Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will yield back my time.

Mr. SPECTER. That is acceptable. Having set the vote at 5:45, we have given our colleagues ample notice. If somebody wants to speak in the next 14 minutes, they certainly would be at liberty to do that. My hunch is that we will have a quorum call for 14 minutes. The important thing is that we have finished the discussion on a reasonably harmonious note. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairperson of the Homeland Security Committee for yielding me the time. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I believe I have consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment briefly about two subjects: One, the legislation providing for judicial review for the President's terrorist surveillance program; and, second, what we are going to do to comply with Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The Judiciary Committee reported out three bills yesterday. S. 2453, which is my bill, provides that the surveillance program will be submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. There is no doubt that the President's program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which purports to be exclusive. But if there is constitutional authority under Article 2, that constitutional authority trumps the act. The only way there can be a determination on that is to have a court weigh the seriousness of the threat as opposed to the invasion on privacy. This legislation, S. 2453, does not authorize the President's program, contrary to the assertions of many people. What it does is subject the President's program to judicial review. It does not mandate review because, understandably, the President does not want to curtail his institutional authority. What I have sought to accomplish is to have this program reviewed; and the President has made a commitment, confirmed by the White House, that this program will be submitted for judicial review. There has been a contention raised that there is an inconsistency between Senator Feinstein's bill, S. 3001, and my bill, S. 2453, and it is not true. The provision in Senator Feinstein's bill says that the FISA is the exclusive means for wiretapping. That is true, unless the statute is superseded by a constitutional provision. My bill, S. 2453, says that nothing in the act limits the President's constitutional authority, because a statute cannot limit the President's constitutional authority. We will be moving ahead, I hope shortly, with the leader calling the bill to the floor so that we can make a determination on judicial review to see to it that whatever wiretapping is going on is judicially approved. It may be that some cases will come up collaterally. There are a number of cases in district courts. The one in Portland may have standing. I do not propose, in my legislation, to strip any court of jurisdiction where a case has been started and has proceeded. I think, in the course of business, the matters ought to be referred to the FISA court, but not for any jurisdiction stripping where courts have proceeded. With respect to the activities of the Congress seeking to comply with the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the primary responsibility goes to the Armed Services Committee. The Judiciary Committee does have jurisdiction because title 18 of the Criminal Code is implicated and we have jurisdiction over the interpretation of the Geneva Conventions. There have been a number of controversial issues raised on which I would like to comment. One provision relates to classified information. It is my view that it is indispensable to have witnesses confront their accusers and know what the evidence is. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions provides that there has to be an affording of all judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people. I think that would include telling somebody what the evidence is before they have a significant penalty which might include the death penalty. We have a Confidential Information Protection Act which sets the guidelines that I think ought to be applicable here. The consequence is, if you cannot produce the evidence for the defendant to hear, the case may have to be dismissed. But that will not prejudice the government here because these individuals can be detained as enemy combatants for an indefinite period of time. So we will not disclose sources and methods; we will not release anybody; we may not convict them if we can't produce the evidence, but they will be detained and not present a threat. There is an issue raised as to coerced confessions. I do not believe that we can tolerate that and be consistent with United States law or consistent with the Geneva Conventions. Coerced confessions are unfair and they are unreliable. With respect to Common Article 3, the Judiciary Committee has submitted for consideration and inclusion in the legislation being considered by the Armed Services Committee amendments to section 303 on war crimes. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, with respect to the controversy about whether there ought to be included the provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act, I believe that they should be because they further delineate what would constitute a violation of Common Article 3. But I do not believe they ought to be exclusive or foreclose other considerations under Common Article 3. In addition to the specification of the crimes under the War Crimes Act, which I have submitted, it would be useful to have the provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act included, which are the fifth amendment, the eighth amendment and the 14th amendment, where there has been considerable judicial interpretation as to what are prohibited acts. General Hayden, Director of the CIA, thinks that is necessary in order to be able to give comprehensive advice. I personally do not know that the interrogation has to go beyond what is in the Army Field Manual. In a visit to Guantanamo, the chief interrogator handling some 32 interrogators and thousands of interrogations thinks that the Army Field Manual is sufficient. It may or may not be. The CIA wants greater latitude, but there is some assurance of congressional oversight because the interrogation tactics have to be submitted to the Intelligence Committee. One other point that I want to comment on is my concern about the inclusion of habeas corpus relief. I believe that it is important to retain jurisdiction of the Federal courts on habeas corpus. This was a contested issue under the Detainee Treatment Act, but we have seen that the only real firm guidance has come from the Supreme Court of the United States. In three cases regarding detainees from June of 2005, Jose Padilla, Hamdi, and the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision, the Congress has been unwilling or unable to act. I introduced legislation for military commissions shortly after September 11 as did other Senators. We didn't act. We punted to the Supreme Court. These issues, regrettably, experience has shown, are just too hot to handle by the Congress. The Supreme Court of the United States under the rule of law has enforced compliance of detainees, and now compliance for those who are to be tried for war crimes under the Geneva Conventions' terms as well as under title 18. It is simply insufficient to limit the great rift which seems embodied in our habeas corpus statute. I have had some discussion with Senator Levin, who is on the floor at the present time, about offering an amendment if in fact the bill comes from the Armed Services cutting out habeas corpus. It is my hope that we can move reasonably promptly to S. 2453 so that there may be set in motion the procedures to have the Federal courts rule on the constitutionality of the President's electronic surveillance program. It would be highly desirable to bring the entire program under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. There are provisions in Senator Feinstein's bill, S. 3001, which I have cosponsored, that I believe would enable us to bring individual live warrants for causes which originated in the United States and go overseas. I have been advised that the calls which originate overseas are so numerous that it is not possible to have individual live warrants. So that under these circumstances the most that can be accomplished is to have the program submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. In one of the four hearings on this bill, four former judges of the FISA Court appeared and testified and commented that the bill was practical, that there was sufficient standing, that there were litigable issues and that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court can handle it. They can handle it as a matter of expertise because of their extensive experience, and they can handle it because their proceedings are closed so that there is not a public disclosure of state secrets. It may be, as I said very briefly earlier, that one of the cases coming out of Federal courts--there has been a decision from Detroit, and there is a case pending in San Francisco--my review of those cases suggests to me that the case which is coming out of Portland I think would have standing.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, before the time arrives for consideration of the judicial nominee, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, before proceeding to the nomination of Kimberly Ann Moore to be U.S. circuit judge for the Federal Circuit, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 10 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to forcefully express themselves, to urge and perhaps even compel the Government of the Sudan to proceed to accept a United Nations peacekeeping force of some 20,000 to bring stability to that area. We have seen a drastic situation evolve where some 3 million people have been displaced-- perhaps a few more, perhaps a few less--and some 300,000 have been killed. The fighting goes on between the Government of Sudan and the rebels. And the prospects are for additional bloodshed and significant displacement of refugees are great unless there is some forceful action taken by the United Nations. The proposal has been made to have 20,000 U.N. peacekeepers deploy to Darfur to try to stabilize the situation. Regrettably, this has been rejected by the Government of Sudan. Just today, the New York Times reports that the Government of Sudan has given the African Union an ultimatum--either proceed under the terms of the Government of Sudan, which is characterized by the news report as ``blackmail,'' or for the African force of some 7,000 proposed peacekeepers--they really are ineffectual in the job--to vacate the country by September 30. I participated last Thursday, August 31, in a forum in the Trinity Cathedral in downtown Pittsburgh where concerned citizens gathered to decry the situation, to urge United Nations' action. The following day, I wrote to the President requesting that a Special Envoy to Sudan be appointed. I ask unanimous consent that my letter to President Bush, dated September 1, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a report of USA Today, dated August 31, be printed in the Record. The headline is ``U.S. Reporter's Arrest Shows Sudan Has Something To Hide.'' The reporter was arrested because he reported the truth which the Government of Sudan is trying to conceal.