Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from Texas. I am encouraged to see the Senate and the House moving so promptly on this legislation to keep the airlines functioning. The terrorist attack is really an attack against the United States as a whole, and when we have losses directly attributable to that attack, it seems fair to me that the entire Nation should sustain those damages. What we are doing today with the cash grant and especially the loan guarantee will keep the airlines operating, which is very important for the lifeblood of our country and very important for an economic recovery. US Airways, illustratively, needs the loan guarantees in order to get financing to keep operating. US Airways is only one of many carriers across the country, but it illustrates the problem and it illustrates the issue especially pertinent to my State of Pennsylvania, which has some 17,000 US Airways employees dependent upon their jobs. This is a very, very important matter for Pennsylvania, and a very important matter for America. This legislation also establishes a very appropriate procedure for compensating the victims on a program administered by the Attorney General's office without going through the long litigation process. However, it is only a first step. There is more to be done on airport security, on security within the airplanes, on compensation for the workers with some 100,000 already having lost their jobs, and with the ripple effect on hotels, on the airport complexes, on restaurants, on tourism, and on the airports which sustain themselves by having the shops now unfrequented by customers because only ticketed passengers can get within the area. How much time remains on my 3 minutes?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. That is agreeable to me.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, for clarification, is the specific time within the bill, within the 1-hour total?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, today I have sought recognition to introduce a bill to authorize the President to award posthumously the Congressional Gold Medal to the passengers and crew of United Airlines Flight 93 in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on the United States on September 11, 2001. The bill which I am introducing would authorize the posthumous award of a Congressional Gold Medal to each of the crew and passengers of United Airlines Flight 93, which took off from Newark, New Jersey, changed course over Ohio, and crashed in Shanksville, PA, which is located in Somerset County. On Friday, after the Senate had passed H.R. 2888, a resolution authorizing the use of force and $40 billion for additional disaster assistance, both of which have been requested by the President, Senator Santorum and I flew by helicopter to Shanksville, PA, Somerset County, which is in southwestern Pennsylvania. There, we took a look at the crash scene, participated in a prayer service, and talked to the representatives of the FBI and the National Transportation Safety Board, as well as our constituents and friends in the area. At that time, we found absolute rubble. The plane had traveled at a speed of approximately 450 miles an hour at a very low level as it passed by the Johnstown, PA airport, which is slightly to the north of the ultimate crash scene. The plane hit the ground with an enormous impact, leaving just traces, the debris of people, regrettably, and the plane itself. In our conversations with the officials of the National Transportation Safety Board, Senator Santorum and I inquired into a rumor which had been circulating that the plane might have been shot down. However, we were assured by the officials from the National Transportation Safety Board that such an event, in fact, had not happened. Notwithstanding the debris, the officials were able to piece together the four corners of the plane. Had the plane been shot down, there would have been some sign of it prior to the impact and prior to the crash. While we were at the scene, Senator Santorum and I announced our intention to seek the Congressional Gold Medal for the passengers and crew of United Airlines Flight 93. I am introducing this legislation today and, since yesterday, a large number of cosponsors have already signed on to the bill. Therefore, it is being introduced on behalf of Senator Harkin, Senator Boxer, Senator Bond, Senator Bunning, Senator Burns, Senator Cantwell, Senator Clinton, Senator Ensign, Senator Helms, Senator Landrieu, Senator Nelson of Florida, and Senator Schumer. The medal has special significance for the Senate, the House of Representatives, and for the Capitol because all indications are that the plane--and this is speculation, because we will never know for certain--but, there are indications that the plane was headed for the U.S. Capitol. That statement was made by Vice President Chaney on Sunday, September 16 on NBC's ``Meet The Press.'' It is speculation. I want to clearly identify it as such because there is no way to be sure. But the speculation is supported by the fact that the plane which hit the Pentagon had been on a direct line to the White House and it veered off at the last moment. The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, appeared to have been headed in a line that could have been to the White House, or even to Camp David, although it is unlikely to have been headed to Camp David since no one was there at the time. Most likely, Flight 93 was headed to the Capitol, the symbol of our Nation. Wherever the United States is symbolized around the world, it is the Capitol dome that represents the nation. The terrorists intended to strike at us in every way possible: physically, psychologically, emotionally, and at the very Capitol. So it is with a heavy heart, which is a sentiment shared by Americans all across he land and really, by most people across the globe, that I introduce this bill denominated at the ``Honoring the Passengers and Crew of United Airlines Flight 93 Act.'' On September 11, 2001, United Airlines Flight 93 took off at 8:44 a.m. from Newark, New Jersey, destined for San Francisco, California; The plane was hijacked by 4 terrorists shortly after it took off; It is widely presumed that the terrorists who took control of United Airlines Flight 93 intended to use the aircraft as a weapon and crash it into the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.; The passengers and crew of United Airlines Flight 93 learned from cellular phone conversations with their loved ones of the fate of the 3 other aircraft that were hijacked earlier that same day and used as weapons to murder thousands of innocent people and destroy American landmarks; The passengers and crew of United Airlines Flight 93, recognizing the potential danger that the aircraft they were aboard posed to large numbers of innocent Americans, American institutions, and the symbols of American democracy, took heroic and noble action to ensure that the aircraft they were aboard could not be used as a weapon: The 44 people in all, 37 passengers and 7 crew of United Airlines Flight 93, in the ultimate act of selfless courage and supreme sacrifice, fought to recapture their flight from the terrorists; and The struggle of the crew and passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 against the terrorists caused the Boeing 757 to crash down in a sparsely populated area near Shanksville, Pennsylvania at 10:10 a.m., September 11, 2001, possibly saving countless lives in the Nation's Capital. The President is authorized, on behalf of Congress, to award posthumously a gold medal of appropriate design to each of the United Airlines Flight 93 crew members: Lorraine G. Bay; Sandra W. Bradshaw; Jason Dahl; Wanda A. Green; LeRoy Homer; CeeCee Lyles; and Deborah A. Welsh; and the United Airlines Flight 93 passengers: Christian Adams; Todd Beamer; Alan Beaven; Mark Bingham, who made a call to his mother; Deora Bodley; Marion Britton; Thomas E. Burnett, Jr.--who was one of the individuals who had cellular phone contact--William Cashman; Georgine Rose Corrigan; Joseph Deluca; Patrick Driscoll; Edward Felt; Colleen Fraser; Andrew Garcia; Jeremy Glick--another one of the passengers who had contact with his wife, according to very detailed newspaper accounts, with the determination by Mr. Glick, according to his wife's report, that something would be done. Obviously, something was done--Kristin Gould; Lauren Grandcolas; Donald F. Greene; Linda Gronlund; Richard Guadagno; Toshiya Kuge; Hilda Marcin; Waleska Martinez; Nicole Miller; Louis J. Nacke; Donald Peterson; Mark Rothenberg; Christine Snyder; John Talignani; Honor Wainio; and 3 additional heroes whose families have requested that their names be withheld. The original thought Senator Santorum and I had was to make the recommendation requesting the award of these medals only to the three individuals who had been identified as having cellular phone contact. However, it is entirely likely that others were involved in the heroic effort to somehow storm the cockpit. What precisely happened during that flight, we do not know. We may know more when the black box or the voice recorder is located and investigated. There was a very heroic action to stop that plane from continuing on its flight--wherever it was headed--presumably to the Capitol Building, causing it to crash and take the lives of the 33 passengers, seven crew