Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Interview With Arlen Specter
Aired November 19, 2002 - 07:18 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Senator McCain not alone among the Republicans who are unhappy with the way provisions were tacked onto the bill last week. Are the objections, though, important enough to hold up the entire plan? That is the issue today.
To D.C. now, we'll tackle that question with Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.
Senator, good to see you again.
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R), PENNSYLVANIA: Good morning.
HEMMER: Are you on board with this bill as it stands right now or not?
SPECTER: Well, I think there is no alternative but to support the bill, because if we don't, the likelihood is very high that it will be until next year, perhaps April, before we'll take it up again. I'm very distressed, really unhappy that the House of Representatives was supposed to have sent us the same bill that they had before, but these extra provisions were added. Now, they have gone home.
There are still some technical corrections to be made, but the likelihood is very, very high that we wouldn't have a conference and this bill would die, and it's just too important for security against terrorism that there be any further delay.
HEMMER: But as it stands right now, you'll vote in favor, right?
SPECTER: I'm going to, because I think I don't have any other alternative. Look here...
HEMMER: But...
SPECTER: ... we've had a real problem.
HEMMER: I don't mean to interrupt you. I just want to point out that so much legislation in Washington is loaded with what some people would label, "pork items." Do you see it this way? Do you see the House is pulling a fast one? Or is this just the way Washington does business?
SPECTER: All of the above. It is a fast one. It's a little legislative blackmail. They're saying take it or leave it. And ordinarily, I would support the Lieberman amendment and strike all of those provisions, not that I'm necessarily opposed to all of them, but we haven't had hearings. We haven't had time for consideration. We were told this was the same bill that had come over before.
But the big picture is this: CIA Director Tenet has said that another 9/11 is imminent. I believe that if we put all of our intelligence agencies under one umbrella, put all of the dots on the board, that the chances are excellent that we can prevent another 9/11. I think we could have prevented September 11, 2001 if there had been proper coordination among the FBI, CIA and the other intelligence agencies.
So, you're looking at a big, big picture here of the potential risk for thousands of Americans. The next 9/11 could be a lot worse than the last one. And I don't like these provisions, but the disadvantages of not passing this bill outweigh the advantages, just barely, but I think we have to get on with the business of security against terrorism.
HEMMER: You took us in the direction where I wanted to go, getting away from the politics. How do you believe this bill, the way it stands right now, will make Americans safer?
SPECTER: Well, it will make Americans safer, because it will put under one umbrella all of the intelligence agencies.
Look here, we had a lot of warning. We had an FBI report in July two months before 9/11 about a suspicious man taking flight training with a big picture of Osama bin Laden.
We had the information that the CIA knew about two al Qaeda men in Kuala Lumpur -- never told the FBI, never told the INS. They came in and they were two of the suicide bombers.
We had a lot of information in the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, but we did not get a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, because the wrong standard was used.
Now, we had this fellow who had told us about back in 1995 about al Qaeda's plans to load planes with explosives and fly them into the CIA and into the White House. We had an NSA (ph) warning on September 10 that something was going to happen the very next day. It wasn't translated until September 12.
So, if you put all of the dots on the board, I think we had a veritable blueprint for 9/11 before, and I think it's in the interest of the American people to get on with it.
And these items, which are in the bill, are very unfortunate, and it's legislative blackmail. The House has sent them over...
HEMMER: Senator...
SPECTER: ... and take it or leave it, and...
HEMMER: Senator...
(CROSSTALK)
SPECTER: ... and the necessity for homeland security outweighs these provisions.
HEMMER: I'm just running out of time right now.
SPECTER: OK.
HEMMER: But what do you believe is the best-guess measure right now? Does the Senate deny it, and you bring the House back, and this thing is delayed? How much longer then at that point?
SPECTER: Well, there would have to be a conference. There are certain technical amendments. The House might not appoint conferees. The House members have gone home. I think the projection would be that it would be April, and we would be starting all over again.
HEMMER: April?
SPECTER: You're running out of time, but so is America on homeland security.
HEMMER: Thank you, Senator -- Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania live in D.C. this morning. We'll watch it today. Thanks again.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.