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my prepared written remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, at the conclusion of these brief remarks, I ask unanimous consent that a full text of my report on foreign travel be printed in the record.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, as is my custom, when I return from foreign travel, I file a report with the Senate. From August 5 to August 24, I traveled abroad. I started with a delegation led by Senator Ted Stevens and Senator Dan Inouye to China where eight U.S. Senators participated in a forum with Parliamentarians from China. We discussed a broad range of issues, with the Chinese delegation being very forceful on their concern about the one-nation policy, that Taiwan not be regarded as an independent nation. We had extensive discussions about the economic imbalance which exists in trade, on the manipulation by the Government of China of its currency, and on the issue of human rights. I raised with the Chinese officials the issue of human rights starting with the incident in 1999 where the Dickinson law librarian in Pennsylvania was kept in custody for some 7 months without being able to see a lawyer, and without being able to see his wife. Following that, an appropriation was made for approximately $2 million in each of the past several years for Temple University to establish in Beijing a law school to teach human rights, with a focus on Chinese judges, Chinese professors, and Chinese lawyers. During the trip to Beijing, I met with almost 50 of the students at the school--some judges, some lawyers, and some academics--where there was a concern to understand due process of law. I was pleased to hear some reports that there has been an improvement in some situations on filing charges, on the access of counsel. I believe the school of law established by Temple University in Beijing is very useful. But I think, realistically, they have a very long way to go. From China, I then set out to Nepal, visited Katmandu, and spoke to the Prime Minister, who has had a very difficult time. There was a great deal of unrest in the country following the King's taking power from the elected government. Following strong public resistance and marches, the King stepped down. Seven political parties are trying to go through the formation of a new government. They are being challenged by malice, with an overriding concern about the possibility of violence there. I discussed a major situation where there are more than 100,000 refugees in Nepal originating from neighboring Bhutan. I traveled next to Bhutan, which is a remarkable country situated between Nepal and Tibet. James Hilton's famous book, ``Lost Horizon,'' locates the idyllic spot, Shangri-La, with fantasy, in Bhutan or in Tibet. Bhutan is a country of about 700,000 people. It was totally isolated until 1950 when the King invited in foreigners. It was said that up until that time they lived in a medieval state. Now there is a King, 51--very progressive, who has not waited for popular unrest to oust him. But they are moving ahead with the formation of a constitution-- and a very unique constitution where they are concerned about the gross national happiness product as opposed to the gross domestic product. I had a lengthy discussion with the King about setting up a constitution where the monarch must step aside at the age of 68. Bhutan is being modernized. The road from the airport city to the main city, Thimpu, is 60 kilometers of treacherous highway road. But it is a remarkable country. There I talked to the Chief Justice of Bhutan. I talked to him about the formation of their constitution as I had done in Nepal. The issue of a constitution is one which is spreading around the world, with considerable modeling after the Constitution of the United States which was, as we know, the first complete written constitution. From Bhutan, I then traveled to Kuwait. I met with the Emir of Kuwait and with the Prime Minister and had extensive discussions about the concerns of the nuclear activities in neighboring Iran. We spent just an overnight there and then on to Israel. Regrettably, we had to make a stop in Cyprus. The rules are, if you come from an Arab country you can't fly directly to Israel, just as we cannot fly directly from Israel to Libya. But we had to make a stop in Cyprus, and coming from Kuwait, we had to make a stop in Amman, Jordan, before going on to Israel. In Israel, we met with Prime Minister Olmert and with Defense Minister Perez. We reviewed the situation and our findings there are set out more extensively in the written report. From Israel, we traveled on to Libya and saw a remarkable transformation of Libya and Libya's leader, Colonel Qadhafi. I think there has been a historic rehabilitation of the nation of Libya and the leader, Colonel Qadhafi, where they have moved from being the world's leading terrorist state in very heavy competition, at least at the time they blew up Pan Am flight 103 back in 1988 and blew up the German discotheque killing U.S. soldiers and wounding many more. We had an opportunity to meet Colonel Qadhafi. We took a plane flight from Tripoli for a couple of hours, moved on to the middle of the desert, met with him in his tent, and had a discussion with him looking for some guidance as to how a major world terrorist could rehabilitate, pay compensation, as to whether there could be any insight as to what we might do with North Korea and Iran today. Regrettably, those