members, and foiling the efforts of those four terrorists. I send the bill to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce legislation which specifically authorizes funding for Senators to mail town meeting notices to their constituents. My legislation authorizes $3 million each year for the next five years for Members to spend on the mailing of town meeting notices in counties with populations of less than 50,000. Town meetings are the best way for Members to inform constituents about our actions in Washington, and town meeting notices are the most effective means we have of advising constituents about these events. Unfortunately, the budgets under which we operate today are very restrictive and do not allow us to properly advise all of our constituents when we will be holding a town meeting in their area. For Pennsylvania alone, it would cost $735,000, one third of my entire office budget, to circulate town meeting notices to each household in Pennsylvania. For this reason, additional funding is necessary to allow Members to send adequate notice to constituents of their visits throughout their States. However, recognizing the fiscal constraints under which we are currently operating, I have limited the scope of my legislation to only counties with smaller populations. Smaller, rural communities are not always effectively reached by the mass media, which are generally relied upon to deliver news of our legislative activities. For example, if you take the northern tier of Pennsylvania, or the southern tier, where residents do not necessarily get any of the major newspapers and are outside television range, unless you actually go to the county, it is very hard for Senators to communicate with their constituents about what they are doing in Washington. Town meetings are a valuable forum in which Members can share details of our work and in turn hear directly from constituents concerning their thoughts on a variety of topics. My legislation would ensure that constituents in all parts of a Member's State are afforded the opportunity to participate in this process. I regularly visit all 67 counties in Pennsylvania and find it very refreshing to get outside the beltway, to find out what people are thinking about in the more rural, remote parts of Pennsylvania. Likewise, my constituents also find it valuable to be able to receive notice that Arlen Specter is coming to town, to listen to a short speech, and spend the majority of meeting time participating in a question and answer session. That way you have participatory democracy. In July 2001, during Senate floor consideration of the Fiscal Year 2002 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, Subcommittee Chairman Durbin and Ranking Minority Member Bennett accepted my amendment which provides $3 million for the mailing of town meeting notices, subject to authorizing legislation. Today I am introducing this authorizing legislation, and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its timely passage.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, today I have sought recognition to introduce a bill to authorize the President to award posthumously the Congressional Gold Medal to the passengers and crew of United Airlines Flight 93 in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on the United States on September 11, 2001. The bill which I am introducing would authorize the posthumous award of a Congressional Gold Medal to each of the crew and passengers of United Airlines Flight 93, which took off from Newark, New Jersey, changed course over Ohio, and crashed in Shanksville, PA, which is located in Somerset County. On Friday, after the Senate had passed H.R. 2888, a resolution authorizing the use of force and $40 billion for additional disaster assistance, both of which have been requested by the President, Senator Santorum and I flew by helicopter to Shanksville, PA, Somerset County, which is in southwestern Pennsylvania. There, we took a look at the crash scene, participated in a prayer service, and talked to the representatives of the FBI and the National Transportation Safety Board, as well as our constituents and friends in the area. At that time, we found absolute rubble. The plane had traveled at a speed of approximately 450 miles an hour at a very low level as it passed by the Johnstown, PA airport, which is slightly to the north of the ultimate crash scene. The plane hit the ground with an enormous impact, leaving just traces, the debris of people, regrettably, and the plane itself. In our conversations with the officials of the National Transportation Safety Board, Senator Santorum and I inquired into a rumor which had been circulating that the plane might have been shot down. However, we were assured by the officials from the National Transportation Safety Board that such an event, in fact, had not happened. Notwithstanding the debris, the officials were able to piece together the four corners of the plane. Had the plane been shot down, there would have been some sign of it prior to the impact and prior to the crash. While we were at the scene, Senator Santorum and I announced our intention to seek the Congressional Gold Medal for the passengers and crew of United Airlines Flight 93. I am introducing this legislation today and, since yesterday, a large number of cosponsors have already signed on to the bill. Therefore, it is being introduced on behalf of Senator Harkin, Senator Boxer, Senator Bond, Senator Bunning, Senator Burns, Senator Cantwell, Senator Clinton, Senator Ensign, Senator Helms, Senator Landrieu, Senator Nelson of Florida, and Senator Schumer. The medal has special significance for the Senate, the House of Representatives, and for the Capitol because all indications are that the plane--and this is speculation, because we will never know for certain--but, there are indications that the plane was headed for the U.S. Capitol. That statement was made by Vice President Chaney on Sunday, September 16 on NBC's ``Meet The Press.'' It is speculation. I want to clearly identify it as such because there is no way to be sure. But the speculation is supported by the fact that the plane which hit the Pentagon had been on a direct line to the White House and it veered off at the last moment. The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, appeared to have been headed in a line that could have been to the White House, or even to Camp David, although it is unlikely to have been headed to Camp David since no one was there at the time. Most likely, Flight 93 was headed to the Capitol, the symbol of our Nation. Wherever the United States is symbolized around the world, it is the Capitol dome that represents the nation. The terrorists intended to strike at us in every way possible: physically, psychologically, emotionally, and at the very Capitol. So it is with a heavy heart, which is a sentiment shared by Americans all across he land and really, by most people across the globe, that I introduce this bill denominated at the ``Honoring the Passengers and Crew of United Airlines Flight 93 Act.'' On September 11, 2001, United Airlines Flight 93 took off at 8:44 a.m. from Newark, New Jersey, destined for San Francisco, California; The plane was hijacked by 4 terrorists shortly after it took off; It is widely presumed that the terrorists who took control of United Airlines Flight 93 intended to use the aircraft as a weapon and crash it into the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.; The passengers and crew of United Airlines Flight 93 learned from cellular phone conversations with their loved ones of the fate of the 3 other aircraft that were hijacked earlier that same day and used as weapons to murder thousands of innocent people and destroy American landmarks; The passengers and crew of United Airlines Flight 93, recognizing the potential danger that the aircraft they were aboard posed to large numbers of innocent Americans, American institutions, and the symbols of American democracy, took heroic and noble action to ensure that the aircraft they were aboard could not be used as a weapon: The 44 people in all, 37 passengers and 7 crew of United Airlines Flight 93, in the ultimate act of selfless courage and supreme sacrifice, fought to recapture their flight from the terrorists; and The struggle of the crew and passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 against the terrorists caused the Boeing 757 to crash down in a sparsely populated area near Shanksville, Pennsylvania at 10:10 a.m., September 11, 2001, possibly saving countless lives in the Nation's Capital. The President is authorized, on behalf of Congress, to award posthumously a gold medal of appropriate design to each of the United Airlines Flight 93 crew members: Lorraine G. Bay; Sandra W. Bradshaw; Jason Dahl; Wanda A. Green; LeRoy Homer; CeeCee Lyles; and Deborah A. Welsh; and the United Airlines Flight 93 passengers: Christian Adams; Todd Beamer; Alan Beaven; Mark Bingham, who made a call to his mother; Deora Bodley; Marion Britton; Thomas E. Burnett, Jr.