Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. So is the Senator from Utah saying that if you have permission, that is a form of a contractual relationship?

Mr. SPECTER. The principal thrust of what the Senator from Wisconsin seeks to do is to broaden the definition of a contractual relationship to someone who may otherwise have permission. What I am trying to do is to understand the administration's position, the law enforcement position as to how law enforcement is adversely impacted by what the Senator from Wisconsin seeks to do. My concern, as expressed earlier, is that, especially in the face of the challenge by the amendment, this is a complicated bill. The reality is, it is hard to know all of it without the normal hearing process. Now we have a specific challenge. What I would like to know is, how does it inhibit law enforcement? What about the broader definition gives problems to law enforcement? And then, what is the difficulty in having 96 hours, which is 4 days, to see what is going on to find some basis for seeking a warrant with probable cause?

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask the chairman of the committee, after listening to the presentation by the Senator from Wisconsin, what is the chairman's view of the incursion on law enforcement by the limitation of 96 hours?

Mr. SPECTER. I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, September 26, 2001. Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC. Dear Pat: I write to urge that our Judiciary Committee proceed promptly with the Attorney General's terrorism package with the view to mark up the bill early next week so the full Senate can consider it and hopefully act upon it by the end of next week. I am concerned that some further act of terrorism may occur which could be attributed to our failure to act promptly. Sincerely, Arlen Specter.

Mr. SPECTER. I quote only from the first sentence of Senator Leahy's response to me: I thank you for your letters of September 26 and October 3 and for your participation in the September 25 hearing regarding antiterrorism legislation. On October 3, you wrote that you were concerned about the lack of hearings. I share that concern and have tried to notice prompt hearings on a number of aspects of the legislative proposals at the earliest possible time. On this state of the record, which I hope can yet be perfected, I am concerned about our meeting the standards of the Supreme Court of the United States for a sufficient deliberative process. When Attorney General Ashcroft appeared before the Judiciary Committee on September 25, he said the only detention he wanted on aliens was those who were subject to deportation proceedings. I then pointed out, as the record will show, that the legislation submitted by the Attorney General was much broader and did not limit detention simply or exclusively to those who were subject to deportation proceedings. So my comment was that it was necessary to analyze the bill very carefully, not do it hurriedly, and give the Attorney General of the Department of Justice what he needed, consistent with constitutional rights. The other issue which I had an opportunity to raise in the very brief period of time I had--some 5 minutes--involved modifications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, where the issue was to change the law from ``the purpose,'' being the gathering of intelligence, to ``a purpose.'' Ultimately the legislation has been modified to read ``a significant purpose.'' At that hearing, the Attorney General said he did not look to obtain content from electronic surveillance unless probable cause was established. But in the draft bill, which the Department of Justice had submitted at that time, that was not what the bill provided. So that on this state of the record, I think the Congress has some work to do, tonight in conference or perhaps by other means, to see to it we have a record which will withstand constitutional scrutiny. On our Judiciary Committee, we have many Members who have expertise in this field. This bill, as the Record will show, was negotiated by the chairman and ranking member with the Department of Justice, with the participation of the committee only to the extent of the hearing of the full committee on September 25 and the subcommittee on October 3. We have on our Judiciary Committee a number of Members who have had experience as prosecuting attorneys. We have a number of lawyers who are learned in law. We have other Members who have extensive experience on the Judiciary Committee and a great deal of common sense which may top some of us who have prosecutorial experience or extended experience with probable cause and search warrants or surveillance of some sort or another. I express these concerns so whatever can be done by the Congress will be done to meet the constitutional standards. How much of the 15 minutes have I used?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition and asked for this reservation of time to express my concerns about the record which the Senate is creating so that whatever legislation we pass will pass constitutional muster. The Supreme Court of the United States has handed down a series of decisions in the past decade which question the constitutionality and, in fact, invalidate acts of Congress because there has been an insufficient record compiled. So I make these statements and review the record so far with a view to urging my colleagues to create a record in this Chamber, in conference, or wherever that opportunity may present itself. In 1989, in the case of Sable v. FCC, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down an act of Congress saying, ``no Congressman or Senator purported to present a considered judgment.'' I thought it was a remarkable statement by the Supreme Court since Congressman Tom Bliley in the House of Representatives had established a very comprehensive record. The Supreme Court in 1997, in a case captioned Reno v. ACLU, again invalidated an act of Congress noting, ``the lack of legislative attention to the statute at issue in Sable suggests another parallel with this case.'' It was surprising to me that the Supreme Court of the United States would invalidate an act of Congress on the ground that no Senator or Congressman had purported to present a considered judgment, when that is the view of the Supreme Court which is contrary to Congress. Under our doctrine of separation of powers, it seemed to me an act of Congress should stand unless there is some specific provision in the Constitution which warrants invalidating it or for vagueness under the due process clause of the fifth amendment. The Supreme Court of the United States, in January of last year, did it again in a case captioned Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, a case which involved the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. There the Court said, ``our examination of the act's legislative record confirms that Congress' 1974 extension of the Act to the States was an unwarranted response to a perhaps inconsequential problem.'' Again, a remarkable holding that the Congress had an unwarranted response and that it was an inconsequential problem, totally contradicting the judgment of the Congress of the United States. Then the Court went on in the Kimel case to say, ``Congress had no reason to believe that broad prophylactic legislation was necessary in this field.'' Those are only a few of the cases where the Supreme Court of the United States has invalidated acts of Congress. There is no doubt there is a need for legislation to expand the powers of law enforcement to enable us to act against terrorists. My own experience in 8 years on the Intelligence Committee, 2 years of which was as chairman, and my work as chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism have convinced me without a doubt of the scourge of terrorism which we have seen many times but never with the intensity which we observed on September 11 of this year. The act of Congress in expanding law enforcement has to be very carefully calibrated to protect civil liberties and be in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. Attorney General Ashcroft met with a number of us on Wednesday, September 19, just 8 days after the incident of September 11, and asked that we enact legislation by the end of the week. My response at that time was I thought it could not be done in that time frame, but I thought we could hold hearings in the remainder of that week, perhaps on Thursday the 20th, or Friday the 21st, or Saturday the 22nd, to move ahead, understanding the import of the administration's bill, and legislate to give them what they needed, consistent with civil rights. The Judiciary Committee then held a hearing on September 25 where the Attorney General testified for about an hour and 20 minutes. At that time, as that record will show, only a few Senators were able to ask questions. In fact, the questioning ended after my turn came, and most of the Judiciary Committee did not have a chance to raise questions. On September 26, the following day, I wrote to the chairman of the committee saying: I write to urge that our Judiciary Committee proceed promptly with the Attorney General's terrorism package with a view to mark up the bill early next week so the full Senate can consider it and hopefully act upon it by the end of the week. I am concerned that some further act of terrorism may occur which could be attributed to our failure to act promptly. I then found out on October 3 that the Subcommittee on the Constitution was having a hearing. By chance, I heard about it in the corridors. Although we were having a hearing with Health and Human Services Secretary Thompson on bioterrorism, I absented myself from the bioterrorism hearing and went down the hall to the Judiciary subcommittee hearing and participated there and expressed many of the reservations and concerns I am commenting about today. On that date, I again wrote to Senator Leahy. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my letter to him and the full text of his reply to me of October 9 be printed in the Record at the conclusion of these remarks.