problems are beyond anyone's solution, but the rehabilitation of Libya and Qadhafi showed that there is some hope to turn major terrorists into a rehabilitated situation. We then flew overnight to China and returned to the United States. As I said, the details are set forth in the extensive written report which follows the conclusion of these extemporaneous comments. Exhibit 1 Statement of Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to confirm Professor Kimberly Ann Moore for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Professor Moore has an outstanding academic background. She has a bachelor of science from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1990; a master of science from MIT, 1991; and a law degree from the Georgetown University Law Center, cum laude, 1994. She was an associate at the prestigious law firm of Kirkland & Ellis from 1994 to 1995. In 1995, Professor Moore became a law clerk to Judge Glen Archer, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, serving from 1995 to 1997. Following her 2-year clerkship, she was an associate professor of law at Chicago-Kent College of Law, from 1997 to 1999. She was an assistant professor of law at the University of Maryland School of Law, from 1999 to 2000 and an intellectual property litigation counsel for Morgan, Lewis & Bockius from 2000 to 2003. From 2000-2004, she was an associate professor of law at George Mason University School of Law, before assuming her current position as Professor of Law at George Mason. Professor Moore is a board member of the Federal Circuit Bar Association; a board member of Patent Strategy & Management; and a board member of Intellectual Property Owners Education Foundation. I ask unanimous consent a full copy of her resume be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. She has the potential to make an outstanding judge. I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations and the ranking Member for their very good work in producing this Defense appropriations bill. It has been my pleasure to serve on this committee for some 25\1/2\ years with Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye. I have supported their action in providing substantial funding for a robust military and will be supporting this bill. Our first line of defense is diplomacy. We ought to be undertaking some very strenuous efforts at diplomacy on what is happening today in the Middle East with Israel raging a defensive war, having been attacked by Hezbollah to the north and Hamas to the south, two terrorist organizations. I spoke at some length on this subject on June 16th. My remarks are in the Congressional Record. I made the basic point that I thought it highly advisable for the United States to engage in direct negotiations with Iran and in direct negotiations with North Korea to try to solve the problems posed by those nations on the very serious issue of nuclear proliferation, with Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons and with North Korea having nuclear weapons and posing an enormous threat. In the more extensive remarks, which I made back on June 16, I pointed out the experience I have had in discussions with Hafez al- Assad on many visits which I paid to Syria over the years and some of those contacts which I think were helpful in acquainting Hafez al-Assad with the thinking of the West, acting to some extent as an intermediary between Assad and the Israeli Prime Minister because they would not talk, and perhaps being helpful in getting Assad and the Syrians to go to the Madrid Conference in 1991. I picked up some of the efforts of former Congressman Solarz in trying to get Assad to allow the Jews in Syria to leave. And after many years, Assad did that. Whether my exhortations had any influence or not, I cannot be sure. But my own experience has been, in talking to foreign leaders, that one-on-one negotiations is highly desirable. I had occasion to talk to Castro, to Chavez in Venezuela, to officials in China. And all of this is set out at some greater length in the floor statement I made back on June 16. I made some comments on July 20, again, noted in the Congressional Record, as to what I thought ought to be done with respect to trying to work for a settlement in the Mideast, trying to eliminate Hezbollah as a threat to Israel's north and Hamas as a threat to the south in Israel. I want to supplement those comments today with the underlying point that a solution to the problems there require some international pressure, if there is any pressure at all that can be brought to bear on Iran and Syria to stop backing Hezbollah and to stop arming Hezbollah and to stop being an accessory before the fact and really a coconspirator with Hezbollah in waging the war against Israel. Earlier this week, on July 31, I wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, with a copy to U.N. Ambassador Bolton. My letter to Secretary Rice applauded the efforts she is making to find a peaceful solution to the Mideast, and saying: It is my judgment that no solution is possible, especially as to Hezbollah, until Iran and Syria cease to support Hezbollah's military action. I sent a copy of that letter, as noted, to our Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, and talked to him about the situation. And after those discussions--and I am not looking for any endorsement from anybody--I thought that I ought to pursue the matter with this floor statement. We have had a situation where the Iranian Foreign Minister was in Beirut earlier this week and parroted the party line from Syria and Hezbollah in making demands for a five-point program: First, Israeli