--who was one of the individuals who had cellular phone contact--William Cashman; Georgine Rose Corrigan; Joseph Deluca; Patrick Driscoll; Edward Felt; Colleen Fraser; Andrew Garcia; Jeremy Glick--another one of the passengers who had contact with his wife, according to very detailed newspaper accounts, with the determination by Mr. Glick, according to his wife's report, that something would be done. Obviously, something was done--Kristin Gould; Lauren Grandcolas; Donald F. Greene; Linda Gronlund; Richard Guadagno; Toshiya Kuge; Hilda Marcin; Waleska Martinez; Nicole Miller; Louis J. Nacke; Donald Peterson; Mark Rothenberg; Christine Snyder; John Talignani; Honor Wainio; and 3 additional heroes whose families have requested that their names be withheld. The original thought Senator Santorum and I had was to make the recommendation requesting the award of these medals only to the three individuals who had been identified as having cellular phone contact. However, it is entirely likely that others were involved in the heroic effort to somehow storm the cockpit. What precisely happened during that flight, we do not know. We may know more when the black box or the voice recorder is located and investigated. There was a very heroic action to stop that plane from continuing on its flight--wherever it was headed--presumably to the Capitol Building, causing it to crash and take the lives of the 33 passengers, seven crew members, and foiling the efforts of those four terrorists. I send the bill to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 1434 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce legislation which specifically authorizes funding for Senators to mail town meeting notices to their constituents. My legislation authorizes $3 million each year for the next five years for Members to spend on the mailing of town meeting notices in counties with populations of less than 50,000. Town meetings are the best way for Members to inform constituents about our actions in Washington, and town meeting notices are the most effective means we have of advising constituents about these events. Unfortunately, the budgets under which we operate today are very restrictive and do not allow us to properly advise all of our constituents when we will be holding a town meeting in their area. For Pennsylvania alone, it would cost $735,000, one third of my entire office budget, to circulate town meeting notices to each household in Pennsylvania. For this reason, additional funding is necessary to allow Members to send adequate notice to constituents of their visits throughout their States. However, recognizing the fiscal constraints under which we are currently operating, I have limited the scope of my legislation to only counties with smaller populations. Smaller, rural communities are not always effectively reached by the mass media, which are generally relied upon to deliver news of our legislative activities. For example, if you take the northern tier of Pennsylvania, or the southern tier, where residents do not necessarily get any of the major newspapers and are outside television range, unless you actually go to the county, it is very hard for Senators to communicate with their constituents about what they are doing in Washington. Town meetings are a valuable forum in which Members can share details of our work and in turn hear directly from constituents concerning their thoughts on a variety of topics. My legislation would ensure that constituents in all parts of a Member's State are afforded the opportunity to participate in this process. I regularly visit all 67 counties in Pennsylvania and find it very refreshing to get outside the beltway, to find out what people are thinking about in the more rural, remote parts of Pennsylvania. Likewise, my constituents also find it valuable to be able to receive notice that Arlen Specter is coming to town, to listen to a short speech, and spend the majority of meeting time participating in a question and answer session. That way you have participatory democracy. In July 2001, during Senate floor consideration of the Fiscal Year 2002 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, Subcommittee Chairman Durbin and Ranking Minority Member Bennett accepted my amendment which provides $3 million for the mailing of town meeting notices, subject to authorizing legislation. Today I am introducing this authorizing legislation, and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its timely passage.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I was about to say I regret if I have caused any delay, although I do not know that I have. I was in the Chamber about 2:25 p.m. to conduct the business I had, and other matters were being attended to on the floor at that time, and then the President asked the Members whose States were involved in the recent terrorist attack to come to the White House, and I came back from there as soon as I could. To the point on the International Criminal Court, I was a sponsor in the early 1980s of an international criminal court. At that time the thought was that the court would be directed to acts of terrorism, kidnapping, and hijacking, as well as drug dealing, when the world was faced with these enormous problems which could not be dealt with on the national level. We had at that time, in the early to mid-1980s and beyond, drug dealers operating out of Colombia where we could not secure their extradition. The thought then was that the drug dealers might be turned over to an international criminal court, but not to the United States, for prosecution. There was a riot outside the U.S. Embassy in Honduras involving some individuals whom the United States wanted to extradite to the United States. Again, an example of what might have been handled by an international criminal court. As to hijackers and terrorists, the thought then was that countries might cede custody of these individuals to an international criminal court, whereas they would not give custody to the United States because of national sovereignty and issues of ideology. Since the mid-1980s when a lot of impetus was made for an international criminal court, of which Senator Dodd and I were the principal cosponsors on resolutions--which I shall not burden the Record with at this time because we are getting close to the time of a vote--the International Court has turned in a very different way with the War Crimes Tribunal. The War Crimes Tribunal has been effective in bringing before it Milosevic and others who were war criminals on charges of crimes against humanity, and there has also been a similar tribunal in Rwanda. There has arisen a very difficult issue about the court asserting jurisdiction over U.S. military personnel and U.S. citizens based on what are essentially governmental decisions. When I was in The Hague talking to the War Crimes Tribunal prosecutor Carla Del Ponte, I was surprised to hear from her that she had given consideration to a possible indictment of NATO Commander General Wesley Clarke at the urging of Russia and Yugoslavia. Carla Del Ponte considered possible prosecution against General Clarke for targeting civilians or for using unreasonable force because the targeting of military installations resulted in injury to civilians. It seemed to me, and I said this to Carla Del Ponte, that such authority given to the prosecutor of the War Crimes Tribunal, or the prosecutor of an international criminal court, goes too far. Having had substantial experience as a district attorney, it should be determined whether indictment is going to be a fact question or a question of discretion on the part of the prosecutor. This should be considered when indicting someone of the standing of General Clarke, who is carrying out governmental decisions by NATO. I thought his indictment hardly fit what was conceived generally to be the jurisdiction of an international criminal court. It is my judgment the United States cannot be a party to an international criminal court which would consider an indictment illustratively of General Wesley Clarke. If the President takes action against terrorists under a resolution authorized by the U.S. Congress, who knows if that governmental decision is going to be subject to a prosecutor's judgment? That action would be outside of the range of what is considered a criminal act or what is considered traditionally, as a crime against humanity. All of this brings me to a concern that I have about the prohibitory nature of the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Idaho, which limits any funding to the Preparatory Commission. My view is the United States should participate in the Preparatory Commission in an effort to try to establish jurisdiction, which makes sense and is consistent with our principles. If we do participate in the Preparatory Commission, I am sure that we can affect the ultimate jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. If we participate, I have a sense that the United States will be able to structure an international criminal court targeted in a realistic way and involving traditional criminal concepts as opposed to governmental decisions. There is a distinct possibly--again, not a certainty, but a possibility--that the International Criminal Court can be so structured. I am concerned that an international criminal court which does not have input from the United States will come into existence. Input from the U.S. could correct problems that may arise if the international criminal court seeks to exercise jurisdiction over Americans at a later date, even if we are not a member of the criminal court. International criminal law has taken a very expansive turn in modern times through efforts to prosecute people such as former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former Chilean President General Augusto Pinochet, and with courts in other countries exercising previously unheard of jurisdiction . It is my hope that in conference we can structure an arrangement where funding is not denied to the U.S. Government so that it can participate in the Preparatory Commission. U.S. participation in this commission would allow this country to work out these issues so that American citizens and citizens of other countries will not be subject to runaway jurisdiction, and so that we will not have Secretary Kissinger subject to prosecution again. General Pinochet of Chile is another matter, but I would rather be inside the tent than outside it when trying to deal with these issues. I yield to my distinguished colleague from Idaho.