Mr. SPECTER. I yield myself 15 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry, that I have 30 minutes under the unanimous consent request?

Mr. SPECTER. The Senator from Wisconsin makes the point that people may have standing to use a computer even without a contractual relationship. He uses the example of a student. Does the Senator from Utah believe or does the administration represent that there are no relationships other than contractual which give a person the legitimate standing to use the computer?

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, if the Senator from Utah will yield for a question?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I had spoken earlier this evening at some length about my concerns as to the procedures on the bill. I want to make a very few brief comments at this time. I am concerned about the procedures on establishing a record which will withstand constitutional scrutiny. I shall not repeat the citations from decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States which I cited earlier, except to say that the Supreme Court has invalidated acts of Congress where there is not a considered judgment. I understand the position of the majority leader in wanting to get this bill finished. Earlier this evening, I went through an elaborate chronology as to what has happened here. Nine days after September 11, the Attorney General submitted a bill. I had suggested hearings that week. The bill was submitted on September 20. We could have had hearings on September 21 and even on September 22, a Saturday. The Judiciary Committee had one hearing, a very brief one, on September 25. I wrote the chairman of the committee two letters urging hearings, and there was ample time to have hearings to find out about the details of this bill. There was a Judiciary subcommittee hearing on October 3. This bill was negotiated between the chairman and ranking member and the White House. The Judiciary Committee did not take up the bill. We have had ample time. This bill should have been before the Senate 2 weeks ago. If we had moved on it promptly after it was submitted on the 20th, we could have had hearings, perhaps some in closed session. We could have had a markup. We could have had an understanding of the bill. When the Senator from Wisconsin has offered two amendments, which I have supported, I am inquiring as to what is the specific concern about law enforcement to preclude the adoption of the amendments of the Senator from Wisconsin and on the possible invasions of privacy that may result from the amendments not being adopted. This is a very important bill. I intend to vote for it. I served 8 years on the Intelligence Committee, 2 years as chairman. I chaired the Subcommittee of Judiciary on Terrorism. I have been through detailed hearings and understand the problem we face, especially in light of the warning which was put out today, and I understand, with the approval of the President, that a terrorist act may happen in the United States or overseas in the next several days. We do need adequate law enforcement powers. We should have finished this bill some time ago. But when the majority leader says he is concerned about procedure and not about substance, we are regrettably establishing a record where we have not only not shown the deliberative process to uphold constitutionality, but we are putting on the record a disregard for constitutionality and elevating procedure over substance, which is not the way you legislate in a constitutional area where the Supreme Court of the United States balances law enforcement's needs with the incursion on privacy. I feel constrained to make these comments. I hope yet that we can create a record which will withstand constitutional scrutiny. Again, I intend to vote for the bill, but say again that this body ought to be proceeding in a way to establish the record. The worst thing that would happen is if we try terrorists, having used these procedures, and have the convictions invalidated. I have had experiences as a prosecuting attorney and know exactly what that means. I want my concerns noted for the record. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will further discuss briefly the terrorism legislation which we expect to come to the floor later today. I have a reservation of some 30 minutes on the unanimous consent agreement which will be propounded later by the majority leader, but I think a few comments are in order at this time. I have no doubt that there is a need for expanded law enforcement authority. That has been demonstrated by the fact that offenses of terrorism do not have the availability of electronics surveillance which other offenses can employ. This is demonstrated by the fact that there have been significant failures under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and that the Attorney General has represented a need to have additional detention for aliens who are subject to deportation. When the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing two weeks ago yesterday, I questioned Attorney General John Ashcroft on the record about the scope of the Anti-Terrorism bill. The bill did not delineate the Attorney General's needs for law enforcement. Attorney General Ashcroft commented that what the Department of Justice had in mind was the detention of aliens who were subject to deportation. It may well be that there is existing authority for the Attorney General to accomplish that, but if additional authority is necessary, then I think the Congress is prepared to give that additional authority. However, the bill as drafted, did not so delineate the detention to those subject to deportation. Attorney General Ashcroft further made representations about the need to change the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He said before looking to use content there would be a statement of probable cause. Again, in reviewing the specific legislation, that was not present in the bill, so there had to be a revision of the text of the bill. The Senate Judiciary Committee had only an hour and 20 minutes of hearings, two weeks ago yesterday. The Constitutional Law Subcommittee had hearings last Thursday morning. I have grave concerns that there has not been sufficient deliberation that would establish a record and withstand a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court of the United States. I will expand upon this point during the course of the consideration of the bill later today or tomorrow morning and will cite the Supreme Court decisions which have struck down acts of Congress where a sufficient showing of the deliberative process has been lacking. In my judgment, that has been an overextension, a usurpation, by the Supreme Court of the United States of the separation of the powers. For the Supreme Court of the United States, in effect, to tell Congress that Congress has not ``thought through'' legislation that is part of the congressional function, that legislation violates a specific term or provision of the Constitution, that it is vague and ambiguous in violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, or that Congress has run afoul of some other constitutional provision, then so be it. However, it seems to me an extraordinary stretch of judicial authority for the Supreme Court to say that the Congress has not been sufficiently deliberative, and that only the Supreme Court of the United States can gauge what is sufficiency on the deliberative process. That is the case law. In the absence of hearings and in the absence of a record, there is a concern on my part that the legislation will withstand constitutional muster. There is no doubt there is a need to act with dispatch. In my judgment, and I have communicated this to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, we could have held a hearing three weeks ago. We could have worked on a Friday or Saturday. That is not beyond the workload of the Senate. Perhaps, we could have held closed sessions on confidential material. Also, we could have marked up the bill, undergoing the usual deliberative process--the Senate Judiciary Committee works on bills of much lesser importance-- and then have had it reported to the floor. Instead, the bill lay unproduced and held at the desk for action under Rule 14 without that customary committee hearing process, committee deliberation, and committee markup in executive session. I thought, in the absence of any other Senator in the Chamber, that