withdrawal; second, an exchange of prisoners; third, an international force; fourth, that Israel should compensate Lebanon, which is not sensible, to put it mildly, in light of the fact that Israel is fighting a war in self-defense, which Israel has every right to do under article 51 of the U.N. Charter; and the fifth point pursued by the Iranian Foreign Minister, in talks with the French Foreign Minister in Beirut earlier this week, was the formation of an international commission to investigate Israeli war crimes, with the view to compensation--again, an idea which has no merit whatsoever in view of the underlying facts as to what is going on there. We have seen a situation evolve in the fighting there where Hezbollah has fired some 1,500 Katyusha rockets into Israel. They started the turmoil and the conflict on July 12 of this year, kidnapping two Israeli soldiers and killing eight others. This is the same Hezbollah terrorist organization which, in April of 1983, killed 63 people in a bomb attack on the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon. On October 23, 1983 Hezbollah was responsible for the killing of 241 U.S. servicemen at the marine barracks in Beirut. Since its establishment, Hezbollah has been tracked with the kidnapping of more than 30 westerners and has been charged with carrying out attacks from London to Buenos Aires. Hezbollah has killed more Americans than any terrorist group, with the exception of al- Qaida. The State Department's 2006 Country Reports on Terrorism noted that Hezbollah ``receives training, weapons, and explosives, as well as political, diplomatic, and organizational aid, from Iran.'' The report further states that Hezbollah ``is closely allied with Iran and often acts at its behest.'' Further, the report maintains that ``the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Ministry o Intelligence and Security were directly involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts and continued to exhort . . . Lebanese Hezbollah, to use terrorism in pursuit of their goals.'' The same State Department 2006 report on terrorism also describes the support provided to Hezbollah by the Government of Syria. According to the report: ``Hezbollah receives diplomatic, political, and logistical support from Syria'' and ``Syria continued to permit Iran to use Damascus as a transshipment point to resupply Hezbollah in Lebanon.'' More recently, an intelligence officer said, as reported by the Washington Post on July 27 of this year, that, Iranian national security chief Ali Larijani was on an unannounced visit to Damascus on Thursday to discuss the Lebanon crisis with Syrian leaders and to urge continued support for Hezbollah.'' The New York Times, on July 19, reported that 5 days earlier an Israeli naval vessel was attacked by ``a sophisticated antiship cruise missile, the C-802, an Iranian-made variant of the Chinese Silkworm.'' Experts cited in this article noted that ``Iran was not likely to deploy such a sophisticated weapon without also sending Revolutionary Guard crews with the expertise to fire the missile.'' And the Times also noted that forensics conducted by the Israelis concluded that many of the Hezbollah rockets ``including a 220-millimeter rocket used in a deadly attack on a railway site in Haifa . . . were built in Syria.'' On February 9 of 2004, the Security Council passed Resolution 1559 by a vote of 9-0 which called for the disbanding and disarmament of Hezbollah, the removal of foreign forces from Lebanon, and the deployment of the Lebanese Army to the southern border. After the adoption of that resolution, the U.N. issued a statement calling ``upon all parties concerned to cooperate fully and urgently with the Council for the full implementation of all its resolutions concerning the restoration in Lebanon of territorial integrity, full sovereignty and political independence.'' An April 2006 report delivered to the Security Council on the implementation of Resolution 1559 was explicitly critical of Iran's and Syria's support for Hezbollah. In the report, Secretary General Kofi Annan noted: . . . renewed incidents of arms transfers across the Syrian- Lebanese border into Lebanon . . . [is] in contradiction of resolution 1559. The report further stated that Hezbollah ``maintains close ties, with frequent contacts and regular communication, with the Syrian Arab Republic and the Islamic Republic of Iran.'' All of this paints a conclusive picture of Iran and Syria being behind Hezbollah, having armed Hezbollah, having the rockets in a position with a knife at the throat of Israel, with Israel taking action in self-defense, once Israeli soldiers were killed, other Israeli soldiers attacked. And in searching for a resolution to this dire situation, it is pointless to defang Hezbollah if Hezbollah is going to be resupplied by Syria and by Iran. And that is why I have urged Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, by the letter dated July 31, to have the United States seek to bring Iran and Syria before the United Nations for the imposition of sanctions if they do not act promptly in furtherance of U.N. resolutions to stop arming Hezbollah. My conversations with U.N. Ambassador John Bolton confirmed my view that this sort of U.N. action is urgently needed. I complimented Ambassador Bolton on the U.N. resolution--14 to 1--to set the stage for the imposition of sanctions on Iran if Iran does not move ahead to cease its development of nuclear weapons. So I urge our State Department to move ahead vigorously to seek the imposition of sanctions on Iran and Syria to try to be helpful on this serious situation. Without eliminating the source of supply to Hezbollah, any cease-fire or any resolution would be temporary only. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my letter to Secretary Rice be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. I yield. Amendment No. 4775, as Modified