Mr. SPECTER. I do that for the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. SPECTER. The Senator from Iowa wants me to yield for that purpose?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Utah. I commend the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Iowa on their comments that there should be a clear-cut distinction between those who are responsible for terrorism and impugning any motives to any other Americans whatever may be their descent. We are a nation of immigrants. My parents were both immigrants. There are Native Americans, but by and large this is a country of immigrants and ethnicity. Making judgments about people should not be based on their descent. When we talk about terrorism, we are talking about specific individuals who have committed specific acts subject to proof and not anyone else. I have sought recognition principally to have a discussion with my distinguished colleague from Idaho about the International Criminal Court. There was an amendment accepted by voice vote earlier which prohibited the use of any funds for the Preparatory Commission of the International Criminal Court. The matter will have to be resolved in conference. The House of Representatives has a different provision, and I want to discuss the matter briefly. I regret if I have caused any delay here.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, there 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 coconspirators, based on the indictments which already have been handed down, to which I have referred. I do not propose to decide this issue today, but I do think it is important that research and factual analysis should begin. More needs to be done than the resolution of today, which is very important, on condemnation of the terrorism of yesterday and the expressions of sympathy to the victims and their families, those who were on the planes, the passengers and the crew, and those in the Pentagon and the trade towers. But where we do know, without prejudging yesterday's events, that bin Laden's terrorist organization has been indicted for acts of terrorism, murdering U.S. soldiers, blowing up our Embassies, it is time to act. Bin Laden is at war with the United States. It is time that we reciprocate. There is a legal issue as to the status of the Taliban in Afghanistan, which we do not recognize as the government. The Taliban, however, control some 90 percent of the territory. For purposes of a declaration of war and for taking action, there is, in my legal judgment, a sufficient nation-state entity so that we can act and we should not be prohibited from acting because there is no so-called true nation-state there at the present time. While on a vastly different scale, when I was district attorney of Philadelphia and we had outstanding indictments, a warrant of arrest would be issued. We hunted down indictees. We brought them to court, we tried them, we convicted them, and we punished them. The United States of America has the authority, from the indictments which have been handed down and the statement of our extraterritorial jurisdiction in the Terrorist Prosecution Act of 1986, to take the steps which are necessary to bring bin Laden and his coconspirators to justice. We have the capacity, we have the capability, the military strength, to do what is necessary. When demands have been made on the Taliban for the surrender of bin Laden and the Taliban or Afghanistan--or whatever entity we choose to denominate it as being--declines on the grounds that bin Laden is a guest, and yesterday there was a news conference where someone from the Taliban appeared on international television trying to defend the Taliban's position, it is time we act. Where we have faced the extraordinary wounds from yesterday, and they may or may not be a continuation of bin Laden's past attacks--time will tell--but in accordance with our values on the presumption of innocence and not rushing to judgment, we will await further developments as we find out what the facts are and who the perpetrators were yesterday, even though they do bear the so-called signature of bin Laden. But for the acts in 1993 in Mogadishu, for the attacks in 1998 on our Embassies in Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, there is no doubt that we have the authority to act. That is why I think with these outstanding indictments, which have pinpointed the evidence as to Osama bin Laden, that consideration should be given to responding to acts of war against the United States with the appropriate counterattack, to see to it that we take into custody bin Laden, bring him to the United States for trial, for conviction, and the potential of execution in accordance with the death penalty which is provided by U.S. law. I again thank my colleague from North Carolina. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 98 Cr.] United States of America v. Usama bin Laden, a/k/a/ ``Usamah bin- Muhammad bin-Laden,'' a/k/a ``Shaykh Usamah bin-Laden,'' a/k/a ``Mujahid Shaykh,'' a/k/a ``Abu Abdallah,'' a/k/a ``Qa Qa,'' defendant count one: Conspiracy to Attack Defense Utilities of the United States The Grand Jury charges: Background: Al Qaeda 1. At all relevant times from in or about 1989 until the date of the filing of this Indictment, an international terrorist group existed which was dedicated to opposing non- Islamic governments with force and violence. This organization grew out of the ``mekhtab al khidemat'' (the ``Services Office'') organization which had maintained (and continues to maintain) offices in various parts of the world, including Afghanistan, Pakistan (particularly in Peshawar) and the United States, particularly at the Alkifah Refugee Center in Brooklyn. From in or about 1989 until the present, the group called itself ``Al Qaeda'' (``the Base''). From 1989 until in or about 1991, the group was headquartered in Afghanistan and Peshawar, Pakistan. In or about 1992, the leadership of Al Qaeda, including its ``emir'' (or prince) USAMA BIN LADEN, the defendant, an its military command relocated to the * * * * * of Al Qaeda that the United States forces stationed in the Horn of Africa, including Somalia, should be attacked; k. Beginning in or about early spring 1993, Al Qaeda members began to provide training and assistance to Somali tribes opposed to the United Nations' intervention in Somalia; l. On October 3 and 4, 1993, members of Al Qaeda participated with Somali tribesmen in an attack on United States military personnel serving in Somalia as part of Operation Restore Hope, which attack killed a total of 18 United States soldiers and wounded 73 others in Mogadishu; m. On two occasions in the period from in or about 1992 until in or about 1995, Co-conspirator helped transport weapons and explosives from Khartoum to Port Sudan for transshipment to the Saudi Arabian peninsula; n. At various times from at least as early as 1993, USAMA BIN LADEN and others known and unknown, made efforts to obtain the components of nuclear weapons; o. At various times from at least as early as 1993, USAMA BIN LADEN and others known and unknown, made efforts to produce chemical weapons; p. On or about August 23, 1996, USAMA BIN LADEN signed and issued a Declaration of Jihad entitled ``Message from Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Laden to His Muslim Brothers in the Whole World and Especially in the Arabian Peninsula: Declaration of Jihad Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Mosques; Expel the Heretics from the Arabian Peninsula'' (hereafter the ``Declaration of Jihad'') from the Hindu Kush mountains in Afghanistan. The Declaration of Jihad included statements that efforts should be pooled to kill Americans and encouraged other persons to join the jihad against the American ``enemy''; q. In or about late August 1996, USAMA BIN LADEN read aloud the Declaration of Jihad and made an audiotape recording of such reading for worldwide distribution; and r. In February 1998, USAMA BIN LADEN issued a joint declaration in the name of Gamaa't, Al Jihad, the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh and the ``Jamaat ul Ulema e Pakistan'' under the banner of the ``International Islamic Front for Jihad on the Jews and Crusaders,'' which stated that Muslims should kill Americans--including civilians--anywhere in the world where they can be found. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 2155(b).) Mary Jo White, United States Attorney.