it would be appropriate to make a few comments in that regard at this time. But there is no doubt that there is a very heavy overhang on Washington, DC, at the present time as a result of the September 11 terrorist attacks. That very heavy overhang really exists, as I see it, across the country. I felt this when Senator Santorum and I went to Somerset County, Pennsylvania on September 14, 3 days after the September 11 attack. Although there had been no casualties on the ground, 40 Americans had lost their lives in that ill-fated plane, and there was a great urgency in hearing from Washington, D.C. alongside a great sense of concern. Earlier today I went to Pennsylvania to meet with the Pennsylvania Business Roundtable. Again, there is a sense in the air of a heavy cloud over America, which we have to work through. I am confident that we will. I believe the Bush administration has done an excellent job in organizing an international coalition and not acting precipitously, but rather, acting very carefully. I believe Osama bin Laden will be brought to justice. In the interim, as we look through the kinds of problems which law enforcement faces, I think it is important for Congress to have acted with dispatch--really even earlier than that. However, that could be done only with appropriate regard for constitutional rights. We can have deliberation, with hearings and analysis, get the job done for law enforcement, and protect constitutional rights at the same time. As we work through the very important issue of homeland security and the issue of reorganization of the intelligence community, I welcome comments from my colleagues on the draft legislation which I am submitting into the Record. It is going to require collaboration from many Members. As I have said, Congressman Thornberry has already introduced legislation in the House; Senator Lieberman and Senator Robert Graham of Florida are working on it, as am I. I think from this we can structure some legislative changes which can better protect America. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak up to 20 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss the pending emergency caused by the horrific terrorist attacks on September 11. There is a need for some structural reorganization of the Federal Government in accordance with the recommendations of a number of distinguished commissions which have studied these problems and in accordance with our own findings, as we have worked through the matters in the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. There is also the need for legislation to expand the powers of law enforcement on terrorists. With respect to the newly created Office of Homeland Security, it is my thought there needs to be a structure whereby the position is made a Cabinet position. The Federal Government is fortunate to have secured the services of former Governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania to take on this responsibility. For the moment, the office has been created in the executive branch by an Executive Order, and I believe former Governor Ridge is correct when he says, even though other Government officials may not necessarily listen to him if there are turf battles, they certainly will listen to the President. That, I do believe, is true, as former Governor Ridge has represented it. When we talk about homeland security and that function, we are talking about something which needs to be institutionalized in order to go beyond the term of any President, to go beyond the term of any person who is in charge of that Department, and that, in accordance with our structure of Government, requires legislative action, in my judgment. This is something which we will have to work through with President Bush, with former Governor Ridge, and with the executive branch. However, I offer these thoughts as many Members of Congress are now considering this issue and considering legislation. Representative Thornberry has already introduced legislation in the House of Representatives. Senator Lieberman is working on similar legislation. Senator Robert Graham of Florida is working on legislation, as well. My staff and I have been in the process of working on legislation which I am not yet prepared to introduce, but at the conclusion of these remarks I will ask that draft copies of two bills be printed in the Record. We have had a number of very distinguished commissions analyze these problems. We have had the Hart-Rudman Commission analyze the problems directed to a secure national homeland. That commission pointed out that the keys to prevention are the following tools: 1. diplomacy; 2. U.S. diplomatic, intelligence, and military presence overseas; 3. vigilant systems of border security and surveillance. In order to enhance the effectiveness of the third key, the Hart-Rudman Commission recommended creating a national homeland security agency which would consist of the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, the Border Patrol, and FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The legislation I am submitting today, which is in draft form, would adopt the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman Commission. There has been another distinguished commission, the Brown-Rudman Commission, which has studied the issues of intelligence and has come up with a method and a procedure for streamlining and restructuring the intelligence community. One of the considerations is that in many Departments of the Federal Government, there are smaller intelligence agencies, for example, in the Departments of Treasury, State, Agriculture, and many other Departments. At the present time, there is no effective way for dealing with all of these various Departments. The recommendation of the Brown-Rudman Commission was to consolidate and centralize, to give greater authority and power to the Director of Central Intelligence. The Director is charged not only with the operation of the Central Intelligence Agency, but also with the oversight of all the intelligence functions in the United States. Now, there has admittedly been some gaps and some failures--some major gaps and some major failures--in these turf battles. During the 1995-1996 session of Congress, I had the privilege of serving as the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I served in that position for 2 years, in addition to the 6 other years of service on the Intelligence Committee. There is a term limit of eight years on the Intelligence Committee. During the course of that work, I saw the turf battles among the various agencies and became very deeply involved in the issue of weapons of mass destruction, finding that there were dozens of agencies dealing with that issue. In the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, a commission was created to study weapons of mass destruction. The commission was chaired by former CIA Director John Deutch, and I served as the Vice Chairman of that commission. During the course of the commission work--work that was very similar to that of the Hart-Rudman Commission, the Rumsfeld Commission, and the Brown-Rudman Commission-- we noted the difficulties accorded to all of these important activities. It was the judgment of that commission that the structure be given to the Vice President of the United States on the ground that he or she--whoever the Vice President may be--would be the only individual, except for the President, who could handle intelligence coordination and the kinds of turf battles which are inevitable when there are numerous intelligence agencies at the Departments of State, Defense, Treasury, and Justice. So, it is my thought that we need to address the intelligence function so that we have the appropriate coordination and so that we do not have somebody on the FBI Watch List who enters the United States, buys an airplane ticket, and later becomes a terrorist, such as those that were part of the massive attack on September 11. The legislation which I suggest seeks to accomplish a structure for homeland security and also revises the intelligence functions of the U.S. Government. I ask unanimous consent to submit the text of a draft bill--and I emphasize that it is a draft because we are working on this with quite a number of Members--entitled ``Homeland Defense Act of 2001.'' I ask that this draft bill be printed in the Congressional Record at the conclusion of these remarks. I further ask unanimous consent that the text of a draft bill--and again, I emphasize draft because we are still working on it entitled ``Intelligence Reform Act of 2001'' be printed in the Congressional Record at the conclusion of these comments.