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fuller statement be printed in the Record at the end of these extemporaneous remarks

Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I join Senator Leahy in introducing the Victim-Activated Landmine Abolition Act of 2006, which will prohibit the procurement of victim-activated landmines. Antipersonnel, victim-activated landmines are small, inexpensive weapons that kill or maim people upon contact. Indiscriminate use has produced many civilian casualties and has resulted in an international effort to control or ban these weapons. As a member of both the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and Foreign Operations, I have supported efforts to create alternatives to victim-activated munitions, to mitigate the associated risks for innocent civilians, and to help those who have been inadvertently harmed. The United States sets an example for the world by remaining a global leader in providing funds for mine clearance, mine risk education, and mine survivor assistance activities. According to the Congressional Research Service, the United States has dedicated an estimated $500 million for demining efforts over the last 10 years. Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Defense, in conjunction with industry partners, has developed technology which permits the deployment of mines that cannot be activated by the victim. This ``man- in-the-loop'' technology will ensure that innocent civilians are not harmed by mines. On September 18, 1997, diplomats from almost 90 countries met in Oslo, Norway, and adopted the text of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, commonly referred to as the Ottawa Convention or the Mine Ban Treaty. The Mine Ban Treaty went into effect on March 1, 1999, and mandates that countries discontinue the production, stockpile, use or exportation of antipersonnel landmines. It further mandates that countries clear their territory of mines and destroy stockpiles. The Mine Ban Treaty is credited with the reduction in victims and procurement of mines. Although the U.S. has declined to participate in the treaty, the U.S. continues to lead the world in dollars spent on aid and efforts to help foreign nations demine fields and dispose of thousands of antipersonnel landmines, which is a costly and dangerous undertaking. The U.S. has not used antipersonnel mines since the 1991 Persian Gulf war. Since 1992, the U.S. has prohibited exportation of antipersonnel mines and U.S. production was halted in 1997. A review of the facts surrounding landmines and the tragic consequences that have resulted from their use has convinced me that the indiscriminate use of these weapons must be stopped. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines estimates that there are more than 80 million landmines in the ground in more than 80 countries and that 15,000-20,000 people are maimed or killed by landmines each year. UNICEF estimates that 30 to 40 percent of mine victims are children under 15 years old. Millions more suffer from the economic and psychological impact of these weapons. Innocent civilians in foreign countries are not the only victims that suffer the debilitating effects of these weapons. Landmines have injured and killed thousands of U.S. and allied troops in every U.S.- fought conflict since World War II, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although landmines cost as little as $3 to produce, they can cost as much as $1,000 per mine to clear. The legislation introduced today calls on the United States to continue to set an example for other countries by implementing a ban on the procurement of victim-activated weapons systems. Further, it recognizes that the U.S. has acquired reliable technology that enables all weapons systems to be equipped with man-in-the-loop targeting and triggering capabilities, meaning that the device can be deployed and triggered only in response to an intentional action by a person. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to discuss today's vote on the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, S. 3711. I support the bill because it will provide a needed source of natural gas, which is a clear-burning fuel, and its passage is realistically calculated to have a positive impact on natural gas prices for American consumers and businesses. While voting for the bill, my preference would be for it to contain conservation, energy efficiency, and other measures beyond Gulf of Mexico development to address our Nation's growing energy needs. The issue of energy prices is on the top of Americans' minds and their list of expectations for elected officials to address. For a number of months, there has been discussion in the Senate of a possible energy bill to follow the 2005 Energy Policy Act. However, despite the great importance of this issue and intense interest from Senators who have suggested various energy proposals, we are now presented with only one option, a bill to allow oil and natural gas leasing in a portion of the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. Beyond the narrow scope this bill, there have also been questions raised as to the 37.5 percent share of revenues going to the four Gulf of Mexico States-- Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas--instead of the Federal Treasury, and concerns about the eventual bill emanating from a House- Senate