Aired November 19, 2002 - 07:18 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Senator McCain not alone among the Republicans who are unhappy with the way provisions were tacked onto the bill last week. Are the objections, though, important enough to hold up the entire plan? That is the issue today.
To D.C. now, we'll tackle that question with Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.
Senator, good to see you again.
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R), PENNSYLVANIA: Good morning.
HEMMER: Are you on board with this bill as it stands right now or not?
SPECTER: Well, I think there is no alternative but to support the bill, because if we don't, the likelihood is very high that it will be until next year, perhaps April, before we'll take it up again. I'm very distressed, really unhappy that the House of Representatives was supposed to have sent us the same bill that they had before, but these extra provisions were added. Now, they have gone home.
There are still some technical corrections to be made, but the likelihood is very, very high that we wouldn't have a conference and this bill would die, and it's just too important for security against terrorism that there be any further delay.
HEMMER: But as it stands right now, you'll vote in favor, right?
SPECTER: I'm going to, because I think I don't have any other alternative. Look here...
HEMMER: But...
SPECTER: ... we've had a real problem.
HEMMER: I don't mean to interrupt you. I just want to point out that so much legislation in Washington is loaded with what some people would label, "pork items." Do you see it this way? Do you see the House is pulling a fast one? Or is this just the way Washington does business?
SPECTER: All of the above. It is a fast one. It's a little legislative blackmail. They're saying take it or leave it. And ordinarily, I would support the Lieberman amendment and strike all of those provisions, not that I'm necessarily opposed to all of them, but we haven't had hearings. We haven't had time for consideration. We were told this was the same bill that had come over before.
But the big picture is this: CIA Director Tenet has said that another 9/11 is imminent. I believe that if we put all of our intelligence agencies under one umbrella, put all of the dots on the board, that the chances are excellent that we can prevent another 9/11. I think we could have prevented September 11, 2001 if there had been proper coordination among the FBI, CIA and the other intelligence agencies.
So, you're looking at a big, big picture here of the potential risk for thousands of Americans. The next 9/11 could be a lot worse than the last one. And I don't like these provisions, but the disadvantages of not passing this bill outweigh the advantages, just barely, but I think we have to get on with the business of security against terrorism.
HEMMER: You took us in the direction where I wanted to go, getting away from the politics. How do you believe this bill, the way it stands right now, will make Americans safer?
SPECTER: Well, it will make Americans safer, because it will put under one umbrella all of the intelligence agencies.
Look here, we had a lot of warning. We had an FBI report in July two months before 9/11 about a suspicious man taking flight training with a big picture of Osama bin Laden.
We had the information that the CIA knew about two al Qaeda men in Kuala Lumpur -- never told the FBI, never told the INS. They came in and they were two of the suicide bombers.
We had a lot of information in the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, but we did not get a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, because the wrong standard was used.
Now, we had this fellow who had told us about back in 1995 about al Qaeda's plans to load planes with explosives and fly them into the CIA and into the White House. We had an NSA (ph) warning on September 10 that something was going to happen the very next day. It wasn't translated until September 12.
So, if you put all of the dots on the board, I think we had a veritable blueprint for 9/11 before, and I think it's in the interest of the American people to get on with it.
And these items, which are in the bill, are very unfortunate, and it's legislative blackmail. The House has sent them over...
HEMMER: Senator...
SPECTER: ... and take it or leave it, and...
HEMMER: Senator...
(CROSSTALK)
SPECTER: ... and the necessity for homeland security outweighs these provisions.
HEMMER: I'm just running out of time right now.
SPECTER: OK.
HEMMER: But what do you believe is the best-guess measure right now? Does the Senate deny it, and you bring the House back, and this thing is delayed? How much longer then at that point?
SPECTER: Well, there would have to be a conference. There are certain technical amendments. The House might not appoint conferees. The House members have gone home. I think the projection would be that it would be April, and we would be starting all over again.
HEMMER: April?
SPECTER: You're running out of time, but so is America on homeland security.
HEMMER: Thank you, Senator -- Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania live in D.C. this morning. We'll watch it today. Thanks again.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.