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Today I want to salute and thank Mr. Thomas G. Morford, as he retires from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), after almost 30 years of dedicated service to the American people. As the Ranking Member of the Labor, HHS, and Education Subcommittee on Appropriations, I want to express my gratitude to Tom for the assistance he has provided to our subcommittee over the years. His knowledge of appropriations law and the federal budgetary process, and his willingness to assist my staff has been an invaluable service to the subcommittee. Tom spent many long hours, working under tight deadlines, putting together the President's budget and, in turn, helping our subcommittee complete our appropriations bills. Vital programs like Healthy Start, the National Health Service Corps, Ryan White AIDS programs, and Health Professions--to name a few--have benefited from Tom's tireless efforts. Tom has been a valued member of the staff at HHS, first in the Office of the Secretary, then with the Health Care Financing Administration, and finally with the Health Resources and Services Administration. My staff and I will miss his presence, guidance, patience, and good humor during the fiscal year 2002 appropriations season and beyond. But, more importantly, the American people are losing a valued and dedicated public servant. Tom is one of those unsung heroes throughout our government who has made it his life's work to help those in need. But today, as Tom leaves us, I want to sing his praises and let all who hear this know what a great loss his departure means to so many of us. I recognize, though, that Tom is embarking on another new and exciting chapter in his life, both personally and professionally. I know that one of Tom's goals is to spend more time with his wife, Gail, and their two daughters, which his retirement will allow him to do. I also know that Tom plans to continue to use his talents and gifts to help others in his new position with Johns Hopkins University. He deserves the very best in these future endeavors and, therefore, today I extend my heartfelt praise, thanks, and best wishes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation I am introducing today to put into effect several recommendations made by the United States Commission on National Security/21st century relative to Montgomery GI bill, MGIB, educational assistance benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. The Commission, co-chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, was tasked with reexamining U.S. national security policies and processes, and making recommendations on how the United States could best ensure the safety of its citizenry against emerging national security threats. Sadly, one of the emerging threats anticipated by the Commission, the threat of state or group-sponsored terrorism, was realized on September 11, 2001. Our Armed Forces, the best in the world, have now engaged the enemy, and we rely on these dedicated men and women in service to sacrifice their lives, if necessary, to defend liberty and secure justice. The Nation must reciprocate by assuring that the benefits provided to service members during, and after, their service measure up to the grave responsibilities entrusted to them. The Hart-Rudman Commission understood that, and, consistent with that understanding, the Commission recommended specific improvements in veterans' educational assistance benefits to assure that the armed forces are able to attract, and retain, highly qualified, dedicated service members. The Commission made, in total, seven recommendations on how MGIB benefits could be enhanced. It recommended that the MGIB monthly benefit be increased and indexed to the average education costs at four-year public colleges. It recommended, further, that the payment of benefits be accelerated to the beginning of a student's school term. The Commission recommended, in addition, that MGIB benefits be made available to students taking technical training courses. Further, it recommended the repeal of the requirement that service members make contributions totaling $1200 in order to ``buy'' eligibility for MGIB benefits. It recommended, in addition, that potential beneficiaries be given 20 years after discharge from the service, not just 10 years, as is currently specified by law, to make use of their MGIB benefits. It also recommended that service members with 15 years of service or more be entitled to transfer their entitlement to MGIB benefits to their spouse or dependent children. Finally, the Commission recommended that MGIB benefits made available to Reserves called to serve in overseas contingency operations be increased on a sliding scale basis. The Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, a Committee on which I serve as ranking minority member, has considered, and moved favorably on, the first three Commission recommendations listed above; legislation which would, in whole or in part, accomplish these recommendations will soon be before the Senate. The committee has not, however, acted on the final four recommendations of the Commission, mainly because those proposals were not before the committee. It is my hope that by introducing this legislation, I will assure that the committee continues its consideration of MGIB improvements in the months ahead. To summarize the bill briefly, section 2 of my bill would eliminate the $1,200 pay reduction currently required of service members during their first 12 months of active duty as a precondition to eligibility for MGIB benefits. The Hart-Rudman Commission is not alone in recommending the repeal of this requirement. In 1999, the Commission on Service Members and Veterans Transition Assistance, a commission headed by the current Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Honorable Anthony J. Principi, made the same recommendation. It surely can be argued with considerable force that service members, who are asked to risk life and limb in service to the Nation, should not be asked, in addition, to contribute a portion of their pay, while in service, to ``earn'' eligibility for veterans' educational assistance benefits. Section 3 of this legislation would allow service members with at least 15 years of active duty to transfer their entitlement to MGIB benefits to their spouses or dependent children. This past January, I met with some of our troops stationed in Bosnia who expressed considerable interest in this idea. Many of them mentioned that they have families back home and that, rather than paying for their own education, they needed funds to pay for their children's education. At the very least, the idea needs to be further considered. I am aware that Senator Cleland has been working on a concept which is similar, but not identical to, this provision. I would like to work with Senator Cleland on this important issue. Section 4 of my bill would allow former service members 20 years after discharge, rather than 10 years, as is specified in current law, to utilize their MGIB benefits. I understand that, historically, MGIB benefits are intended to assist in the transition to civilian status, so that economic opportunities lost due to temporary military service can be ameliorated upon transition back to civilian life. This concept may have been useful when most departing service members were single persons with no family or financial obligations preventing the use of education benefits very quickly after discharge. Many former service members, however, are married and have children and, with these obligations, often find it difficult to return to school immediately after separation from service. In addition, today's rapidly-changing economy demonstrates that the skills which employers demand today may change tomorrow. Extending the MGIB ``delimiting date'' would encourage ``lifetime learning'' and enable veterans to keep their skills current. Finally, section 5 of my bill would enable members of the Selected Reserve who are called to active duty as part of a ``contingency operation,'' such as the operations to which Reserves are now being called, to be eligible for increased MGIB benefits if they serve in such an operation for more than one year. Currently, those who enlist for a six year reserve