Arlen Specter: “I have opposed the Leahy amendment because it redefines what constitutes material support for a terrorist. It redefines…”

“I have opposed the Leahy amendment because it redefines what constitutes material support for a terrorist. It redefines and narrows the definition of what is a terrorist organization. Those are complex subjects. There could have been hearings in the Judiciary Committee where the Senator from Vermont is the ranking member. I was wrong about Hamas when I made that representation. But as to the Kurdish terrorists, we did not identify PKK but other Kurdish terrorists in Turkey. I did not refer to the Basque ETA but to other Basque terrorists in Spain. When you have these far-reaching changes, there should have been hearings. There is adequate recourse under existing law for the Secretary of State to grant waivers for those providing material support to terrorist organizations, as she did recently for 9,300 ethnic Karen refugees to come out of Thailand. I move to table the Leahy amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk called the roll. Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).”