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague from North Carolina for yielding. Madam President, today's resolution speaks in the strongest terms condemning yesterday's cowardly act of terrorism. Tomorrow, we must do more to bring the perpetrators to justice and take steps to see to it that such terrorism never occurs again. While there have been many public comments pointing to the so called signature of Osama (aka ``Usama'') bin Laden as to yesterday's terrorist attacks, we cannot, consistent with our values, make any judgments until we know more. But what we do know is that Osama bin Laden has been at war with the United States since 1989. We know that in indictments returned by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, going back to 1998 when Osama bin Laden and his coconspirators in al Qaeda were indicted for killing 18 U.S. soldiers and wounding 73 others in Mogadishu in 1993. So Osama bin Laden has been at war with the United States for a long time. We know further that Osama bin Laden was indicted again by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1998 for the attacks on U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, where at least 213 people were killed, and in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, where 11 people were killed. Prior to 1986, the United States did not have jurisdiction to try terrorists in U.S. courts for acts committed overseas. But following the murders of many people, including U.S. citizens in the Rome and Vienna airports in December of 1985, I introduced legislation which became the Terrorist Prosecution Act of 1986, an act providing for the death penalty for anyone who assaulted, maimed, or murdered a U.S. citizen anywhere in the world, which provided the legal nexus for trying these defendants in a U.S. court. Now, as a result of that legislation, these indictments have been brought against Osama bin Laden and his terrorist group known as al Qaeda. For a fuller understanding of the way bin Laden has waged war against the United States, I ask unanimous consent that the pertinent excerpts of these very lengthy indictments be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think it is important to state my reasons for voting against S. 149, the Export Administration Act. I do so because I think there is too much deference to commercial interests at the expense of limiting exports which may threaten national security. I cast my vote late in the rollcall when there were 77 votes in favor of the bill, which eventually turned out to be an 85 to 14 vote, so that I knew the bill was going to pass by overwhelming numbers. Legislation on this subject is of great importance and is long overdue. I was tempted to vote in favor of the bill on the proposition that the best frequently is the enemy of the good. Had my vote been decisive so that it might have been a matter of having a bill which vastly improved the current situation, which is the absence of legislation, then I might have voted differently. I think the number of negative votes are important as a protest signal that this subject should be monitored closely and perhaps reviewed sooner rather than later. For example, my concerns about the elevation of commercial interests over potential national security risks are illustrated by the foreign availability and mass market status this Act provides controlled items. The foreign availability component of the act would make the U.S. Government unable to control the sale of items that are also manufactured by other countries. Such lack of control would allow U.S. firms to sell anthrax to Saddam Hussein because of anthrax's dual-use in vaccine production. Additionally, the mass-market status in this bill would enable export of controlled items without a license if the item were mass produced for different industrial uses. An example of this mass-market status would be glass and carbon fibers that can be used in the manufacture of both golf clubs and also ballistic missiles. These are only illustrations of problems which, I believe, should yet be corrected in conference or in later legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I had written placing a hold on two nominees from the Department of Health and Human Services. I wrote that last week on Janet Rehnquist, on July 27. She is up for inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services; and Alex Michael Azar, II, up for general counsel of the Department of Health and Human Services. I placed a hold on them and had notified them on that day, last Friday. I had a meeting with them on Monday and I have written today releasing the hold. The hold was placed on them on a matter that is ongoing. That is because, when we had the Budget Appropriation hearings on the National Institutes of Health, Senator Harkin and I had written--I was chairman at the time--to the Institutes asking questions about stem cell research. The replies we got were censored, and we finally laboriously got the originals and found that information very favorable to stem cell research had been deleted. I asked Secretary Thompson about that and got an unsatisfactory answer, which I need not go into in any detail about here. And then NIH had submitted a 200-page report to the Department of Health and Human Services, and that report on the report was published in the New York Times in mid-June. Senator Harkin and I could not get it until less than 24 hours after we had a hearing on stem cells on that report 2 weeks ago. I talked to the inspector general nominee, Janet Rehnquist, about assurances that if she were confirmed that she would, as inspector general of HHS, conduct a thorough inquiry into why those reports were censored. I received a letter in reply, and I need not go into detail now, and it is really not determinative for consideration because I am advised by the chairman of the Finance Committee they will not be reported out before recess with respect to Mr. Azar. I asked him about his standards as general counsel to render an opinion on stem cell research, which would be an objective opinion. The general counsel, under the previous administration, had rendered an opinion that the Federal statute barred extracting stem cells from the embryos, but did not ban research once they had been extracted. The President has taken a contrary position, and funding has been held up. I wanted assurances from Mr. Azar that his determination would be an objective determination. He has written to me. It is not ripe for a final determination, but I wanted to comment because of the importance of the subject and state publicly that the holds have been withdrawn as far as this Senator is concerned. I thank the Chair especially for her diligence in presiding. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Then the Department of Justice accepted a guilty plea from Dr. Wen Ho Lee on 1 count of 59 counts and then was thoroughly chastised by the Federal judge for the way they had conducted the investigation. Then Dr. Lee was debriefed, and we are still waiting for answers from the FBI as to what has occurred in the case going up to August of 2001 on an oversight which has been in process for years. I talk about this at some length because of the importance of the Judiciary Committee pursuing this oversight and finding out what is going on in the FBI. We have a very significant advance made on a recognition by Mr. Mueller, who will be sworn in as Director of the FBI, that the Congress has a right to pending FBI investigations and to pending FBI prosecutions. They can't hide behind the assertion that, well, it is confidential and subject to investigation or subject to prosecution. The hour is growing late. One other matter I want to put on the record at this point is the issue on which I questioned Mr. Mueller about the leaks on the alleged investigation into Senator Robert Torricelli. As I said to Mr. Mueller at the hearing on Tuesday afternoon, the day before yesterday, all I know about that is what I read in the newspaper. But I had written to Director Freeh back on June 8 of this year, saying: I am interested to know whether you have initiated any investigation on the leaks which have appeared in the press concerning an alleged investigation of Senator Bob Torricelli; and, if so, what that investigation has disclosed. As I said Tuesday, and repeat today, I haven't gotten an answer to the letter. I asked Mr. Mueller for a commitment that he would investigate to see what had happened because of the devastating nature of this leak. But this leak is one of many. The papers have been filled with stories about Dr. Wen Ho Lee and many other matters. But we have a commitment from the Director to respond on the Torricelli matter. Briefly, in conclusion--the two most popular words of any speech--I comment about the problems in the FBI, but I do acknowledge, as I did at the outset, that I believe the FBI is a very important and good investigative organization, and that we find the errors, we find the difficulties, and they are publicized. But I do believe that the Senate is at fault, the Congress is at fault in not pursuing oversight. It is a very tough thing to do because you have to make the request repeatedly and you have to insist on it and you have to follow up on it. When we will have a Director who concedes that Congress is entitled to information on pending investigations and pending prosecutions, then we know where we ought to head. Exhibit 1 December 9, 1996. Memorandum To: Mr. Esposito. From: Director, FBI. Subject: Democratic National Campaign Matter. As I related to you this morning, I met with the Attorney General on Friday, 12/6/96, to discuss the above-captioned matter. I stated that DOJ had not yet referred the matter to the FBI to conduct a full, criminal investigation. It was my recommendation that this referral take place as soon as possible. I also told the Attorney General that since she had declined to refer the matter to an Independent Counsel it was my recommendation that she select a first rate DOJ legal team from outside Main Justice to conduct the inquiry. In fact, I said that these prosecutors should be ``junk-yard dogs'' and that in my view, PIS was not capable of conducting the thorough, aggressive kind of investigation which was required. I also advised the Attorney General of Lee Radek's comment to you that there was a lot of ``pressure'' on him and PIS regarding this case because the ``Attorney General's job might hang in the balance'' (or words to that effect). I stated that those comments would be enough for me to take him and the Criminal Division off the case completely. I also stated that it didn't make sense for PIS to call the FBI the ``lead agency'' in this matter while operating a ``task force'' with DOC IGs who were conducting interviews of key witnesses without the knowledge or participation of the