commitment are eligible for $251 per month in education benefits, whether or not they are called to active duty. It would seem to me that Reserves who are activated, especially during times of conflict or war, bear close resemblance to individuals who are serving an active duty enlistment, and so too should the educational benefits made available to such persons. Therefore, my legislation would provide that, in cases where a member of the Selected Reserves serves one year in a contingency operation, his or her education benefit would be adjusted to the half-way point between the benefit afforded to a Reserve Member under current law, now, $251 per month, and that provided to service members who have served two years active duty, currently, $528 per month. In cases involving members of the Selected Reserves who serve two years of active service in a contingency operation, the amount of educational assistance afforded to them would be the same as that which is provided to veterans who had served two years of active duty, currently, $528 per month. And for those who have served three years active duty in a contingency operation, their benefit amount would be the same, currently, $650 per month, as that afforded to service members who have served a three year enlistment. In this national emergency, it is time to recognize the sacrifices made by reservists called to active duty by increasing their benefits commensurate with time served on active duty. One of the Hart-Rudman Commission's recommendations, that an Office of Homeland Security be created to coordinate the Federal government's counterterrorism efforts, has already been embraced the President. Governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania, who was just sworn in yesterday, will, I am sure, serve with great distinction as head of that office. We need to address more of the Commission's recommendations, including those that would enhance national security by making the military a more competitive employer so it can attract and retain quality people. Beyond that, we need to let our fighting men and women know that we value their service by providing them with the tools to succeed upon completion of their military careers. This legislation would accomplish those purposes. I urge my colleagues to support this effort.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation I am introducing today to put into effect several recommendations made by the United States Commission on National Security/21st century relative to Montgomery GI bill, MGIB, educational assistance benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. The Commission, co-chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, was tasked with reexamining U.S. national security policies and processes, and making recommendations on how the United States could best ensure the safety of its citizenry against emerging national security threats. Sadly, one of the emerging threats anticipated by the Commission, the threat of state or group-sponsored terrorism, was realized on September 11, 2001. Our Armed Forces, the best in the world, have now engaged the enemy, and we rely on these dedicated men and women in service to sacrifice their lives, if necessary, to defend liberty and secure justice. The Nation must reciprocate by assuring that the benefits provided to service members during, and after, their service measure up to the grave responsibilities entrusted to them. The Hart-Rudman Commission understood that, and, consistent with that understanding, the Commission recommended specific improvements in veterans' educational assistance benefits to assure that the armed forces are able to attract, and retain, highly qualified, dedicated service members. The Commission made, in total, seven recommendations on how MGIB benefits could be enhanced. It recommended that the MGIB monthly benefit be increased and indexed to the average education costs at four-year public colleges. It recommended, further, that the payment of benefits be accelerated to the beginning of a student's school term. The Commission recommended, in addition, that MGIB benefits be made available to students taking technical training courses. Further, it recommended the repeal of the requirement that service members make contributions totaling $1200 in order to ``buy'' eligibility for MGIB benefits. It recommended, in addition, that potential beneficiaries be given 20 years after discharge from the service, not just 10 years, as is currently specified by law, to make use of their MGIB benefits. It also recommended that service members with 15 years of service or more be entitled to transfer their entitlement to MGIB benefits to their spouse or dependent children. Finally, the Commission recommended that MGIB benefits made available to Reserves called to serve in overseas contingency operations be increased on a sliding scale basis. The Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, a Committee on which I serve as ranking minority member, has considered, and moved favorably on, the first three Commission recommendations listed above; legislation which would, in whole or in part, accomplish these recommendations will soon be before the Senate. The committee has not, however, acted on the final four recommendations of the Commission, mainly because those proposals were not before the committee. It is my hope that by introducing this legislation, I will assure that the committee continues its consideration of MGIB improvements in the months ahead. To summarize the bill briefly, section 2 of my bill would eliminate the $1,200 pay reduction currently required of service members during their first 12 months of active duty as a precondition to eligibility for MGIB benefits. The Hart-Rudman Commission is not alone in recommending the repeal of this requirement. In 1999, the Commission on Service Members and Veterans Transition Assistance, a commission headed by the current Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Honorable Anthony J. Principi, made the same recommendation. It surely can be argued with considerable force that service members, who are asked to risk life and limb in service to the Nation, should not be asked, in addition, to contribute a portion of their pay, while in service, to ``earn'' eligibility for veterans' educational assistance benefits. Section 3 of this legislation would allow service members with at least 15 years of active duty to transfer their entitlement to MGIB benefits to their spouses or dependent children. This past January, I met with some of our troops stationed in Bosnia who expressed considerable interest in this idea. Many of them mentioned that they have families back home and that, rather than paying for their own education, they needed funds to pay for their children's education. At the very least, the idea needs to be further considered. I am aware that Senator Cleland has been working on a concept which is similar, but not identical to, this provision. I would like to work with Senator Cleland on this important issue. Section 4 of my bill would allow former service members 20 years after discharge, rather than 10 years, as is specified in current law, to utilize their MGIB benefits. I understand that, historically, MGIB benefits are intended to assist in the transition to civilian status, so that economic opportunities lost due to temporary military service can be ameliorated upon transition back to civilian life. This concept may have been useful when most departing service members were single persons with no family or financial obligations preventing the use of education benefits very quickly after discharge. Many former service members, however, are married and have children and, with these obligations, often find it difficult to return to school immediately after separation from service. In addition, today's rapidly-changing economy demonstrates that the skills which employers demand today may change tomorrow. Extending the MGIB ``delimiting date'' would encourage ``lifetime learning'' and enable veterans to keep their skills current. Finally, section 5 of my bill would enable members of the Selected Reserve who are called to active duty as part of a ``contingency operation,'' such as the operations to which Reserves are now being called, to be eligible for increased MGIB benefits if they serve in such an operation for more than one year. Currently, those who enlist for a six year reserve commitment are eligible for $251 per