response to the atrocious terrorist attacks of September 11. We will at some date in the future conduct congressional oversight to make a determination as to whether there were any deficiencies in our intelligence operations prior to the September 11 attacks. However, we should wait until the appropriate time because our intelligence entities are busy now collecting intelligence to avoid any recurrence of the terrorist attacks. But it is important that law enforcement have appropriate tools at their disposal to combat terrorists. In the United States that means careful legislation which is in accordance with our constitutional rights and our civil liberties. I believe Congress has responded appropriately in this matter with due deliberation. There is obviously a temptation in the face of what occurred on September 11 to respond spontaneously or reflexively, but we have undertaken this legislation, I think, with appropriate care and now have a good product. I had expressed concerns when the bill was on the Senate floor that there could be some question about the adequacy of the deliberative process because the Supreme Court of the United States has held acts of Congress unconstitutional where they questioned the thoroughness or deliberation. I think this bill as presented today does meet that standard. The legislation has very important provisions under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act where a modification has been made to authorize electronic surveillance where there is a ``significant'' rather than a ``primary'' purpose, allowing use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I chaired the Judiciary subcommittee, which did Department of Justice oversight, getting into the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in some detail with respect to the Wen Ho Lee case. This is a change which is necessary, and I believe it is a change which will pass constitutional muster. The electronic surveillance adds terrorism to wiretap predicates. It is rather surprising that terrorism, or allegations of terrorism, have not been sufficient to authorize electronic surveillance in the past. This corrects a long-standing deficiency. The pen register has been expanded for nationwide orders, which makes sense on an administrative level and does not conflict with any issues of civil liberties or constitutional rights. The bill increases the civil liability for unauthorized disclosure of wiretapping information, which I think is important. One of the key provisions of the bill is the sunset provisions relating to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, electronic surveillance, and information sharing which expire on December 31, 2005, with an appropriate exception for ongoing investigations. This will enable us to see how this expanded power will work out and will require reauthorization, new legislation, if we wish to continue it beyond. The provisions on immigration are important, requiring the Department of Justice and the FBI to share certain information with the State Department and INS. The issues regarding detention, I think, have been very substantially improved to be sure that there is a protection of constitutional rights while giving law enforcement an adequate opportunity to conduct the inquiries which they need. The provisions on money laundering, I think, are very important additions to take a stand, to stop terrorist organizations such as al- Qaida and terrorists such as Osama bin Laden not to be financed through the laundering which has been possible through laxity of the banking regulations. In short, I believe this is a very significant step forward. There is a very heavy overhang over Washington, DC, today with what is happening here with our efforts to respond in so many ways to September 11. Now with the anthrax, we are all concerned about what may happen in the future. Having served as chairman of the Intelligence Committee back in the 1995-1996 time period and chairing the appropriations subcommittee on terrorism, I am glad to see us move forward with this legislation which will give law enforcement the tools which would give them a better opportunity to prevent any more sneak attacks, any recurrence of the dastardly deeds of September 11. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I do not intend to appeal the ruling of the Chair because I do not wish to establish a precedent for nongermane amendments to be heard on appropriations bills. This has been a procedural quagmire which has been very problemsome for the Senate for a very long time and has a special impact on my own views, since I am a member of the Appropriations Committee. I regret that the issue of germaneness was raised and a point of order was raised, but I thought it was important to put this resolution before the body. I do believe it is the appropriate way to establish a standard--much preferable to having a filibuster and trying to block the work of the Senate to establish a standard which would apply to both parties or both sides that a very reasonable cutoff date is the August recess. This year it started on August 4. Now the matter was considered in the Judiciary Committee. It was not tabled. There was a vote on the merits; not that that makes a lot of difference, it was 10- 9. But with the point of order having been raised by the assistant majority leader, there may be some political evaluation by the electorate of the position taken by the Democrats on this issue. It is not an unusual practice to have amendments offered on the Senate floor, and those who oppose them will have to explain them to their constituencies. It is my hope that those who have opposed this standard that all judges be voted on when submitted prior to the August recess, that they will have to explain that to their constituency. The point of order having been raised by the assistant majority leader for the Democrats, not being considered on the merits, being defeated, we will just take it to the electorate for whatever consideration they may wish to give. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Nevada for saying that. I wanted to give him the courtesy of awaiting his arrival. I did see him momentarily, just about a minute and a half before I took the floor. With the comment by the assistant majority leader, I shall proceed to make an argument. The resolution recites the facts that there are currently 106 Federal judicial vacancies, representing more than 12 percent of the Federal judiciary. Forty of these vacancies have been declared judicial emergencies by the Administrative Office of the Federal Courts. What that means is that there is an urgent need for judges to be sitting in those courts. Last year at the adjournment of the 107th Congress, there were 67 vacancies, representing 7.9 percent of the Federal judiciary. It is obvious that the vacancies now are more than 50-percent higher than they were when the 106th Congress adjourned. When Senator Daschle was the Democratic leader and not in the majority in May of 2000, when there were 76 Federal judicial vacancies, Senator Daschle said, as set forth in this resolution: The failure to fill these vacancies is straining our Federal court system and delaying justice for people all across the country. In January of 1998, when there were 82 Federal judicial vacancies, Senator Leahy stated--again set forth in the body of the resolution: Any week in which the Senate does not confirm three judges is a week in which the Senate is failing to address the vacancy crisis. The events of September 11 of this year, when the terrorists attacked New York City, the Pentagon, and Somerset County, PA, make it all the more imperative that all branches of the Federal Government shall operate at maximum efficiency, which requires the Federal judiciary to be as close to full strength as possible. As analogous here, the first year of President Reagan's administration, 100 percent of all judicial nominees sent to the Senate prior to the August 1981 recess were confirmed during his first year in office. During the first year in office of President George H.W. Bush, 1989, again, 100 percent of the nominations sent prior to the August recess were confirmed. During President Clinton's first year in office, in 1993, 93 percent of the vacancies were filled during the first year in office. President George W. Bush this year has nominated and sent to the Senate 44 judicial nominees prior to the August 2001 recess. Twenty-one of all pending nominees have been nominated to fill ``judicial emergencies.'' The Senate has confirmed only twelve judicial nominees to date, which represent 27 percent of President Bush's judicial nominees sent to the Senate prior to the August 4 recess. The resolution calls for the sense of the Senate that prior to the end of the first session of the 107th Congress, which will be sometime before the end of 2001, that all of the nominees sent prior to August 4 be acted upon by the Judiciary Committee, sent to the Senate, and voted on one way or another, up or down, further that the standard for approving all of the nominees submitted prior to the August recess be a standard policy of the U.S. Senate which would apply in future years and apply in future circumstances where there was a President who was a Democrat and a Senate controlled by Republicans. During the course of our discussion during the Judiciary Committee meeting last Thursday, the issue was raised by one of the Senators who was a Democrat that this position was taken contrary to what it was in prior years. I said that I would modify the resolution to apply equally to times when there was a Democrat who was President and a Republican- controlled Senate. It is a rather straightforward resolution. That is the essence of the argument. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. I will.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, the resolution calls for a sense of the Senate that all of the nominations submitted by President Bush to the Senate for the Federal judiciary prior to August 4, which was the start of the August recess, be considered by the Senate before the close of the first session of the 107th Congress. There has been considerable concern and controversy over the number of judges which have been confirmed. And there had been a form of a filibuster engaged in on opposing the motion to proceed to the foreign operations appropriations bill last week and again yesterday. That effort has not been pursued. It is my view that in the long run it is not productive to stop legislation as a pressure tactic, although that is a longstanding practice in the Senate by both parties. But in any event, that is not being pursued. This resolution seeks to establish a standard which would be applicable not only to the occasions when a Republican President submits nominations to a Senate controlled by Democrats, but also to situations where there is a President who is a Democrat who submits nominations to a Senate which is controlled by Republicans. I had written to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, on October 12, enclosing for him a first draft of this resolution and advising him in his capacity as chairman of the Judiciary Committee that I intended to raise it at the Judiciary Committee meeting first in order to give the Judiciary Committee the first opportunity to act on it. It was on the agenda for last Thursday, October 18, when it was considered and, on a party-line vote, voted down. This is the first opportunity there has been to submit the resolution for consideration by the full Senate, which I am doing at this time. Before proceeding to the merits of the resolution, I am going to yield the floor and wait for the arrival of the Senator from Vermont, who is also chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee and is the manager for the Democrats.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, earlier today I came to this Chamber and notified the manager on the Republican side and staff for Senator Leahy that I intended to offer a resolution as an amendment. I believe I saw Senator Leahy in this Chamber a moment ago. At this time, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I am informed that there was a typographical error in the resolution and that the figure 8 judicial nominees should have been 12, which represents 27 percent of President Bush's judicial nominees sent to the President prior to August 4, 2001. I wanted to make sure the record was accurate in that respect. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SPECTER. On its face you would seem to, unless there is a contractual relationship?