Mr. SPECTER. I am not unaware that this is a somewhat lengthy statement, but believe me, it is a short summary of efforts made to find out what was going on in the Wen Ho Lee investigation and where we were being stonewalled by the FBI. Had we had access to these records and had we conducted the oversight, we would have perhaps been able to correct some of the serious errors which were in process. Another illustrative letter was from me to Director Freeh dated January 3, 2000. I will read only one paragraph. I am writing to renew my request--which was first made in writing on September 29, 1999--for access to the ten pieces of intelligence information referred to in the July 1999 Inspector General's Special Report on the Handling of FBI Intelligence Information. . . . Then a note: We have been waiting for the 10 pieces of intelligence information for an unreasonably long time. Again, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SPECTER. This memorandum, dated December 9, 1996, is from Director Freeh to one of his top deputies, Mr. Esposito. It relates to a conversation which Mr. Esposito had with a top-ranking official in the Department of Justice named Lee Radek of the Public Integrity Section. The kernel of the memorandum is contained in paragraph 4 which I will now read: I also advise the Attorney General of Lee Radek's comment to you that there was a lot of ``pressure'' on him and PIS, Public Integrity Section, regarding this case [and that refers to the Democratic national campaign matter which is the caption of the memorandum] because the ``attorney General's job might hang in the balance'' or words to that effect. Now, this conversation between Mr. Esposito and Mr. Radek occurred in December of 1996 at the precise time when President Clinton had not stated whether he would reappoint Attorney General Reno. There was an enormous furor over the issue of campaign finance irregularities. The Governmental Affairs Committee conducted an extensive investigation in 1996. Now, had this memorandum been disclosed, as I think it should have been, and had the Senate known a top Department of Justice official was going easy on this investigation because of protecting the Attorney General's job, the demands for independent counsel might have come out entirely differently. That was a major matter. When I saw this memorandum in December of the year 2000, I told Director Freeh I thought he had an absolute duty to have turned over this memorandum contemporaneously with the event, and he disagreed, saying it would have destroyed his relationship with the Attorney General--and his relationship had a lot of problems, in any event. I admired Director Freeh for his taking a stand that independent counsel should have been appointed, and in many respects he did act in a courageous way on that particular subject. But this memorandum was dynamite. By the time it came up in the year 2000, it was a cold potato, it was an old matter. I said to Director Freeh that he must testify about this issue, and he said he wouldn't do so. To my chagrin, I could not get a subpoena from the Judiciary Committee to compel Director Freeh's attendance and testimony. We did bring in Mr. Esposito and we did bring in Mr. Radek, put them both under oath and had them testify, and they told contradictory versions. Mr. Radek said, well, he had made a comment about pressure and he had made a comment about the Attorney General's job hanging in the balance, but there was no connection between the two. That is set out fully in the record and can be reviewed by anyone who cares to do so, to evaluate the credibility of Mr. Radek in saying that--although he had said there was a lot of pressure and he said the Attorney General's job hung in the balance, that there was no connection between the two. When Attorney General Reno testified 3\1/2\ years after the fact, she said she didn't recall any such conversation with FBI Director Freeh but if it had occurred, she was sure she would have taken some action. But, as I say, at that point it was totally stale, not subject to any real investigation or congressional oversight on that point. Before the confirmation hearing with Mr. Mueller, I met with him for the better part of an hour in my office and went over that memorandum and other matters about which I had questioned him. During the course of his testimony on Monday, 3 days ago, when I asked him if that was the kind of a memorandum which ought to have been disclosed, he was equivocal. He was equivocal about a number of other matters. At the suggestion of the chairman that Bob Mueller and Arlen Specter sit down, we did Tuesday morning in my office for the better part of an hour. And when he resumed his testimony on Tuesday, he said that that memorandum from Director Freeh should have been made a part of the record, that that was appropriate congressional oversight and it should have been disclosed. I consider that important because we really have to establish standards as to what Mr. Mueller will do as FBI Director and what is appropriate congressional oversight. Another matter that I had discussed informally with Mr. Mueller before the confirmation hearing, and then questioned him about during the confirmation hearing, was the issue of the obligation of the FBI, of the Department of Justice, to submit to congressional oversight on pending criminal investigations and on pending criminal prosecutions. I cited to Mr. Mueller a summary of the law which appeared in Congressional Research. During the course of my questioning of Mr. Mueller on Monday afternoon of this week, I had asked him about his recognition of the authority of Congress to have the last word on oversight, and to have access to pending FBI investigations and pending FBI prosecutions. At that time, I read to him extracts from the Congressional Research Service which summarized the law on the subject in a publication dated April 7, 1995, as follows: . . . a review of congressional investigations that have implicated the Department of Justice or the Department of Justice investigations over the past 70 years, from the Palmer Raids and Teapot Dome to Watergate and through Iran- Contra and Rocky Flats, demonstrates that the Department of Justice has been consistently obligated to submit to congressional oversight regardless of whether litigation is pending so that Congress is not delayed unduly in investigating misfeasance, malfeasance, or maladministration in the Department of Justice or elsewhere. Skipping some: In all instances, investigating committees were provided with documents respecting open or closed cases that included prosecutorial memoranda, FBI investigative reports, summaries of FBI interviews memoranda. Another facet of the same report: In the majority of instances reviewed, the testimony of subordinate Department of Justice employees, such as line attorneys and FBI field agents, was taken formally or informally and included detailed testimony about specific instances of the Department's failure to prosecute alleged meritorious cases. In my questioning of Mr. Mueller on Monday afternoon, he was equivocal about his recognition of those legal principles. As I say, we had a meeting in my office for the better part of an hour Tuesday morning at the suggestion of the chairman. During that time, we came to a meeting of the minds, as we had on the memorandum of December 9, 1996, so that when Mr. Mueller testified on Tuesday afternoon, he did say that it was appropriate for Congress to inquire as a matter of oversight into pending criminal investigations, so that he agreed with the language of the Congressional Research Service and did agree that, in the final analysis, Congress had the last say as to what was appropriate for congressional oversight. There was a bit of qualification when he talked about appropriate cases. Of course, there has to be responsibility in what the Congress asks for. But when the Congress presses it, the law is established that if it ends a criminal prosecution because Congress believes the oversight is warranted for legislation, then Congress has the paramount authority. I discussed with Mr. Mueller