month in education benefits, whether or not they are called to active duty. It would seem to me that Reserves who are activated, especially during times of conflict or war, bear close resemblance to individuals who are serving an active duty enlistment, and so too should the educational benefits made available to such persons. Therefore, my legislation would provide that, in cases where a member of the Selected Reserves serves one year in a contingency operation, his or her education benefit would be adjusted to the half-way point between the benefit afforded to a Reserve Member under current law, now, $251 per month, and that provided to service members who have served two years active duty, currently, $528 per month. In cases involving members of the Selected Reserves who serve two years of active service in a contingency operation, the amount of educational assistance afforded to them would be the same as that which is provided to veterans who had served two years of active duty, currently, $528 per month. And for those who have served three years active duty in a contingency operation, their benefit amount would be the same, currently, $650 per month, as that afforded to service members who have served a three year enlistment. In this national emergency, it is time to recognize the sacrifices made by reservists called to active duty by increasing their benefits commensurate with time served on active duty. One of the Hart-Rudman Commission's recommendations, that an Office of Homeland Security be created to coordinate the Federal government's counterterrorism efforts, has already been embraced the President. Governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania, who was just sworn in yesterday, will, I am sure, serve with great distinction as head of that office. We need to address more of the Commission's recommendations, including those that would enhance national security by making the military a more competitive employer so it can attract and retain quality people. Beyond that, we need to let our fighting men and women know that we value their service by providing them with the tools to succeed upon completion of their military careers. This legislation would accomplish those purposes. I urge my colleagues to support this effort.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I just spoke to my colleague, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, the only other Senator on the floor, who is about to speak on the pending bill, and asked if I might have just a few minutes. So I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to express my concern about what is happening on the antiterrorism package. Two weeks ago Attorney General John Ashcroft met with Members in an adjacent room, 211, down the hall, and asked for legislation that week. I responded we could not do it instantly but we could do it briefly. Since that time, we have only had one hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee, a week ago yesterday, where we heard from Attorney General Ashcroft for about 75 minutes. Most of the members of the committee did not have a chance to question him. I did. We really have a serious issue of prompt action by the Congress. But it has to be deliberative. We have to be sure of what is in the legislation. When Attorney General Ashcroft testified, he said on the detention of aliens, the only ones they wanted to detain were those who were subject to deportation proceedings. My response to that was that I thought they had the authority now, but the bill was much broader. It authorized detention of aliens without any showing of cause at the discretion of the Attorney General, and we could give the Attorney General and law enforcement the additional authority. But it had to be carefully drawn. Similarly, on the use of electronic surveillance, the Attorney General said he wanted to have the availability of electronic surveillance on content only on a showing of probable cause, but the amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act were broader. Here again, I think we can give the Department of Justice and law enforcement what they need, but we have to carefully craft the bill. We have not had any hearings since. There is a meeting scheduled later today with all Republican Senators, with our ranking member, Senator Hatch, to have what I understand will be compromise legislation which has been worked out. But the difficulty is that the Supreme Court of the United States has, in a series of decisions, struck down acts of Congress when there has been an insufficient record showing a deliberative process and showing reasons for why the Congress has done what the legislation seeks to accomplish. In the area of law enforcement and civil liberties, there is, perhaps, more of a balancing test than in any other field. What we need to do is to have a record. If the Department of Justice can show that there is a need for electronic surveillance which more closely approximates the standards of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act than the traditional standards of probable cause--a really pressing need with factual matters--that is something which the Judiciary Committee ought to consider. If there are pressing matters about the detention of aliens--I understand the House has a bill which would allow for detention for 7 days, which is a protracted period of time--there has to be a showing as to what is involved. That can be accomplished only through the hearing process. Perhaps we need closed hearings. But I am very concerned, and I have communicated my concern that something may happen in the intervening time which might be attributable to our failure to act. I hope we will let the Judiciary Committee undertake its activities. We have a lot of seasoned people there who have prosecutorial and governmental experience, who have things to add to really understand exactly what the specific needs are and to structure legislation which will meet those specific needs and which, under a balancing test that the courts have imposed, will survive constitutional muster. But we are on notice and we are on warning that the Court will strike down legislation if there is not a sufficient deliberative record as to why the legislation is needed. It was my hope that we could have had a markup early this week, and we still could with dispatch. There is no reason that the Senate can't have hearings on Fridays, or on Saturdays, when we are not going to be in session, to have markups and sit down with Department of Justice people to get the details as what they need perhaps in closed session and move ahead to get this legislation completed. I think we can accommodate the interests of law enforcement, a field in which I have had some experience, and also the civil liberties and constitutional rights, a field again that I have had some familiarity with. I thank my distinguished colleague from New Hampshire for letting me speak at this time.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, from August 4-11, 2001, I joined Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, Senator Paul Sarbanes and Senator Fred Thompson on a congressional delegation to Taiwan, mainland China, and South Korea, with a brief stopover in Honolulu, Hawaii, and Pearl Harbor Naval Base. During our very brief time in Hawaii, the delegation met with Admiral Dennis Blair, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command. In preparation for our scheduled meetings with various Asian heads of state, Admiral Blair outlined U.S. preparedness and presence in the Asian Pacific region. In Taipei, following an extensive briefing from the American Institute of Taiwan Director Raymond Burghardt on the status of cross- Strait relations, the delegation met with Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian at the Presidential Palace on Monday, August 6, 2001. President Chen seemed genuinely pleased that Taiwan was the first stop on our delegation's multi-country jaunt, and recognized and appreciated the U.S. Congress's longstanding friendship with the Republic of China. The President discussed his efforts as Mayor of Taipei to improve cross-Strait relations, and stressed his resolve to continue down this path as President. He said he believed that he has made ``good sincere gestures'' to the People's Republic of China, but continues to be disappointed in what he sees as rebuffs of his efforts by Beijing. He cited Beijing's disregard for Taiwan's plan for tourism by citizens of mainland China as an example of this lack of Chinese engagement. I raised the point that many in the U.S. are concerned about several issues involving Southeast Asia, such as China's allegedly illegal sales of weapons of mass destruction and China's human rights record. When facing whether to grant permanent normalized trade relations, PNTR, with China, I let him know my view that I believed it better to leave trade status subject to annual review to retain leverage in U.S.