conference. Unfortunately, this bill and the way it has been considered miss an important opportunity to build on the successes of the 2005 energy bill and deal with our nation's energy policy in a comprehensive manner. This is likely the last energy-related bill to receive floor consideration prior to the recess for the November elections and the eventual adjournment of the 109th Congress. That means we will have to return to the beginning of the legislative process upon the commencement of the 110th Congress. That is why I am greatly disappointed that Senators were unable to have amendments to this bill considered. Amendments were precluded by a rarely used legislative procedure known as ``filling the tree'' which occurs when the majority leader offers the maximum number of amendments allowable under the official Senate rules in order to preclude amendments from other Senators. As I stated on the floor last night, I had hoped to have the Senate consider my Oil and Gas Company Antitrust Act, S. 2557, as an amendment. The Judiciary Committee held hearings on the issue of competition in the oil and gas industry and the committee voted S. 2557 to the Senate floor on April 27, 2006. The Judiciary Committee's hearings considered the many factors brought about by consolidation in the oil and gas industry. The testimony indicated that market concentration is a problem in the industry. Responding to these concerns, my bill would prohibit individual firms from exporting petroleum and natural gas products with the intent of increasing prices or creating shortages in the market. Further, the bill would allow the government to prosecute cartels such as OPEC that set the price of petroleum and natural gas, even when the cartel members are foreign states. This bill would encourage vigorous competition in the oil and gas industry to ensure that the forces of supply and demand are working and that the industry is competitive. I also cosponsored an amendment offered by Senators Lugar and Obama to provide for a 4 percent annual increase in Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, standards. This is a rate that the National Academy of Sciences has determined is possible, but could be altered if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, can prove that the increase is technologically unachievable, cannot maintain overall fleet safety or is not cost effective. The bill provides flexibility to domestic automakers by establishing different standards for various types of cars to enable domestic manufacturers that produce full lines of small and large vehicles to better compete with companies that only sell small cars. Credit would also be given for exceeding fuel economy standards in one type of car to help meet goals with other vehicle models. Finally, the bill provides tax incentives for companies to retool parts and assembly plants to develop advanced-technology vehicles. I note that Senator Bingaman has offered an oil conservation amendment No. 4692, which would save 2.5 million barrels (bbl) of oil per day by 2016; 7 million bbl/day by 2026; and 10 million bbl/day by 2031. I was disappointed that the 2005 energy bill did not include a similar oil savings goal which would have required the administration to identify and implement policies reducing domestic oil consumption by 1 million barrels per day from projections by 2013. This provision was based on the Carper-Specter amendment from 2002 and the Landrieu- Specter amendment in 2003 which passed by a vote of 99 to 1. These are modest goals, but ones which would help focus the Federal Government in reducing oil imports in support of energy independence, national security, and lower trade deficits. The energy bill conference also deleted the Senate provisions mandating that by the year 2020 at least 10 percent of our electricity be produced from renewable resources. This goal was meant to help spur development of renewable resources, which currently account for just over 2 percent of U.S. electricity production. Pennsylvania is currently implementing a similar Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard with an eighteen-percent goal by 2020 of electricity production from renewable and other alternative energy sources. Despite my desire to see additional energy issues debated, I say to my colleagues that I am sensitive to the price and supply concerns that have led to the consideration of the Gulf of Mexico legislation. The natural gas supply and demand imbalance has caused U.S. prices to increase from an average of $2.20 per million BTUs during the 1994-1999 timeframe to $8.84 per million BTUs in 2005, which is the highest average natural gas cost in the world. These high prices have increased economic pressure on American consumers and industry, particularly those who use natural gas to heat their homes and industrial sectors that rely on natural gas as a fuel and as a raw material. Finally, when it comes to oil prices the problem is well known. All Americans are facing high gasoline prices at the pump and are expected to have high heating oil prices this winter. With gasoline hovering just above $3 per gallon nationally while this bill has been debated, there is no better time to discuss energy issues and ensure that Congress is doing everything in its power to address them. While the 2005 Energy Policy Act provided an important framework and policy direction from which to proceed, it did not address every facet of these complex issues and has not convinced the American people, nor me, that nothing more can be done. Therefore, I encourage the Senate to consider additional energy-related measures at the earliest opportunity.