the frustration of congressional oversight in the Wen Ho Lee case, which was illustrative of Congress really not doing sufficient oversight and the intransigence and noncompliance by the Federal authorities. The Wen Ho Lee case was a matter under investigation really for decades. To this day, we do not know whether Dr. Wen Ho Lee was a major spy or was a victim of overreaching by the FBI and the Department of Justice. The case came to a head in August of 1997, when FBI Director Freeh sent one of his top deputies to talk personally with Attorney General Reno to request a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Attorney General Reno delegated that authority to someone who had no experience in the field, and ultimately the warrant was turned down. And there was no followup by either Attorney General Reno or FBI Director Freeh. That resulted last year in legislation, so that it is now a statutory obligation. When the FBI Director makes a request, the Attorney General has an obligation to respond in writing, and the FBI Director has an obligation to follow up personally. The Wen Ho Lee case then languished for 16 months until December of 1998, when it was reinvigorated because the Cox commission was about to come out with a report from the House of Representatives highly critical of the Department of Energy and the Department of Justice, including the FBI. At that time, Department of Energy Secretary Richardson initiated a polygraph of Wen Ho Lee conducted by a private agency, which was reported to have cleared Wen Ho Lee of complicity, saying he passed the polygraph. It was later held in question and later discredited. Meanwhile, Dr. Lee had continuing access to highly classified information. Finally, the FBI proceeded with a search warrant in April of 1999 and then waited until December of 1999 before indicting Wen Ho Lee and arresting him. At that time, they manacled him and held him in solitary confinement, with no explanation ever forthcoming as to why he could stay at large for months and months and months and then be worse than public enemy No. 1. During that period of time, a Judiciary subcommittee with oversight of the Department of Justice was proceeding to try to get records and documents and, significantly, without success. Our efforts are summarized, and there are many letters, but this one is illustrative, dated November 30, from me to Director Freeh saying: I am very much concerned about the repetitive problem that the FBI fails to produce records and that they are then discovered at a much later date. I know you will recall the incident in September 1997 when the CIA advised the Government Affairs Committee of certain information in FBI files concerning foreign contributions which the FBI had not disclosed. That one was a very vituperative hearing where the FBI had not turned over the information and the CIA came forward and told us what was in the FBI files. Then the FBI belatedly conceded that it was in fact in their files. My letter to Director Freeh of November 30 goes on: By letter dated November 24, 1999, I wrote asking for an explanation about the failure of the FBI to turn over records pursuant to subpoenas in the Ruby Ridge hearings. We had no response there. Going on: With respect to Waco, there has been a series of belated disclosures. Last August, it was disclosed that incendiaries were fired at the compound contrary to Attorney General Janet Reno's previous testimony. Shortly thereafter, the FBI discovered extensive documents in Quantico which had not been previously disclosed. A few days ago, the press reported another incident where the FBI found documents long after they were supposed to have been produced, some four days after Department of Justice attorneys had advised a Federal Judge in Waco that there were no such records. The Department of Justice has recently advised that Attorney General Reno's testimony before the Judiciary Committee on June 8, 1999 was incomplete because she did not have access to certain FBI records. The letter goes on and on. I ask unanimous consent, instead of reading it at length, that it be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to comment on the confirmation of Robert Mueller to be Director of the FBI and to comment about the hearings which were very important in establishing standards for congressional oversight. Mr. Mueller brings outstanding credentials to the position of Director of the FBI: an excellent academic background, an excellent professional background, served as U.S. attorney in Boston, as U.S. attorney in San Francisco, as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division, earlier this year was acting Deputy Attorney General. One of the things he did which I found enormously impressive was while in private practice in a very lucrative context, he called up the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia and asked for a job trying homicide cases. That was after he had been Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. That was his devotion to public service and his devotion to law enforcement and his devotion to prosecution. I found that unique based on my own experience as an assistant district attorney before becoming D.A. of the city of Philadelphia. People ask me from time to time what my favorite job was. It is not Senator or D.A., but assistant D.A. where you really get into the courtroom and try so many cases. He brings an outstanding background to this very important and very difficult job. Arguably, the Director of the FBI is the most powerful man in America. I say that because the Director has a 10-year statutory term. The most the President of the United States can serve is two 4-year terms for a total of 8 years. What the President does is subject to considerable public scrutiny, unlike the record of the FBI where most of its work is done on a confidential basis and in secret. So it is a very powerful position. Mr. Mueller comes to this job with a very troubled Federal Bureau of Investigation. Recognizing that and the problems they have had with the crime laboratory and the Hanssen case and Waco and Ruby Ridge, they have also had tremendous successes. They have had successes on the Unibomber, the Trade Center bombings, the Embassy terrorist attacks, Khobar Towers, and many successful actions thwarting terrorist attacks which are not publicized. When a mistake is made by a public official or by an agency like the FBI, they are plastered across the front pages. Their successes are not noted. Many of them are confidential so their informants and sources are not disclosed. While it is a troubled agency, it is still a very fine agency. It has performed investigative service for the United States. The FBI responsibilities have increased enormously in the last few years, fighting organized crime overseas and international terrorism. I think Director Freeh did as good a job as could be done under very difficult circumstances. I analogize Director Freeh to the story of the Dutch boy who is trying to keep the water from coming through the dyke. He runs around and sticks his finger in the holes of the dyke. No matter how many holes he plugs up with his fingers, more water comes in. That was a problem Director Freeh had. I think overall he did as good a job as could be done under the circumstances. Notwithstanding that overall evaluation, I do believe there were very serious shortcomings in the responsibility of the FBI and by Director Freeh to congressional oversight. I believe the oversight function is an enormously important function; Congress has to oversee the way our appropriations are spent and oversee the way the executive branch functions. We have not done enough in that regard. We did not do the oversight necessary in Waco where there was the incident on April 19, 1993. No one can establish cause and effect, but chances are good that had there been effective oversight immediately after the Waco incident, that the Oklahoma City bombing would not have occurred 2 years to the day on April 19 of April 1995. It took until 1999 with the inquiry by former Senator Danforth to do appropriate oversight there. This Senator tried hard in mid-1995 to pursue oversight as to Waco and as to Ruby Ridge. Finally, we did have hearings on Ruby Ridge. That was an example of effective congressional Senate oversight. I had the opportunity to chair that subcommittee. It is not just my view but a widespread view. Randy Weaver was on the mountain at Ruby Ridge and a virtual army went out to bring him off the mountain. The results were disastrous. The U.S. Marshal, Marshal Degan, was killed. Randy Weaver's wife, Vicki, was killed. Randy Weaver's son, Sammy Weaver, age 14, was killed in a gunfire fight. The FBI finally conceded they had violated the constitutional standards in use of deadly force on their rules of engagement. It took a Senate oversight hearing to bring that out and to get that matter corrected. Regrettably, to this day, Ruby Ridge was a 1992 incident and the Senate Judiciary Committee worked in 1995 and published a report in December. To this day, that matter is still under investigation with substantial reason to believe there has not been appropriate action taken by way of discipline. One of the things Mr. Mueller committed to do was to revisit that situation. The oversight function is a matter which our Judiciary Committee has not pursued, as I stated. I had the opportunity