- China talks on proliferation, human rights, and many other items. President Chen countered that in order for all countries' relationships with China to improve, China must become a trustworthy member of the international community and abide by international laws. He believed that PNTR would help this process along, and he would support the granting of such status by the U.S. President Chen said he believed that the U.S. could play a more active role in the region, but that belief seemed to be tempered by his recognition that it is inappropriate for the U.S. to act as a mediator. He said he will continue to attempt to engage the mainland in cross- Strait talks, and that he is not discouraged by the failure of past efforts. From Taipei we traveled to Shanghai, China, on Tuesday, August 7, 2001, for another brief stay, and conducted a working lunch meeting with members of the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai. That afternoon, we conducted a large ``roundtable'' discussion with a handful of professors and approximately 100 undergraduate students enrolled in the Center for American Studies at Fudan University. It was enlightening to learn how young Chinese men and women view the United States and our involvement in the region. The session provided a real opportunity to assess how our Southeast Asia policy is perceived among Chinese citizens in general and among future leaders in particular. Upon arrival in the Chinese capital of Beijing on Wednesday, August 8, 2001, we immediately proceeded to the seaside town of Beidaihe, located 3-3.5 hours outside of the city by car. Beidaihe, a resort town popular among vacationing working class Chinese, is the site of the very private Chinese leadership retreat compound, where party leaders spend much of their summer months. Our delegation was honored to be the first Westerners invited to attend meetings on the grounds. The delegation first met with General Chi Hao-tian, the Chinese Defense Minister, and again raised the nonproliferation issue. We expressed our grave concerns about recent intelligence reports describing the sale or transfer of missile hardware and technology to Pakistan, despite China's November 2000 pledge to cease assisting other countries develop missile capabilities. General Chi denied the missile sales allegations, saying that China always sticks to its commitments. The General went on to blast the U.S. media for creating distrust of China, and called the reports of missile sales ``totally baseless.'' He also countered with his assertion that the U.S.'s sales of arms to Taiwan violate the ``One China'' articulated since the Nixon administration. In our discussions later that afternoon with Chinese President Jiang Zemin, many of the same hot-button issues such as nonproliferation and China-Taiwan relations were raised. However, our audience with the President afforded an opportunity to delve more into some human rights and religious freedom concerns as well. We were dismayed to hear President Jiang, unprovoked, refer to the Falungong movement as a ``cult.'' But overall, the President's tone was positive, and he called China a connected nation with a strong market economy. With regard to arms sales to Pakistan, President Jiang joined General Chi in a blanket denial of any wrongdoing, saying China did not violate ``any rule.'' He said that China does maintain arms sales to friendly nations, but always within international rules. He further claimed that China had done nothing to contribute to missile development in North Korea or Taiwan. I discussed briefly with President Jiang my previous two visits to the People's Republic of China in 1982 and 1994. On PNTR, I conveyed my reluctance to support normalized trade status with his country due to concerns about proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Despite his denials of such activities at the commencement of our meeting, I again raised the allegations of illegal weapons sales to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, as these were weighty matters on the minds of the international community. Of particular concern to me during my visit to China were questions of religious freedom and detention of U.S. citizens by Chinese authorities. I asked President Jiang about the case of Mr. Yongyi Song, the librarian from Dickinson College in Pennsylvania who had been held for five months without formal charges or the benefit of legal counsel. The matter of Mr. Song was only resolved after Congressional intervention with the Chinese ambassador to the U.S. and introduction of a Senate resolution calling for Mr. Song's release. I told President Jiang that I was extremely concerned about cases like these, and I called on China to develop standards of judicial practice and a reasonable rule of law that would sustain international scrutiny. President Jiang responded that I had made a good suggestion, and that China had been working for years to establish a rule of law. He went on to say that the Chinese constitution guarantees citizens religious freedom, with the exception of Falungong, a group he again characterized as a cult. The President concluded with a description of his hopes for the future of China in the coming decades, that his country will have completed the transformation to a market economy, accompanied by a strong infrastructure of appropriate judicial and political systems. On Thursday, August 9, 2001, the delegation traveled to Beijing's Great Hall of the People to meet with Chinese Premier Zhu Rong-ji. The Premier was quite generous with his time, and during an hour and a half long meeting, outlined barriers and misperceptions which can hinder U.S.-China relations. It was made clear that it is in both countries' interests to engage one another economically, but that certain actions on weapons proliferation and stifling of human rights will have consequences in the U.S. This meeting was valuable in laying out our countries' priorities and understanding each sides' domestic (both public and governmental) pressures which inevitably affect bilateral relations. I was pleased that Premier Zhu acknowledged that there are some deficiencies in China's human rights and judicial policies, and that he said that he was willing to work on both. I raised the detention of Mr. Song, the Dickinson librarian, a case which brought into sharp focus what can happen to American citizens detained in China. I pointed out to Premier Zhu that cases like these are major irritants to U.S.-China relations. I suggested that he consider an agreement with the U.S. that when China detains an American citizen or U.S. resident and perhaps others, that those individuals be guaranteed basic points of due process, such as written documentation of charges, a limitation of time in detention, the right to an attorney, and a public legal proceeding so the U.S. and the press can review the evidence. I further suggested that the Chinese government should work with programs like the Temple University School of Law curriculum on Chinese rule of law recently established in Beijing since universities can be an excellent, non- political training ground for judges, attorneys, and other judicial officials. Premier Zhu responded that he was not familiar with the specific case of Mr. Song, but that whatever the circumstances surrounding his detention, he was confident that the Chinese could learn from his case. I asked Premier Zhu if China would be willing to consider an agreement between the United States and China dealing with due process rights for detained American citizens and perhaps others. Premier Zhu responded that such an agreement was a ``possibility''. Over a working lunch Thursday afternoon at Ambassador Clark Randt's residence in Beijing, the delegation had a fascinating discussion with two Chinese experts on weapons proliferation, Dr. Zhu Feng, Director of Beijing University's International Security Program; and Dr. Yang Ming- Jie, Director of Arms Control and Security Studies at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, a think tank loosely affiliated with China's People's Liberation Army. Dr. Yang articulated some very interesting points about Chinese public opinion on weapons proliferation, that in fact one-third of the people believe that proliferation is a good thing. Interestingly, when asked about reports of illegal arms sales to Pakistan and other countries, neither gave the patent denials we had heard all week from Chinese officials. Instead, they insisted that any shipments must not have been new deals, but vestiges of past contracts. The two experts discussed the fact that the Chinese do not think the U.S. is setting a good example by refusing to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, CTBT, and by continuing to sell arms to Taiwan. They wondered why China should be first to disarm when the U.S. does not appear to be serious about its own role in international disarmament. This leads to the approach, the deadly cycle of each side reacting to what we perceive the other to be doing, thus making both countries more resolute in our respective positions to not disarm first. On Thursday afternoon, the delegation met with Chinese Foreign Minister Tang at the impressive new Ministry of Foreign Affairs building. This meeting again focused primarily on weapons issues, and Minister Tang's denials of violations of international nonproliferation agreements were startlingly similar to those made by General Chi, President Jiang and Premier Zhu. The Foreign Minister called accusations of illegal sales to Pakistan ``totally baseless'' and was adamant that China always honors agreements in good faith. With regard to general concerns about democratization, human rights, religious freedom and rule of law, he admitted that deficiencies remain but chose to describe the progress already made, such as shifting the culture away from rural agriculture and improving the quality of life for the average Chinese citizen. I asked Minister Tang pointedly about whether he believes that it still made sense for a country to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles, ICBMs, as deterrents to nuclear war. He then reiterated that China is ``firmly opposed'' to the proliferation of ICBMs and that his country will cooperate in further discussions on the matter. He said that China is therefore opposed to the U.S. development of national missile defense, as it will undermine international disarmament and upset the nuclear balance, posing a real threat to China. On Saturday, August 11, 2001, our delegation was received at the Blue House in Seoul, South Korean, to meet with President Kim Dae-jung. We complimented President Kim on his far-sighted commitment to democracy, and for his patient policy of engagement with North Korea. We were interested to learn his views on what the U.S. and the world can do to bring North Korean President Kim Jong-il to the bargaining table. President Kim urged the U.S. to stop calling North Korea a rogue nation and the principal cause of our need to develop national missile defense. He believed that such language was not helpful in cultivating a circumstance in which the North Koreans would enter into a verifiable agreement to end its nuclear ballistic missile program. I raised the issue of Jamie Penich of Derry, Pennsylvania, who was violently killed in a motel room in Seoul, South Korea, in March of this year. Jamie, a 21-year old University of Pittsburgh student, had stopped in Seoul on her way to study at Keimyung University in Taegu, South Korea, and was found stomped to death in her motel room by her friend. There was no evidence of a sexual assault and nothing was stolen from the room. I explained the circumstances of the case to President Kim, as well as my understanding that the Korean police have sole jurisdiction over the case, but that the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, CID, and the FBI are assisting in the investigation. There have been no leads in the case thus far. I asked President Kim if he would check on the progress of the investigation. Although he was not familiar with the case, he agreed to inquire about its status and to work with the Korean police force and American embassy staff on facilitating its swift resolution. I also talked to President Kim about Boeing's bid to sell F-15 fighter aircraft to South Korea. The Republic of Korea Air Force aims to replace its aging fleet of F-4D/Es and F-5s, and Boeing is among four competitors to provide the $4 billion contract for the new aircrafts. The F-15s cultivated an outstanding win record during the Gulf War, while the competing French aircraft have never been battle tested. President Kim seemed familiar with the Boeing plane's exemplary record in the Gulf War. I also stressed to President Kim that the U.S.'s substantial contributions to South Korea should merit special consideration in awarding this contract to U.S. company. The French, the competitor for the contract, have contributed much less. For the remainder of Saturday afternoon prior to our late evening departure from Osan Air Force Base, the delegation was escorted to the Joint Security Area by Lieutenant General Daniel Zanini, Commanding General, Eighth U.S. Army, and Chief of Staff for the United Nations Command, Combined Forces Command, and U.S. Forces Korea. Upon arrival at Camp Bonifas at the base of the JSA, Lieutenant Colonel William Miller, Commander of the U.N. Command Security Battalion-JSA. gave the delegation a tour of the demilitarized zone and outlined the status of tensions at the border of North and North Korea. The group then proceeded down to Camp Casey and received a tour of the soldiers' barracks, which are in exceedingly poor shape. General Zanini also described the need for additional vehicle maintenance facilities and for generally improved living conditions for the 375,00 U.S. troops who help ensure peace and stability on the Korean peninsula. It was obvious that the living conditions were substandard and require considerable improvement.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I seek recognition today to acknowledge the service of my friend, Bishop James C. Timlin, D.D., of the Diocese of Scranton, who is today celebrating 25 years since his elevation to the rank of bishop. Recently, on July 16, 2001, Bishop Timlin also observed the 50th anniversary of his priestly ordination. Bishop Timlin was born in Scranton on August 5, 1927. He attended Holy Rosary High School and St. Charles College in Catonsville, MD. He then attended St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore and the North American College in Rome, Italy, where he completed his studies for the priesthood. Bishop Timlin was ordained on July 16, 1951, in Rome by the Most Reverend Martin J. O'Connor, D.D. Bishop Timlin continued his studies in theology there before returning to the Diocese of Scranton, where he was appointed Assistant Pastor at St. John Evangelist Parish, Pittston, in 1952. On June 12, 1953, he became Assistant Pastor of St. Peter's Cathedral in Scranton, where he served until September 12, 1966, when he was named Assistant Chancellor of the Diocese of Scranton. He was named Chaplain to His Holiness Pope Paul VI on August 3, 1967, Chancellor of the Diocese of Scranton on December 15, 1971, and Prelate of Honor to His Holiness on April 23, 1972. He was named the Auxiliary Bishop of Scranton on August 3, 1976, and Pastor of the Nativity of Our Lord, Scranton, in September 1979. Cardinal John J. O'Connor, the seventh Bishop of Scranton, appointed him Chairman of the Board of Advisors for St. Pius X Seminary and Chairman of the Preparatory Commission for the Scranton Diocesan Synod in 1983. Pope John Paul II appointed him the eighth Bishop of Scranton on April 24, 1984, and his installation followed on June 7, 1984. Bishop Timlin has served two terms as a member of the Administrative Board and the National Advisory Council of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. He also served as a member of the Board of the North American College, as well as a consultant on the Liturgy Committee. He is presently a consultant to the NCCB's Ecumenical and Migration committees. For his leadership and spiritual shepherding of 340,000 Catholics in the 11 counties of the Diocese of Scranton, I would like to extend the gratitude and recognition of the United States Senate to Bishop James Timlin.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I yield back the time.