to chair a subcommittee on Department of Justice oversight in 1999 and in the year 2000. In the course of that oversight inquiry, when we were investigating campaign finance reform and sought to get a report made by Charles Labella, who came in as a special assistant. We could never get the report, even though the Department of Justice had a duty to provide it to the Judiciary Committee on oversight. When we finally issued a subpoena for the Labella report in April of the year 2000, we did obtain the report. At that time, we obtained another document which classifies as a dynamite document which should have been turned over to the FBI long before. This is a memorandum dated December 9, 1996. I ask unanimous consent the text of this memorandum be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to enter into a colloquy with Senator Bond to discuss efforts to assist the city of Philadelphia in its Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. On Monday, July 30, 2001, I met with Mayor John Street for an hour and a half regarding this initiative, which seeks to eliminate ``blight'' in the city of Philadelphia as well as focus on the elements that are essential for a neighborhood to thrive. These elements include the development of recreational facilities, retail opportunities, transportation, secure streets, cultural outlets and quality schools. I was very impressed with Mayor Street's plan to transform the city. I believe that the city is on the right track and could provide the prototype for addressing overall blight that plagues so many American neighborhoods. In order to assist Philadelphia in reducing inner city blight, I aim to provide even greater flexibility in the use of CDBG funds. I believe this increased flexibility is imperative in order for the city to develop a long-term plan with a predictable funding stream. Additionally, I understand that there may be additional funds available in the HUD Neighborhood Initiative program when the VA/HUD appropriations bill goes to conference. I would appreciate any funds that may be available for implementation of the city of Philadelphia's blight removal plan.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, just by brief explanation, there is not going to be time to debate this amendment adequately this evening. We are calculating a vote count, and I want to give my colleagues notice that this amendment may well be introduced tomorrow. I do have the absolute right to withdraw it, as the Chair has recognized, and therefore the amendment is withdrawn.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment is being offered in a very timely way. This is the first time on this bill that the amendment could be offered, so I do not think it is accurate to say it is being offered at a late hour. The issues involved with the dairy compact are well known. The matter has been debated extensively recently in the Senate Chamber. The Northeast Dairy Compact is due to expire on September 30. The pending legislation dealing with the farm issue makes it preeminently appropriate to offer this amendment. The dairy compact, as envisioned in this bill, would reauthorize and extend the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact which consists of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts to include Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Delaware, New Jersey, and Maryland. It would authorize the Southern Dairy Compact for Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. It would authorize a specific Northwest Dairy Compact within 3 years for the States of California, Oregon, and Washington, and would authorize an Intermountain Dairy Compact within 3 years for the States of Colorado, Nevada, and Utah. A dairy compact creates a regional commission of delegates from each of the participating States. Each State delegation would have three to five members, including at least one dairy producer and one consumer representative, all of whom would be appointed by the Governor of the State. The commissioner would have the authority to regulate farm prices of class I fluid milk. It may establish price regulation by way of a formal rulemaking process. The commission would take formal testimony to assess the price necessary to yield a reasonable return to the dairy producer. One of the principal concerns this Senator has is the wide fluctuation there has been in dairy pricing. The price has fluctuated from less than $10 a hundredweight to $17 a hundredweight. In my State of Pennsylvania, it is a constant source of concern really putting many small dairy farmers out of business. The compact does not cost any money. There is no drain on the Treasury. It is friendly to the consumer and I think has a great deal to recommend it. The commission takes into account the purchasing power of the public, and any fluid milk price change proposed by the commission is subject to a two-thirds approval vote by the participating State delegations. The compacts receive payments from processors purchasing class I milk and returns these funds to farmers based on their milk production. It is very important to note that the compacts are self-financed and require no appropriation of tax revenues--State, local or Federal. Legal challenges to the current dairy compact have been decided in its favor. It is constitutional. The underpinning is article I, section 10. Twenty-five States, all of which are included in this legislation, have requested dairy compact authority from Congress, and there have been pre-compact activities in as many as 10 of the other States. Compacts are needed because the current Federal milk marketing order pricing system does not fully account for regional differences in the cost of producing milk. The Federal order program relies on State regulation for an adjustment in fluid milk prices to account for regional differences. However, since milk now almost always crosses State lines to get to the markets, the courts have ruled that individual States do not have the authority to regulate milk prices under the interstate commerce clause. Dairy compacts recognize the economic benefits that a viable dairy industry brings to a region, and dairy farms are an integral component to the region's economy. Dairy compacts ensure customers have a continuous adequate supply of quality milk at a stable price. This stability gives consumers money in the long run by protecting them from retailers that profit from volatile milk prices by fattening their profit margins when the price of milk rises and then keep their prices inflated long after wholesale prices have already fallen. Dairy compacts' main benefit to consumers is ensuring a local supply of fresh milk and a stable price. Dairy compacts help maintain dairy farms which in turn preserve the environment and open space. I realize there are substantial regional differences and there are people who have deep-seated opposition. I recently conducted a hearing for the Agriculture Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. I have served on that subcommittee during my 20-year-plus tenure in the Senate. I convened that hearing in Pennsylvania and conducted it because of the concerns I had heard from so many dairy farmers in Pennsylvania and, for that matter, in other States whereas, I say, the prices fluctuated from less than $10 per hundredweight to more than $17 per hundredweight, which hardly gives a dairy farmer any stability as to what is happening. At the same time the milk prices are falling precipitously, I know as a consumer that I am paying more for a half gallon of milk at the convenience store. The issue of milk pricing is a very complex issue which goes all the way back to New Deal legislation in the 1930s. When I was admitted to the bar, one of my first jobs as a beginning lawyer with Barnes, Dechert, Price, Myers and Rhoads was to help represent national dairy products, such as Sealtest, before the milk control commission of Pennsylvania. The issue was having a minimum price, an adequate price, to assure the farmer that the price would be adequate to have a sufficient supply of wholesome, clean, safe milk. Milk is one of the most basic commodities in our society. We have seen Agricorps proliferate in America so that the local family farmer is in real jeopardy. One of the cases I recall studying in law school was a case of Nebbia v. New York which established the authority to establish minimum prices. The constitutional scholar from my law school, Walton Hale Hamilton, made it a practice just for a brief moment of levity by going back to the sites where major constitutional cases had arisen. The case of Nebbia v. New York arose because Leo Nebbia, who ran a store, had sold a quart of milk and a loaf of bread for the price of a quart of milk. Walton Hale Hamilton went to Leo Nebbia's store and walked to the dairy case and picked out a quart of milk. As he was about to pay for it, he then asked Mr. Nebbia if he would throw in a loaf of bread. Professor Hamilton was promptly thrown out of the store, as the story goes. But this compact, I believe, is very important. It was a very contentious issue when it was authorized for the Northeast region. I was disappointed personally that my State and other States were not included at that time, and the day of the dairy compact is going to come. I think today is a good day. I yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.